bigjku wrote:

Keep in mind Leehams info on this was solely that CFM would waive their contractual limits to bid on the program.

Ah that's the most innocent explanation. Hopefully the case.

Revelation wrote:

Or maybe engine makers are finding the 50k thrust band is somehow advantageous relative to ~43k?

I can't imagine why though. What other use for a 50k engine? (besides my dream of a ~2027 clean-sheet quad VLA)

QuarkFly wrote:

Or, maybe 50k makes it easier or cheaper to downscale existing 60-70k cores (GEnX, T1000), instead of investing in a clean sheet core?

If that's the reason it's a poor one IMO. It would mean my option #3 above: de-risking. That would leave a lot of weight and SFC gains on the table, meaning NMA would be significantly suboptimal. No room for that IMO.

bigjku wrote:

keesje wrote:

I get flash backs here, 2011

Boeing contemplating the NSA, talking to key customers, fully understanding the market, making sure they get it right .

This was a few weeks before the forced (fully undefined) 737 MAX launch : https://youtu.be/rJzRsodeYes?t=36s

I see the chances growing Airbus will pre-empt Boeing here, like we saw 7 years ago.

..

Whammy, I hope Boeing learns from the past.

Yes, and in the end Boeing didn’t make that leap because the numbers and market didn’t work out at that time. So they were cautious and made the correct call when it came time to lay money down.

.

I think looking back at the events, Boeing simply got it wrong. Shortly after Paris AA gave Boeing a last chance; pls reply in 2 weeks and no, we won’t wait for 2020, FYI we have an LOI with Leahy. We (and DL and SW) told you before, but apparently you didn’t really listen.

I hope Randy doesn’t fall in the trap again of mixing their own preferences with customer requirements and assume customer loyalty, time to review and Airbus’ wait & see that aren’t really there.

The biggest logical problem is their own presentation of the market. So there is a market for 2500-5900 MoM jets and yet I still wonder which jets would fill the market if Boeing would not do the 797.

Their 2017-2036 market outlook saw a market for 5000 small widebodies which covers everything from A310 to A359 and 767 to 787-9. So even if MoM is really worth 5000 frames and if only 2000 of those are delivered in the time frame it will take a huge part of the 5000 small widebodies predicted. And even if 3/4s would replace larger single aisle planes, it still would be about 10% of the overall small widebody market. The question is who would get those 10% without the MoM? The only contenders are 787 an A330NEO, now I would believe Boeing should be confident that the 787 would take at least 2/3s of the sales, so 500 MoM are probably 350 787s not sold.
The remaining MoM frames would then go to the large single aisle offerings. So even if Airbus wins 2/3 there it is about 500 737-10s not sold. Which adds to about 850 frames that they would probably sell even if they do not commit to the 797. So for the program to make sense they would need to grab those 850 and enough frames to warrant the program which is probably at least 600 extra frames. So MoM needs to capture 2/3 of the predicted market to make sense. That is a big challenge considering how relatively easy it would be for Airbus to counter with a A322+ and how low they can go with the A330NEO price.

keesje wrote:

I think looking back at the events, Boeing simply got it wrong. Shortly after Paris AA gave Boeing a last chance; pls reply in 2 weeks and no, we won’t wait for 2020, FYI we have an LOI with Leahy. We (and DL and SW) told you before, but apparently you didn’t really listen.

I'm sure Boeing would be glad to "get it wrong" again like they did with MAX.

keesje wrote:

I hope Randy doesn’t fall in the trap again of mixing their own preferences with customer requirements and assume customer loyalty, time to review and Airbus’ wait & see that aren’t really there.

Strange how you project that outcome, rather than Boeing getting it right and having an all-new aircraft that matches the customer's requirements perfectly whilst Airbus tries to sell a narrower stretched "A322" and overbuilt A338neo and falls short.

I strongly believe the next clean sheet Boeing plane will be a 737 replacement. Whether that will double as the MoM or not, to be seen.

For the 797 = MoM there are 2 scenarios. In the first it's a twin with 290-330 pax capacity (max), optimized to 4-5k nm, etc etc etc. Airbus' obvious answer will be rewinging the 338 which will be an inferior product, sure, the question is by how much? And how soon can they start churning them out? If I'm an airline and have to wait 7-8 years for a clean sheet that promises 20% fuel savings or I can get a rewinged 330 with 10% savings in a year or two, that means the clean sheet breaks even on fuel in 12-14 years from now. IF, and that's a big if, if Boeing can deliver as promised, both design and manufacturing. 12-14 years to break even on fuel savings (then there's the capital difference) might just make the existing option viable only to defer the decision, to see if it really is the next best thing, to lower short term capital expenses and risk, etc. Think of it as the "Airbus 748 move" if you will.

Anything bigger and more capable and you risk airlines buying the MoM instead of the 787 as most won't need the 8-9k range. This means 2 words for Boeing: write offs, in the billions.

If Boeing goes for a smaller MoM, 260-290 pax (max). Oh boy... The obvious Airbus answer to that is the new narrowbody, aka a320 replacement. They know they have the market with the CS all the way up to 737/319 size and that even if Boeing can swallow Embraer it'll be a long time to catch up. So they can develop a new a321-sized base model with a a320(.5) shrink and a stretch. Again, will it be as good as the MoM? Obviously not on the long and heavy missions. Will it completely obliterate the 737 and with that Boeing's bread and butter? Mos def. Same goes for shorter legs. Boeing will not have any other choice than to immediately respond to that with their own replacement and stretch itself way too thin with 2 clean sheet designs running concurrently.

In short no matter what and how Boeing does with the MoM, Airbus is in a fairly comfy position to react to it cheaper and faster to undermine the clean sheet. At the best the simply undermine it with the 330, at worst they launch the new narrow aisle first and force Boeing into developing 2 clean sheet designs concurrently. So why not work on the one that actually matters to them in the first place?

seahawk wrote:

yet I still wonder which jets would fill the market if Boeing would not do the 797.

Airlines would order whatever is available to fill that role. Widebody aircraft have been flying short sectors for decades, and as the Leeham article points out:

Some also questioned just how stimulative the NMA will be for new routes. While Boeing touts 170 new routes opened by the 787, some failed. More to the point, skeptics asked, was how many of the 700 787s delivered were needed for the 170 new routes; and that the average stage length for the 787 is 2,000-3,000nm, a figure similar to the A330.

Clearly 797 would cannibalize 787/A330 orders. From this point of view, Airbus may have been right to push the A350 into 777 territory.

kennyomg wrote:

I strongly believe the next clean sheet Boeing plane will be a 737 replacement. Whether that will double as the MoM or not, to be seen.

For the 797 = MoM there are 2 scenarios. In the first it's a twin with 290-330 pax capacity (max), optimized to 4-5k nm, etc etc etc. Airbus' obvious answer will be rewinging the 338 which will be an inferior product, sure, the question is by how much? And how soon can they start churning them out? If I'm an airline and have to wait 7-8 years for a clean sheet that promises 20% fuel savings or I can get a rewinged 330 with 10% savings in a year or two, that means the clean sheet breaks even on fuel in 12-14 years from now. IF, and that's a big if, if Boeing can deliver as promised, both design and manufacturing. 12-14 years to break even on fuel savings (then there's the capital difference) might just make the existing option viable only to defer the decision, to see if it really is the next best thing, to lower short term capital expenses and risk, etc. Think of it as the "Airbus 748 move" if you will.

Anything bigger and more capable and you risk airlines buying the MoM instead of the 787 as most won't need the 8-9k range. This means 2 words for Boeing: write offs, in the billions.

If Boeing goes for a smaller MoM, 260-290 pax (max). Oh boy... The obvious Airbus answer to that is the new narrowbody, aka a320 replacement. They know they have the market with the CS all the way up to 737/319 size and that even if Boeing can swallow Embraer it'll be a long time to catch up. So they can develop a new a321-sized base model with a a320(.5) shrink and a stretch. Again, will it be as good as the MoM? Obviously not on the long and heavy missions. Will it completely obliterate the 737 and with that Boeing's bread and butter? Mos def. Same goes for shorter legs. Boeing will not have any other choice than to immediately respond to that with their own replacement and stretch itself way too thin with 2 clean sheet designs running concurrently.

In short no matter what and how Boeing does with the MoM, Airbus is in a fairly comfy position to react to it cheaper and faster to undermine the clean sheet. At the best the simply undermine it with the 330, at worst they launch the new narrow aisle first and force Boeing into developing 2 clean sheet designs concurrently. So why not work on the one that actually matters to them in the first place?

Fair points. However-

1. SWA,UA and DL have seen the 797 specs that you, I, Leeham or Aviation Weekly have not seen. And publicly they like it.

2. Still waiting for the first airline to publicly state to Airbus to build this longer A321 with new wings and engines. Airbus has no long term projects right now, they could announce the A322 at Farnborough if they wanted too.

3. Airlines can order said A330NEO now! With some nice discounts. Delta has proven that.

Matt6461 wrote:

I like this plane a lot less with 50k engines. How reliable is the sourcing on that projection?
Even with ~5,000nm range for 225 pax, I would have thought a ~11-12AR wing and Ultrafan-gen engines would have kept thrust requirements closer to 40k.

The thrust to weight ratios are higher on a short ranged aircraft than a long ranged aircraft. Long ranged aircraft have a larger wing relative to fuselage size. Short ranged aircraft have a smaller wing with a higher wing loading, this allows the wing to be lighter which is beneficial on short routes.

So you've assumed the 797 will have the proportions of the long ranged 787 when determining thrust requirements. But as the range will be closer to the A321LR you should look at that to determine the wing sizing and thrust to weight requirements. 50,000lb is a 65% more thrust than the A321LR. As long as the 797 can fit in 65% more economy seats in the stretched long ranged version then it can match the whole narrowbody economics thing.

keesje wrote:

I think an 8 abreast WB has 8 abreast WB costs. probably without the cargo capability. It would compete against a more capable same price A330 NEO. .

If the longer 797 is similar to the A300 that is 4 metres shorter than the A338 and 10m shorter than the A339. So the longer 797 would be 90% and 80% of the seats of the A330. The A330 is a wide 8 abreast where the 797 will be a tight 8ab as Boeing uses a smaller standard seat. So with low cost carriers the A330 is a 9ab aircraft which now makes the longest 797 80% and 70% the capacity of the A338 and A339.

Then you would have the shorter 797 version this would be around two thirds of the capacity of the A330 family. So the A330 like the 787 is definitely much higher capacity.

I think construction style and part count had the biggest effect on price. So it is possible for its price to be cheaper than the A330.

keesje wrote:

The NMA has to be as light as possible to be competitive also on the bulk of its flights: 1000-2000 NM.

Found this doc on 767 MRO, it shows average flight of 767s is a bit more than 2 hours so ~ 1000-1200 NM.

https://www.elal.com/en/ELALTech/Documents/Press_Releases/767.pdf

The 797 NMA better be lean and mean here too, without all kinds of excess weight created by e.g. niche 8 abreast 5000NM flight capability.

The A300 is roughly 70% of the mto weight of the A332 yet is nearly 90% of the capacity. This would definitely match the lean and mean definition so it would not be a hard target for Boeing to make what would be a carbon A300 and A310.

Mind you I said

william wrote:

2. Still waiting for the first airline to publicly state to Airbus to build this longer A321 with new wings and engines. Airbus has no long term projects right now, they could announce the A322 at Farnborough if they wanted too.

An A320 replacement, not a 321 stretch. A simple stretch, while a lot cheaper and easier, is only competing with the MoM. Should they commit to a narrow body replacement while Boeing is busy with the MoM, they can force Boeing into something extremely disadvantageous.

william wrote:

3. Airlines can order said A330NEO now! With some nice discounts. Delta has proven that.

Again, I said rewing the 338, not buy the existing 338. There's an arguement to be made about the 330 with a shorter wing and much lighter wingbox. Would Airbus commit now? Ofc not. Is it a possible answer to a similarly/somewhat smaller sized MoM? Absolutely.

Honestly!
Engine.yup they have said it may empinge on 50k.(an agreement that they have said would be waived).So Ok 45-50klbs.what the hell is wrong or odd with that.
Passengers? They have said 225 -270 .Whats wrong with that?
Range 4,500-5,500- and so? Nothing Earth shattering there either.
Get real.
It's a above what the A321LR is doing that's all.
Seems like some very key airlines like it -a lot.Now there is a clue.

kennyomg wrote:

Mind you I said

william wrote:

2. Still waiting for the first airline to publicly state to Airbus to build this longer A321 with new wings and engines. Airbus has no long term projects right now, they could announce the A322 at Farnborough if they wanted too.

An A320 replacement, not a 321 stretch. A simple stretch, while a lot cheaper and easier, is only competing with the MoM. Should they commit to a narrow body replacement while Boeing is busy with the MoM, they can force Boeing into something extremely disadvantageous.

william wrote:

3. Airlines can order said A330NEO now! With some nice discounts. Delta has proven that.

Again, I said rewing the 338, not buy the existing 338. There's an arguement to be made about the 330 with a shorter wing and much lighter wingbox. Would Airbus commit now? Ofc not. Is it a possible answer to a similarly/somewhat smaller sized MoM? Absolutely.

I think you kind of stumble into an argument for doing this plane when you mention an A320neo or 737 replacement. Those are going to be two things.

First they will be massive industrial investments. So however you decide to build it you better be pretty sure about what you do.

Second I would wager both will be technologically conservative relative to other planes. I think neither is likely to touch it until their backlogs are worked down. The cash flow consequences of having a fall down here would be tremendous and you are going to have to spin up very quickly I would think.

I could see doing this even if what you end up with is a break even business case provided you can push forward technical and industrial objectives that suit what you are doing moving forward. For example I think the most quietly important thing with the 777X is probably the wing center being built and the industrial processes around it. I think the NMA will make a good return on investment. Almost as importantly I think it will derisk a ton of things for an eventual new small airplane.

We have already seen what you can do basically taking today’s state of the art processes and applying them to a narrow. That’s the C-Series and it’s a financial disaster. There are several things I believe Boeing will introduce here that will trickle down to and help define a next generation 737.

RJMAZ wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

I like this plane a lot less with 50k engines. How reliable is the sourcing on that projection?
Even with ~5,000nm range for 225 pax, I would have thought a ~11-12AR wing and Ultrafan-gen engines would have kept thrust requirements closer to 40k.

The thrust to weight ratios are higher on a short ranged aircraft than a long ranged aircraft. Long ranged aircraft have a larger wing relative to fuselage size. Short ranged aircraft have a smaller wing with a higher wing loading, this allows the wing to be lighter which is beneficial on short routes.

So you've assumed the 797 will have the proportions of the long ranged 787 when determining thrust requirements. But as the range will be closer to the A321LR you should look at that to determine the wing sizing and thrust to weight requirements. 50,000lb is a 65% more thrust than the A321LR. As long as the 797 can fit in 65% more economy seats in the stretched long ranged version then it can match the whole narrowbody economics thing.

I didn't extrapolate from 787 to project NMA's engine size; I extrapolated from 767/757.
I don't buy the oft-repeated a.net mantra that short-range planes should have high wingloading. Axioms like that should be scrutinized for the expected tradeoffs between weight and L/D. Boeing tried your approach with 787-3, for example, but it sacrificed too much fuel efficiency - even on short trips - for its gate-space benefit (weight delta didn't compensate for L/D delta). A short range plane will spend relatively more time in climb/descent; induced drag is more prevalent at these stages; a short range plane has at least some reason to use a bigger wing. As AR increases, this rationale becomes all the more compelling. The A321, for example, would have lower fuel burn with a bigger, heavier, longer wing.
I do buy that short-range planes have higher T/W because of short-field performance constraints - the A380's designer needn't have worried about performance from MDW. But that's why I wondered whether 50k might be specified (if at all) for shortfield considerations. If that's the case it's a mistake IMJ. The NMA need not do DCA-MXP. IAD-MXP capability is fine, as long as it can do IAD-LGA at lower takeoff weight.

kennyomg wrote:

Mind you I said

william wrote:

2. Still waiting for the first airline to publicly state to Airbus to build this longer A321 with new wings and engines. Airbus has no long term projects right now, they could announce the A322 at Farnborough if they wanted too.

An A320 replacement, not a 321 stretch. A simple stretch, while a lot cheaper and easier, is only competing with the MoM. Should they commit to a narrow body replacement while Boeing is busy with the MoM, they can force Boeing into something extremely disadvantageous.

william wrote:

3. Airlines can order said A330NEO now! With some nice discounts. Delta has proven that.

Again, I said rewing the 338, not buy the existing 338. There's an arguement to be made about the 330 with a shorter wing and much lighter wingbox. Would Airbus commit now? Ofc not. Is it a possible answer to a similarly/somewhat smaller sized MoM? Absolutely.

According to Leahy, a clean sheet replacement to the 320 would only be about 5% more efficient than the existing incumbents absent better engines, that's a questionable venture even if Airbus isn't inundated with A320neo backlog.

A A330 derivative would also have to lose a lot of weight to be competitive. A mostly composite tight 8ab MoM with near A332 length for 4500-5000nm range could have a OEW<85t, 35+t less than the A332's OEW, heck, the A300 is near that capability despite having a slightly wider fuselage and designed in the 70s. There's only so much pricing discounts can do to cover operational efficiency differences.

Matt6461 wrote:

I didn't extrapolate from 787 to project NMA's engine size; I extrapolated from 767/757.

It would only be from using the thrust to weight ratios of long haul aircraft that would give you an 797 engine thrust around 45,000lb. Let's crunch some numbers.

It is highly likely that the smaller longer ranged 797-8 will be very similar to the A310-300 and 767-200ER in terms of dimensions, weights and range.

It is highly likely the larger shorter ranged 797-9 will be very similar to the A300-600 and 767-300 in terms of dimensions weights and ranges.

All of these aircraft have over 50,000lb of thrust. Some models have as high as 59,000lb of thrust. So 50,000lb is actually on the low side which is to be expected as the 797 will be maybe 5-10% lighter due to modern materials.

If you went off the 757 and assumed the 797 has a maximum takeoff weight of 150T that is 30% heavier than the 757-200. The 752 has about 40,000lb of thrust. So 30% more thrust than the 757 is 52,000lb of thrust. So 50,000lb of thrust is actually spot on.

Let average a couple aircraft details.

A310-300: 79T empty 164T MTO 5150nm range
767-200ER: 82T empty 179T MTO 6550nm range
797-8: 82T empty 171T MTO 5850nm range

A300-600R: 88T empty 171T MTO 4050nm range
767-300: 86T empty 158T MTO 3900nm range
797-9: 87T empty 165T MTO 3975nm range

The weights above would assume it was built using 1980's technology. So I would estimate the 797 weights would be 10% lighter.



This graphic I made a year ago is still pretty much spot on. I still believe Boeing will eventually have three fuselage lengths. I could see Boeing launching the 797-8 and 797-9 first and the 797-10 comes later which will be a true short ranged people mover. They can judge the market by the first two models just like they did with the 787. If the 797-9 starts to outsell the 797-8 then it proves there is a market for a further stretch. However if the 797-8 starts to sell in bigger numbers due to its long range and low trip cost then they could look at ACT's to make a 797-8ER.

Right now I'm 50/50 between the fuselage being wider than it is tall or being a circular fuselage to use LD2's, very similar to the 767 in size but a couple inches wider to allow for 8AB. Not big enough to fit LD3's which would require the A330's cross section which is no longer a tight 8AB.

Another graphic I made a year ago. Showing the same wetter area as the 767 but slightly wider and the LD2's placed slightly lower down to bring the cabin floor down ever so slightly. An inch off the aisle and half an inch off each seat.

The circular fuselage would be a lower risk option but with increased drag it would definitely explain the 50,000lb thrust requirement.

holzmann wrote:

The market, and Boeing, have to wait until there is a suitable engine for the job, offering the mix of thrust and efficiency.

As for MOM not covering the 737/757: makes perfect sense to me. The 737 is a cash cow with over 4,000 in backlog. Meanwhile, Boeing will cede the 757 market to the A321/LR...until Y1 or an NSA is able to offer serious competitive advantage to the A320/A321 with an EIS by 2030 or 2035.

My pondering about the Boeing lineup:

Boeing Embraer will eventually take care of the small NB market up through the 737-7 vs. Airbus Bombardier C-Series and A319
737-8/10 will "do the job" against the A320neo until 2035 or so when the NSA is launched, which will probably be a substantial NB improvement upon the A320neo/A321neo/LR and 757-200.
(The 737-7/9 will eventually be dropped. Boeing will also more or less cede the market to the A321neo/LR for the time being.)
797 vs. A322 and replacing the 757-300/767/787-8, possibly giving the A330-800neo a few headaches. I think the 797, as it has been discussed, has great potential.
(The 767F/KC will continue until all tankers have been delivered to the USAF. If Amazon orders a ton, perhaps Boeing can convert them to a 797F? Would make sense to close this line.)
787-9/10 vs. A330-900neo/A350-900 (These planes will continue to duke it out over the long term with the A330-900neo having the most headaches. The A359 is and will be a stellar success.)
(The 787-8 will eventually be dropped.)
B??? vs. A350-1000 (I really expect this Airbus to be the next star for them, likely being the WB equivalent of the A321LR. Perhaps Boeing will examine a 787-10ER or 787 MAX 12 to counter.)
777-8/9/10 vs. A??? (Really is a question for me how successful this frame will be as airlines phase out their B77W/B744/B748/A388. At a minimum it will give Airbus a CASM fit and provide pricing pressure on a possible A380neo. Maybe that is enough. Will also prove to be a successful Freighter model.)
B748 vs. A??? (Will continue as a Freighter only until Boeing can convince the market to convert to the B777-8F/9F at which time the Queen will cease to exist.)
B??? vs. A380neo (I don't think Boeing believes there is a large enough VLA market for two suppliers. I think the chances for a A388neo are 20/80, for/against.)
Halo Projects: Let's hope A or B or NASA or SpaceX start to push the envelope further in terms speed and environmental sustainability of travel.

RR is ready for a geared turbofan. CFM will do CMC turbine blades as the GE9X launches that HUGE technological advance. Pratt's idea of a variable fan nozzle is the right idea, it just economically pencils out at a 3+ hour mission.

Since the LEAP, CFM learned what they were doing wrong not designing output profile from the low compressor to benefit the high compressor (instead initially over-optimized the LPC on it's own. See PW6000 for the last major issue with this).

GE also has more advanced shapes for high compressor blades. The LEAP-1B shows what pushing the next generation of low turbine technology can do and Pratt is doing the required casing modifications to enable in the PW1100G. It is too late for the LEAP-1A/C and PW1500G and engines like the PW1200G do not have a high enough pressure ratio to benefit from the new low turbine technology.

So engines will drive schedule, but every engine maker wants on the MoM. GE is already locked into CFM. RR is ready. Pratt is ready, but their broken processes aren't helping.

Lightsaber

If this MOM is a narrowbody, I buy it that Boeing could be on to something.
As a widebody, I see only one solution to achieve anything close to narrowbody efficiency and I doubt that they would implement it.
And no, an elliptical fuselage or an "egg" shape isn't going to cut it, you need luggage space, unless you are ok to put the luggage in the back, like on the MRJ.

22 pages of speculation for an airplane concept that sounds like a bad idea, it looks like typical American overhyping, selling ice to eskimo's or whatever you want to call it.
As far a I'm concerned, a CFRP and light B752/B753 combo with a B787-style nose, a pair of scaled up Leap engines and a nice new wing would be a homerun. That alone would achieve a 30% trip cost reduction over a B757 and justify its business case.
Low cost carriers like Ryanair and SWA would love it.
Need shorter turn-around times? Open up more doors.

RJMAZ wrote:

Let average a couple aircraft details.

A310-300: 79T empty 164T MTO 5150nm range
767-200ER: 82T empty 179T MTO 6550nm range
797-8: 82T empty 171T MTO 5850nm range

The A321NEO LR weighs <50t empty. New wings, range, stretch etc. maybe 60t for an A322.

That's a though benchmark & Boeing knows. Worse; the airlines know too.

RJMAZ wrote:

Let's crunch some numbers.

It is highly likely that the smaller longer ranged 797-8 will be very similar to the A310-300 and 767-200ER in terms of dimensions, weights and range.

OK but let's actually crunch some numbers instead of just positing that a 798 will be of similar weight/size to A310/762.
Your analogy ignores the impact of SFC, L/D, and weight-tech (CFRP) improvements on all relevant parameters.

If we start with deltas for L/D and SFC from 762ER to a 5,000nm 798, you immediately see dramatic MTOW decrease:

• MTOW for 762ER: 295,000lbs
• Spec OEW 762ER: 181,610 lbs
• Spec range: 6,590nm

Now apply some reasonable first-cut deltas:

• -25% SFC
• +10% L/D
• Range decrease from 6,590 to 5,000nm

Do you know the Breguet range equation? Fiddling with that equation and assuming both planes 216pax@225lbs, a 5,000nm 798 with the same OEW as 762ER has an MTOW of ~300,000lbs.

Given -95,000lbs OEW delta, we can now reduce OEW. To estimate, let's say that the wing+engines+empennage+LandingGear = 60% of OEW.
Let's further say that each of these components is linearly proportional to MTOW (a conservative estimate given square-cube effects).

OEW delta = (95 / 395} * 0.6 * 181,610 = ~26,000lbs

Now take a second cut at Breguet Range Equation with your new OEW (same L/D and SFC) and you get MTOW = 278,000lbs.

Now we can go back and shrink OEW for our new lower MTOW. Our L/D is probably higher given smaller empennage/engine/wing size.
You get the idea, right? We can repeat this process until we settle at OEW ~150k and MTOW ~260k.
We end up with ~50% fuel efficiency delta.

RJMAZ wrote:

If you went off the 757 and assumed the 797 has a maximum takeoff weight of 150T that is 30% heavier than the 757-200. The 752 has about 40,000lb of thrust. So 30% more thrust than the 757 is 52,000lb of thrust. So 50,000lb of thrust is actually spot on.

I'm not going to go through each of your analogies but just want to point out how conceptually mistaken this approach is.
Instead of comparing based on capacities and ranges, you should start with OEW+payload+mission fuel. A 1970's 5,000nm mission fuel is ~50% * [OEW+Payload]; a 2020's 5000nm mission fuel will be ~30%*[OEW+payload].
After figuring your fuel weight delta over [OEW+payload], you should look at how that fuel weight factor feeds back into your OEW figure.

Clear(er) example: A345 and A359ULR carry about the same payload on SIN-NYC. A345 has 220k lbs-T; A359 has 150k. A345 takes off at 840k lbs, A359ULR at 616,000. A359 burns 40+% less fuel.
15 years separate A345 and A359
43 or 44 years could separate 762ER from 797-8
Can we stop it with these simplistic analogies?

In case you find 50% fuel reduction ridiculous, consider that Boeing promises 30% economic improvement.
When I hear Boeing say economic improvement, I assume it means economic improvement - dollars to the bottom line instead of fuel burn.
But to hit 30% economic improvement you need something in excess of 40% fuel burn delta plus smaller deltas to maintenance and (maybe) acquisition cost.

So Boeing seems to forecast the ambitious 40+% fuel delta from 767 that I see as plainly possible from the fundamentals.

Keesje wrote:

The A321NEO LR weighs <50t empty. New wings, range, stretch etc. maybe 60t for an A322.

That's a though benchmark & Boeing knows. Worse; the airlines know too.

It's only a tough benchmark if you're incapable/unwilling regarding the fundamentals of aerodynamics and physics, and therefore believe the NMA will be a slightly better 767.

I wish you were more willing to engage on numbers - even rough estimates - for L/D, SFC, OEW picture of a rewinged A322 versus NMA. Your 60t estimate seems reasonable but are you projecting a new engine? NMA's Ultrafan-gen could be ~15% better than today's GTF.
I actually believe Boeing should "run away" from a possible A322 plane into higher 767ish capacities - as they seem to be doing.
With one potentially huge caveat: The A320 fuselage has a low nose fineness of ~1.5. I therefore doubt whether it can be a M.85 plane even with a new supercritical wing - wave drag penalties on a fuselage can be severe. For a ~10 hour flight, slower speed both imposes cost and a revenue premium.

Re Randy Tinseth and "Thinking outside the box," here's another idea for NMA usage: long-haul frequency maintenance/supplement.

Suppose NMA-225 has a spec. range of 5,000nm with 225 pax.
That will plane will have a remarkably flat payload/range chart, such that spec. range with 100 pax would be ~7,900nm per Bregeut equation.
On a cabin area basis, it could be more efficient than 787/A350 (though still behind 787MAX/A350NEO).

Now suppose an extremely efficient A380-900NEO or 777-10 emerges, suppose that airlines like these planes, but suppose they are reluctant to slash frequencies for business travelers.

Solution? Instead of flying 5x daily A350's/787's on longhaul megaroutes, fly 2x daily A380-900NEO's at peaks plus 3x daily NMA-225 with only 100 mostly-premium seats for frequency-sensitive high-yield pax. Considering that A380-900NEO could see ~20% lower CASM than big twins, and that A380 would lift 70% of capacity by floor area, the A380/NMA airline saves money without losing frequency compared to an all-787 or A350 operation. That's true even if NMA has 10% higher CAM3. (cost per average available m2-mile)

So maybe the future is one where the NMA saves the A380? Come at me, a.net.

keesje wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Let average a couple aircraft details.

A310-300: 79T empty 164T MTO 5150nm range
767-200ER: 82T empty 179T MTO 6550nm range
797-8: 82T empty 171T MTO 5850nm range

The A321NEO LR weighs <50t empty. New wings, range, stretch etc. maybe 60t for an A322.

That's a though benchmark & Boeing knows. Worse; the airlines know too.

I expect the weights above to be 10% lighter, due to materials and better engines requiring less fuel capacity. So 82T drops to 74T empty.

The 797-8 would have a similar cabin length to the A321 but 8ab instead of 6ab. This means 33% more seats.

If you insist on empty weight per passenger to be the benchmark. If the 797-8 is 33% heavier and weighs 74T that means the A321X with its bigger long range wing would have to weigh around 55T empty. To make the A321LR fly 5000+nm it would need a wing similar size to the 757 which would probably exceed 55T.

Likewise for the A322X stretch. The 797-9 would be similar cabin length so it would keep the 33% seating advantage. So if your A322X weighs 60T that means the 797-9 could weigh 80T which is achievable. My average of the A300 and 767-300 came to 87T, knock off 10% and you have 79T which has reached your A322X benchmark.

So Boeing can easily exceed the current A321 benchmark. It can also match a rewinged A32XX benchmark. The 797 will provide more capacity and/or range over a rewinged A321 so they would remain far enough apart.

No doubt a rewinged A321 would sell well. But the 797 would be after most of the A330CEO market.

In 10 years time the A330CEO market will be much different than what it is now. As newer more fuel efficient aircraft come into the fleets they take over the longer routes first. The 767's and A330CEO's are flying more shorter routes than ever before as their inferior fuel burn isn't that significant on short routes. Over the last 10 years we've seen these older aircraft repurposed to short/thick and medium haul routes. This trend will continue as new long range 787, A330NEO and A350's come into service.

By the time the A330CEO's are due for replacement the bulk will be operating short/medium haul flights in their final years. So this is what the 797 will be replacing.

Matt6461 wrote:

Re Randy Tinseth and "Thinking outside the box," here's another idea for NMA usage: long-haul frequency maintenance/supplement.

Suppose NMA-225 has a spec. range of 5,000nm with 225 pax.
That will plane will have a remarkably flat payload/range chart, such that spec. range with 100 pax would be ~7,900nm

I think Boeing knows this, which is why the 797 might be slightly heavier and longer ranged with a MTO closer to 150T which requires the 50,000lb thrust engines.

The smaller long ranged version should be able to fly 6000nm easily with a low density cabin. The 797-8 might not have CASM as good as the A321 but no widebody ever has. But if it has range far beyond the A321 then the CASM penalty is totally justified providing the gain in range is larger than the penalty in CASM.

The 797-9 like any simple stretch would have better CASM and would be the model that could match the A321 on CASM but at a higher capacity point.

The 797-10 just like the 787-10 would take a big hit in range but gain further short haul efficiency. I could see this model reaching the 787-8 and A332 capacity but having only a fraction of the range. Dedicated for short/thick routes with gate shortages. Think domestic China/Japan and Melbourne to Sydney.

RJMAZ wrote:

the 797 might be slightly heavier and longer ranged with a MTO closer to 150T which requires the 50,000lb thrust engines.

You're making more sense now but still a little off the mark IMO. Considering that Boeing's target is 30% economic improvement, consider that Boeing doesn't say ridiculous things, and consider that 40+% fuel delta is necessary to hit the economic target. You can't get there on your figures.

Re 150T MTOW: That's a little high, IMO, but even then 50k thrust seems at the high end. 763ER's T/W is .299; NMA's should be lower. Why? Because its takeoff L/D will be vastly improved - more significantly than cruise L/D. That improvement eases or removes the 2nd-segment climb minimum as the trust-sizing constraint (as with most twins, 763ER's thrust is likely dictated by 2nd-segment climb with OEI). So 50k seems the absolute maximum for even a 150t NMA, and 150t seems too high.

unless...
Maybe Boeing plans a long-runway base model with a shortfield subvariant? Here's the thought: Build the NMA-225/275 for a 10,000ft runway but with higher-than-expected T/W. Use the excess thrust to simplify your high-lift system, saving on maintenance, weight, and production complexity. Maybe a simple unslotted flap would work? Then produce a sub-variant with a normal high-lift system that can do TATL from DCA, LGA, LTN, maybe even MDW if you really push it. Probably not but might be a nifty idea.

I think it is very smart to launch the stretch version a few years after the two smaller family members are in service. The stretch would no doubt unfairly make the shrink version look bad in terms of CASM.

This may prematurely kill the smallest member of the family like in the case of the A350-800. This would then upsize the midpoint of the entire family once the smallest member disappears.

Boeing with the 787-10 had a delayed launch which allowed hundreds of 787-8's to enter service before 787-8 stopped getting ordered. It allowed them to judge the market with the first two model. It creates options for the company as they can do an extended range version by fitting the stronger bits off the stretch model if the market requires it.

RJMAZ wrote:

launch the stretch version a few years after the two smaller family members are in service.

I agree we'll see a -10 stretch later a la 787. The economics will be too good to pass for transcon and shorter routes. 3,000nm should still be doable as a simple stretch. (There's a simple Breguet estimate for this, which works for 78X versus 789, but I won't do all the math here).

Unlike A358 and 788, I don't see the NMA-225 going under due to more efficient stretches. Its core appeal will be lowest trip cost and acceptable efficiency on long/thin routes and as a frequency supplement for premium pax. It should have a decade or so with no smaller, equally-capable competition.

Who understands patent law?I most certainly don't!
Have Boeing managed to patent the concept of an ovoid fuselage for all passenger aircraft?In which case Its a mighty wide patent I would have thought.Although it could be possible - I really don't know.
Or is their patent more specific to the associated drawings and descriptions?

At 8 abreast you can forget LD3/45 as in single class high density it would be very, very tight to get baggage of the pax loaded. If it is 8 abreast it will be LD2s.

seahawk wrote:

At 8 abreast you can forget LD3/45 as in single class high density it would be very, very tight to get baggage of the pax loaded. If it is 8 abreast it will be LD2s.

A321's belly cargo capacity is 1,826ft3. At 5ft3 baggage/pax, that's room for 360 pax' bags. 1-class seating of NMA-225 would be 290, cargo capacity would be at least as high as A321. LD3-45 fits under the floor of 205in circle; if space somehow became a concern you could use a NMA-only baggage container.

It is 10 LD/45s for an A321. 8 abreast would add 33% more passengers for the same fuselage length, which is about equal to the 3 LD3/45s the LR with 3 ACTs has to give up. And the A321LR is tight in high density and you would need to hand load a part of the baggage. For nay airline interested in cargo the LD3/45 optimized MoM would be uninteresting, as it could not carry enough fish.

LD3-45's would be able to carry all of the passenger cargo of the 797 without hand loading.

The shorter length 797-8 being the long range model would very rarely be used in a high density all economy layout. Most of the A321's doing medium haul routes have less than 150 seats. AA's transcontinental A321 has only 102 seats.

10 containers would be more than adequate if it's similar to the A321 in length. The low density layout like AA's A321 would only require 7-8 containers in the 797-8

The 797-9 being stretched 6-8m would allow for 4-5 extra containers. That is 40-50% more containers while the cabin length is increased by only around 20%. So that would be fine even in a high density layout.

But I agree LD2's in a tight circular fuselage would also be great low risk option. It will allow for added revenue from freight which might make up for the drag and fuel burn penalty.

Revelation wrote:

Four years? A380 took from 1988 till 2000 to decide what to do and still got it wrong ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380 ).

EXACTLY!

The longer that is taken trying to "massage" numbers to justify a business case - the more evident it is that the business case doesn't really exist and its more a process of enough "yes" men migrating into decisive positions and making assumptions more favourable to the point that they aren't at all reflective of reality.


If there was a solid business case, then Boeing would long since have launched. Right now, they are trying to make up favourable numbers that they can somehow justify that will let them get on with making a plane that won't sell.


If a company like Boeing, who is in constant dialogue with their clients as a matter of course anyway, cannot make a business case inside 12 months - then its overwhelmingly likely there is no case to make.

You not only need to find a market, you need to make sure that your product will be able to serve that before launching it. Airlines have voiced numbers about prices they are willing to pay, Boeing needs to make sure they can make money at that prices.

bigjku wrote:

So on NSA Boeing talked and worked the issue until it couldn’t be worked out and ultimately didn’t make a potentially dangerous decision. I would conclude that if they launch this they probably will get it right based on track record.

Talk about a re-write of history.

They talked and worked the decision until the market voted with their wallets and bought A320neos. Then eventually Boeing realised they were on the road to irrelevance and hacked together something over a few long days, launched it, then worried about the implementation afterwards.

seahawk wrote:

You not only need to find a market, you need to make sure that your product will be able to serve that before launching it. Airlines have voiced numbers about prices they are willing to pay, Boeing needs to make sure they can make money at that prices.

Agreed.

Further to that, the A330 is already selling very cheap (per seat) and Airbus has quite the profit margin on A321s they could trim down.

A difficult box in terms of price & performance Boeing have to hit. That'd be made even more difficult if Airbus decided to make an A322 and put Boeing into a very hard position - having to hit the mark on price, performance and time - if its even possible.

Amiga500 wrote:

If a company like Boeing, who is in constant dialogue with their clients as a matter of course anyway, cannot make a business case inside 12 months - then its overwhelmingly likely there is no case to make.

I don't buy it. 12 months might work if you are working with a lot of "knowns" such as manufacturing process, manufacturing location, technological base, etc. If you are changing a lot of these things and need to break new ground (both physically and intellectually) then 12 months is not enough.

Let's look back to Boeing's last successful clean sheet, 777. Went from nothing to business case closed and going the market in 12 months? Nope. Concepts floated ~1986, ability to offer ~1990, and there they were mostly breaking new intellectual (digital design, fly by wire) barriers, not physical (grow the KPAE plant, use similar manufacturing tech and materials) barriers.

I'm reluctant to dive in to this thread, but I had a quick thought.

Why doesn't Airbus simply jump in head first, and go ahead with the A322 while Boeing struggles to convince itself that the 797 might be a good idea.

Airbus doesn't really have anything in development right now (for the first time in a LONG time) unlike B's 77X. Also unlike Boeing, the program investment will be significantly smaller.

The big difference is that a 322 would instantly shut down any Boeing MoM plan, and guaranteeing market dominance for a long time. If they can't make the numbers / potential orders make sense on paper currently, then it would be a no-go with a competitor of any kind. Also, the 322 would be cheaper, and offer immediate commonality for existing operators. Not only would it be cheaper for customers, but I imagine the profit margins would be a thing of beauty versus a ground-up Boeing project.

What do I know? I can't believe I took the bait and posted in here.

Edit: Either way you slice it, this seems like a risky proposition for Boeing. I take back what I posted earlier - if I was Airbus I'd wait till they spend the cash to actually invest in an idea (if they ever do) THEN drop a 322 that'll get to market twice as fast for cheaper while all these airlines are trying to replace their fleet and expand TATL ops.

estorilm wrote:

I'm reluctant to dive in to this thread, but I had a quick thought.

Why doesn't Airbus simply jump in head first, and go ahead with the A322 while Boeing struggles to convince itself that the 797 might be a good idea.

Airbus doesn't really have anything in development right now (for the first time in a LONG time) unlike B's 77X. Also unlike Boeing, the program investment will be significantly smaller.

The big difference is that a 322 would instantly shut down any Boeing MoM plan, and guaranteeing market dominance for a long time. If they can't make the numbers / potential orders make sense on paper currently, then it would be a no-go with a competitor of any kind. Also, the 322 would be cheaper, and offer immediate commonality for existing operators. Not only would it be cheaper for customers, but I imagine the profit margins would be a thing of beauty versus a ground-up Boeing project.

What do I know? I can't believe I took the bait and posted in here.

Why do you believe that Airbus will not do exactly that? It makes sense to wait for the launch of the 797, to see what Boeing will offer, and than launch the A321 plus plus or A322. As Airbus would not need to start from scratch, they could have an EIS for the A322 before the 797.

It could easily be that Airbus has prepared a proposal for an A332 while waiting for Boeing to jump. Airbus could also have a proposal prepared on the base of a A310 sized fuselage with new wings and engines, with a stretch to A300 size to follow, but that would take longer to market.

mjoelnir wrote:

Why do you believe that Airbus will not do exactly that? It makes sense to wait for the launch of the 797, to see what Boeing will offer, and than launch the A321 plus plus or A322. As Airbus would not need to start from scratch, they could have an EIS for the A322 before the 797.

The down side is they would lose out on the customers that place the launch orders for '797'.

A pre-emptive launch might prevent the '797' from getting the critical mass needed to launch.

On the other hand it might show that there really isn't much interest in the Airbus proposals.

Backlog.For both Airbus and Boeing it's absolutely enormous.On top of that there is a real engine supply problem exacerbating this.Yes Airbus are now looking at even more ways to increase production,but there is absolutly no pint in producing gliders and upsetting valuable clients.

It is now equally clear that the type of aircraft Boeing are postulating is quite different (to the 321) in any case.It certainly requires a new engine so it will have a long time to EIS.

I'd ,and it's a big if,they do eventually manage to up production and start shortening the backlog,then yes it's very likely you will see a 'plus' and perhaps a 'plus plus'.
It's different for Boeing because they will create a new production line (somewhere) from scratch.Its perhaps one good reason that Boeing might launch this year as it won't cannibalise anything much and Airbus are simply unable to respond at the moment with anything based on the A320 family production.

Amiga500 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You not only need to find a market, you need to make sure that your product will be able to serve that before launching it. Airlines have voiced numbers about prices they are willing to pay, Boeing needs to make sure they can make money at that prices.

Agreed.oeing

Further to that, the A330 is already selling very cheap (per seat) and Airbus has quite the profit margin on A321s they could trim down.

A difficult box in terms of price & performance Boeing have to hit. That'd be made even more difficult if Airbus decided to make an A322 and put Boeing into a very hard position - having to hit the mark on price, performance and time - if its even possible.

The A330neo is a complete non-starter as a MoM competitor no matter how cheap it's being sold, pricing can only go so far to make up for the fact that it's way overbuilt and heavy for the role, leading to garbage economics for regional ops (which airlines have pointed out), a properly optimized MoM for medium haul would win many RFPs against cheaper to buy A330neos just on that alone.

Boeing wouldn't be dumb enough not to know of a possible A322, which is by far more challenging than any widebody A can deploy in rapid response. This is why I suspect the MoM product from Boeing would be leaning towards more A338/788 in capacity than A321/752, with the A321/2 taking the bottom of the MoM and the 797 taking the top, that's the most profitable scenario for both OEMs.

RJMAZ wrote:

The A300 is roughly 70% of the mto weight of the A332 yet is nearly 90% of the capacity. This would definitely match the lean and mean definition so it would not be a hard target for Boeing to make what would be a carbon A300 and A310.

A330-500 resp A330-100 was to be a A300-600 size shrink of the A330-200.
I would have had 6% better fuel economy than its same cap predecessor.
If you wear your large wing well .... that extra mass may not be a liability at all.

Revelation wrote:

On the other hand it might show that there really isn't much interest in the Airbus proposals.

Or it might show that there wasn't much real interest in Boeings proposals.
That could turn out in either direction...

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

On the other hand it might show that there really isn't much interest in the Airbus proposals.

Or it might show that there wasn't much real interest in Boeings proposals.
That could turn out in either direction...

True, though I thought I had that covered via "A pre-emptive launch might prevent the '797' from getting the critical mass needed to launch."...

JustSomeDood wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

You not only need to find a market, you need to make sure that your product will be able to serve that before launching it. Airlines have voiced numbers about prices they are willing to pay, Boeing needs to make sure they can make money at that prices.

Agreed.oeing

Further to that, the A330 is already selling very cheap (per seat) and Airbus has quite the profit margin on A321s they could trim down.

A difficult box in terms of price & performance Boeing have to hit. That'd be made even more difficult if Airbus decided to make an A322 and put Boeing into a very hard position - having to hit the mark on price, performance and time - if its even possible.

The A330neo is a complete non-starter as a MoM competitor no matter how cheap it's being sold, pricing can only go so far to make up for the fact that it's way overbuilt and heavy for the role, leading to garbage economics for regional ops (which airlines have pointed out), a properly optimized MoM for medium haul would win many RFPs against cheaper to buy A330neos just on that alone.

Boeing wouldn't be dumb enough not to know of a possible A322, which is by far more challenging than any widebody A can deploy in rapid response. This is why I suspect the MoM product from Boeing would be leaning towards more A338/788 in capacity than A321/752, with the A321/2 taking the bottom of the MoM and the 797 taking the top, that's the most profitable scenario for both OEMs.

All nice and dandy, but in the end it means that Boeing needs another program to finally kill off the pesky A330 after the 787 does not seem sufficient.

seahawk wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Agreed.oeing

Further to that, the A330 is already selling very cheap (per seat) and Airbus has quite the profit margin on A321s they could trim down.

A difficult box in terms of price & performance Boeing have to hit. That'd be made even more difficult if Airbus decided to make an A322 and put Boeing into a very hard position - having to hit the mark on price, performance and time - if its even possible.

The A330neo is a complete non-starter as a MoM competitor no matter how cheap it's being sold, pricing can only go so far to make up for the fact that it's way overbuilt and heavy for the role, leading to garbage economics for regional ops (which airlines have pointed out), a properly optimized MoM for medium haul would win many RFPs against cheaper to buy A330neos just on that alone.

Boeing wouldn't be dumb enough not to know of a possible A322, which is by far more challenging than any widebody A can deploy in rapid response. This is why I suspect the MoM product from Boeing would be leaning towards more A338/788 in capacity than A321/752, with the A321/2 taking the bottom of the MoM and the 797 taking the top, that's the most profitable scenario for both OEMs.

All nice and dandy, but in the end it means that Boeing needs another program to finally kill off the pesky A330 after the 787 does not seem sufficient.

Just means the market the A330 dominated is now fragmented like the market the 777 dominated for so long is being replaced by the A350 and 787.

seahawk wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Agreed.oeing

Further to that, the A330 is already selling very cheap (per seat) and Airbus has quite the profit margin on A321s they could trim down.

A difficult box in terms of price & performance Boeing have to hit. That'd be made even more difficult if Airbus decided to make an A322 and put Boeing into a very hard position - having to hit the mark on price, performance and time - if its even possible.

The A330neo is a complete non-starter as a MoM competitor no matter how cheap it's being sold, pricing can only go so far to make up for the fact that it's way overbuilt and heavy for the role, leading to garbage economics for regional ops (which airlines have pointed out), a properly optimized MoM for medium haul would win many RFPs against cheaper to buy A330neos just on that alone.

Boeing wouldn't be dumb enough not to know of a possible A322, which is by far more challenging than any widebody A can deploy in rapid response. This is why I suspect the MoM product from Boeing would be leaning towards more A338/788 in capacity than A321/752, with the A321/2 taking the bottom of the MoM and the 797 taking the top, that's the most profitable scenario for both OEMs.

All nice and dandy, but in the end it means that Boeing needs another program to finally kill off the pesky A330 after the 787 does not seem sufficient.

Why do they need to kill it off? The 787 seems to be doing just fine against the A330neo. The A330 has been doing well for years despite never completely killing off the 767.

Revelation wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

If a company like Boeing, who is in constant dialogue with their clients as a matter of course anyway, cannot make a business case inside 12 months - then its overwhelmingly likely there is no case to make.

I don't buy it. 12 months might work if you are working with a lot of "knowns" such as manufacturing process, manufacturing location, technological base, etc. If you are changing a lot of these things and need to break new ground (both physically and intellectually) then 12 months is not enough.

Let's look back to Boeing's last successful clean sheet, 777. Went from nothing to business case closed and going the market in 12 months? Nope. Concepts floated ~1986, ability to offer ~1990, and there they were mostly breaking new intellectual (digital design, fly by wire) barriers, not physical (grow the KPAE plant, use similar manufacturing tech and materials) barriers.

One of the reasons why it takes so long to close the business case is related to the duopoly. Boeing and Airbus can easily wait until the very last moment to launch a new aircraft program, especially anything bigger than a 737/A320, because both companies sit on top of the pyramid. They would have to react faster if the market share was equally divided by other airplane manufacturers.

parapente wrote:

Who understands patent law?I most certainly don't!
Have Boeing managed to patent the concept of an ovoid fuselage for all passenger aircraft?In which case Its a mighty wide patent I would have thought.Although it could be possible - I really don't know.
Or is their patent more specific to the associated drawings and descriptions?

Boeing is the biggest patent troll on the planet, and a lot of them are nonsense that wouldn't hold up in court.

I’m still in the camp that believes the 797 will be an oval that will hold 7AB and LD3/45s. Perhaps a 797-8 a few rows longer than a 762 and a 797-9 a few rows longer than a 763.

Airlines that need more cargo volume can opt for the 788 instead.

MOM has no reason to compete with the A321 as that will be covered by NSA (and 737-10 to a lesser extent). NSA may cover the A322 gap as well.