• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5674
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:12 am

Availability remains one big question.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... sh-441667/

Quote:
"IAG chief executive Willie Walsh is lukewarm to the prospect of Boeing’s proposed all-new middle-of-the-market aircraft, which he believes is coming late given the availability of Airbus’s A321LR variant of the A320neo family.

Speaking at the recent World Routes in Barcelona, Walsh praised the A321LR’s performance, explaining how Aer Lingus will use the extended range version of the re-engined twinjet to launch single-aisle transatlantic services in 2019. He adds that he sees a wider role for the A321LR at other airlines within IAG.

When asked about Boeing’s proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA), Walsh says: 'It could [play a role on the transatlantic] but it’s a bit late. We’ll be operating the A321 [LR] on the transatlantic in 2019. We’re very keen to get access to early deliveries on that'."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:45 am

Agree on availability. The PO must be trying to figure how much of the market will remain by the time they launch
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:38 am

Stitch wrote:
The "A322" could very well end up being a "stretch to far". She might also not be able to take the same class of engines as the MoM due to gear height issues, which would impact her TOW. The "A322" could become the 767-400ER to the MoM's A330-200: too little, too late. Sure, Airbus could put an all-new wing on her and an all-new landing gear on her, but then she starts to look like the 777X - a "heavy" frame to support all that new structure competing against a lighter, optimized design. And like the 777X, she will also loses a(n even more) significant amount of parts commonality with her earlier sisters.


Do you think that the twin aisle will weigh less than the single aisle, even with a new wing and landing gear? In that case Boeing and Airbus has been doing things incorrectly all these years. Also, if that is the case I see no reason why Airbus could not design their own MOM in the same vein as Boeing.


Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
That would leave the 270 seat market and that is where the A338 will sit. You can try and cut the price of the A330 in that case to put pressure on the MOM pricing from above and below. Many airlines seem to favour cheaper prices on frames so it will be interesting where Boeing is able to place a new design in terms of two mature programs.


The A330-800 is likely going to be significantly heavier, however. If MoM is dimensioned around a 767-300, she could be 35,000kg or more lighter than an A330-800. The A332 sold well against the 767 because both were used on 12+ hour missions where the extra passenger and cargo revenue of the A332 outweighed her high fuel burn. MoM is probably going to be used on 6+ hour missions or less and I can't see how an A338 will compete on CASM with such a higher fuel burn in those missions.



Sure it will be heavier, but a discounted A338 should put Boeing in check on price at least. I think you have argued before that the 748i may have not sold a lot, but it at least kept A380 pricing honest. Surely this would be the case here as well?
 
WIederling
Posts: 3994
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:56 am

texl1649 wrote:
Leeham is of course the source of much speculation such as (a) the demise of Norwegian, (b) the inarguable inevitable failure of Boeing's complaint vs. Bombardier, (c) the doom of the 77X program, and (d) the 787-8's secret termination. Which is to say nothing of the massive write off pending for the 787, Boeing's nefarious tanker contract lies, and the total disaster that is the Boeing Charleston facility.


And texl1649 is of course the person to turn moderated observations into absolute statement. :-)
Murphy is an optimist
 
scotron11
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:24 am

Walsh at IAG says the NMA could be too late to market. IAG is taking delivery in 2019 of the A321LR for EI, and could be deployed to other carriers in the group.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-441667/
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:42 am

Right now Airbus have a winner in the A321 NEO LR.So their job is clearly to ram home that advantage.No worry about Boeing.
They need to bust a gut to create max availability.
Looks like they have created a 'high lift' version (the fuse bump above the leading edge root).Which will widen the number of airports I imagine.
'The plus'.What is it?(not the plus plus).A second generation type of blended winglets? (More range).
The carbon monolithic centre box section.Should save weight.(range).
Perhaps other areas?
All in all they may be able to find a little additional range.If so it will make the aircraft even more desirable.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:54 am

Can Boeing just promise it won't be a 737-MAX-WB? I have nightmares of that old 707 cockpit bolted onto the front of whatever Boeing designs. The thought of being crammed into the front of a 737 cockpit for 8 hours plus makes my bones ache.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:35 pm

parapente wrote:
Right now Airbus have a winner in the A321 NEO LR.So their job is clearly to ram home that advantage.No worry about Boeing.
They need to bust a gut to create max availability.
Looks like they have created a 'high lift' version (the fuse bump above the leading edge root).Which will widen the number of airports I imagine.
'The plus'.What is it?(not the plus plus).A second generation type of blended winglets? (More range).
The carbon monolithic centre box section.Should save weight.(range).
Perhaps other areas?
All in all they may be able to find a little additional range.If so it will make the aircraft even more desirable.


I am not sure I would call the A321LR a real winner in the long term. I think airlines will certainly adopt it, but it is only a 7,000lbs MTOW increase over the A321. Smaller transatlantic operators have ordered it, but not in huge numbers so far. For a group like IAG, I could see them getting A321LRs and in 8-10 years displacing them with a 797 that has some more capacity and range. The undersized wing on the A321LR should give a new plane opportunity to have better fuel burn per seat figures with a wing better suited for the payload range combinations transatlantic. That winner status may not be true for very long. It will be interesting if Airbus tries to develop a mad max version of the NEO to compete.
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:42 pm

Just a passing thought...did B always form program offices and publicise their formation with previous aircraft pre-launches?

Just wondering whether this announcement has other, non-technical objectives...


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 2:39 pm

Faro wrote:
Just a passing thought...did B always form program offices and publicise their formation with previous aircraft pre-launches?

Just wondering whether this announcement has other, non-technical objectives...


Faro

In my experience (40+ years in an IT environment in a wide range of business sectors) a Program Office is focussed on how things are done, not on what it is to be done. This 797 PO is also tasked with refining the way Boeing designs and builds airplanes. Such a PO is not a line function within the Program organisation, it is a management support function that defines standards to be applied throughout the program (covering aspects like planning, risk management, QC, QA, reporting, Change Management, ........). I wonder if the 787 program had a PO????

I would imagine there is a team somewhere that is separate to this PO that is looking into, or even drawing up specifications, what the 797 might do - this would evolve into the Design Authority. This PO is looking into HOW it might be done

See the following link:

http://www.4-traders.com/BOEING-COMPANY ... t=20170926

Boeing Co has opened a program office for a potential new mid-market jet and named a leader for the project, taking it a step closer to deciding whether to launch the new airplane, according to a staff memo.
The "New Mid-market Airplane" office will be run by Mark Jenks, who heads the 787 Dreamliner program. He will be replaced by Brad Zaback, said the memo seen by Reuters.

The office will also have a wider mission of helping Boeing evolve the way it designs and builds airplanes, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Kevin McAllister said in the memo.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:20 pm

Also will be tasked to find risk sharing partners.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:38 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Do you think that the twin aisle will weigh less than the single aisle, even with a new wing and landing gear?


On an overall basis? Of course not.

On a per seat basis? :scratchchin:


enzo011 wrote:
Sure it will be heavier, but a discounted A338 should put Boeing in check on price at least. I think you have argued before that the 748i may have not sold a lot, but it at least kept A380 pricing honest. Surely this would be the case here as well?


:shakehead: I have argued the exact opposite, actually.

The 747-8 is proof enough that price won't win RFPs if it is one of the (only) factors in favor of the proposal. Airbus can offer the A330-800 as cheap as they want, I don't see it swinging an RFP if that is the only benefit.


scotron11 wrote:
Walsh at IAG says the NMA could be too late to market. IAG is taking delivery in 2019 of the A321LR for EI, and could be deployed to other carriers in the group.


As I understand it, IAG will use the A321-200LR to launch new hub-to-point missions on low-traffic city pairs. Not exactly a market I see MoM being optimized for.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 16073
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:04 pm

sassiciai wrote:
In my experience (40+ years in an IT environment in a wide range of business sectors) a Program Office is focussed on how things are done, not on what it is to be done. This 797 PO is also tasked with refining the way Boeing designs and builds airplanes. Such a PO is not a line function within the Program organisation, it is a management support function that defines standards to be applied throughout the program (covering aspects like planning, risk management, QC, QA, reporting, Change Management, ........).

The statement I highlighted in red supports the idea that the "797" program is not just about getting the NMA aircraft designed and tested, it's about hitting specific manufacturability goals. not just for this airplane but also for future ones too. The creation of the new PO and appointing the previous 787 leader as its VP/GM shows it has the scope to do more than just get the "797" built. It also shows that they are serious about using what they learned on 787 on the new program. This is a large part of why I think creation of the PO is very good news for the program.
The gun is NOT a precious symbol of freedom
It is a deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 6:40 pm

Stitch wrote:
On an overall basis? Of course not.

On a per seat basis? :scratchchin:


So it will be a heavier frame as an overall weight, but when both have 220 seats (2 class) it will weigh less per seat? Do you see the flaw in your argument there?


Stitch wrote:
:shakehead: I have argued the exact opposite, actually.

The 747-8 is proof enough that price won't win RFPs if it is one of the (only) factors in favor of the proposal. Airbus can offer the A330-800 as cheap as they want, I don't see it swinging an RFP if that is the only benefit.



My apologies. I guess the difference only between the 748 and A338 would be the cost to manufacture and design. For the 748 there was significantly more effort involved whereas the A338 will be on sale regardless of the MOM. But I see your point that if an airline doesn't want the frame it really doesn't matter what the price is.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:06 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
On an overall basis? Of course not.

On a per seat basis? :scratchchin:


So it will be a heavier frame as an overall weight, but when both have 220 seats (2 class) it will weigh less per seat? Do you see the flaw in your argument there?


220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that...
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:33 pm

Market segmentation.
Airbus say the 321lr is in the MOM segment at 206 pax and 4,200knm.Boeing says MOM stretches to 270 pax and 5,500 nm.
Plenty of room in there for 2 differently optimised aircraft.
200-250pax can be single aisle.4,000-4,500+ is certainly a perfectly acceptable range/time for a single aisle.Airbus should not even need a new engine (Boeing will).
That might leave Boeing to eat their own children (788)
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:52 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
On an overall basis? Of course not.

On a per seat basis? :scratchchin:


So it will be a heavier frame as an overall weight, but when both have 220 seats (2 class) it will weigh less per seat? Do you see the flaw in your argument there


You are contriving an example. We don't know that a hypothetical A322 could match the seating capacity of a hypothetical MOM given equivalent cabin products. So, this is merely a conceptual discussion. And at a conceptual level, it is true that widebodies are more structurally-efficient than narrowbodies for a certain payload.

Stitch wrote:
220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that...


But here's what I don't get Stitch.... you're describing the 787-8!

The in-service configurations for the 787-8 range from 200-225 seats on the low-end to 275-300 seats on the high-end. If the MOM had mission requirements to fly up to 10 hours (4,200 nm real-world range), then customers are going to want sleeper seats, premium economy, etc, that start pushing the floorspace requirements of a 200-225 seat configuration right back to the size of a 787-8.

My personal opinion is that the demand for premium cabin products only softens if the mission range is under 6 hours (2,500 nm real-world). So, to rationalize a unique cabin layout from the 787 or 737 family, the MOM would be range-limited to missions such as US transcon. I think then you could justify a 225-275 seat aircraft that slots between the A320/737 and 787.

But is there a market for that? I'm hugely skeptical. My sincere hope is that this 797 program morphs into a manufacturing improvement, weight reduction, and performance improvement package for the 787. I think it's easy to glance at the 787 and 737 then conclude a huge capacity gap exists, but in practice, I don't think so.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:12 pm

Stitch wrote:
220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that...



You were saying the A322 could be a stretch too far where it would compete against a lighter frame,

Stitch wrote:
The "A322" could very well end up being a "stretch to far". She might also not be able to take the same class of engines as the MoM due to gear height issues, which would impact her TOW. The "A322" could become the 767-400ER to the MoM's A330-200: too little, too late. Sure, Airbus could put an all-new wing on her and an all-new landing gear on her, but then she starts to look like the 777X - a "heavy" frame to support all that new structure competing against a lighter, optimized design. And like the 777X, she will also loses a(n even more) significant amount of parts commonality with her earlier sisters.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying the MOM will be lighter per seat when you use the 270 seat aircraft and using that as a comparison in the 220 seat market where the MOM will have a competitor? Again, do you see where I am confused by your post?
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:30 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that...



You were saying the A322 could be a stretch too far where it would compete against a lighter frame,

Stitch wrote:
The "A322" could very well end up being a "stretch to far". She might also not be able to take the same class of engines as the MoM due to gear height issues, which would impact her TOW. The "A322" could become the 767-400ER to the MoM's A330-200: too little, too late. Sure, Airbus could put an all-new wing on her and an all-new landing gear on her, but then she starts to look like the 777X - a "heavy" frame to support all that new structure competing against a lighter, optimized design. And like the 777X, she will also loses a(n even more) significant amount of parts commonality with her earlier sisters.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying the MOM will be lighter per seat when you use the 270 seat aircraft and using that as a comparison in the 220 seat market where the MOM will have a competitor? Again, do you see where I am confused by your post?


If the metric is OEW per seat, a Cessna is going to win that competition. The bigger the plane, usually the higher OEW per seat. It is not always true, but I would expect a 797 to have higher OEW per seat. That doesn't mean it burns more fuel per seat though, but weight is very important.
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:40 pm

Don't think 4,200nm is a ten hour flight is it?More 7.5 hours I would have thought?
 
350helmi
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:47 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
220 seats is said to be the low end in two classes. The high-end is said to be 270 and not sure an A322 will stretch to that...



You were saying the A322 could be a stretch too far where it would compete against a lighter frame,

Stitch wrote:
The "A322" could very well end up being a "stretch to far". She might also not be able to take the same class of engines as the MoM due to gear height issues, which would impact her TOW. The "A322" could become the 767-400ER to the MoM's A330-200: too little, too late. Sure, Airbus could put an all-new wing on her and an all-new landing gear on her, but then she starts to look like the 777X - a "heavy" frame to support all that new structure competing against a lighter, optimized design. And like the 777X, she will also loses a(n even more) significant amount of parts commonality with her earlier sisters.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying the MOM will be lighter per seat when you use the 270 seat aircraft and using that as a comparison in the 220 seat market where the MOM will have a competitor? Again, do you see where I am confused by your post?


This isn't difficult....He is saying that an A321 @220 seats is heavier than a 797 @270 seats on a per seat basis, which isn't that much of a stretch to imagine IMO. Not an apples to apples comparison I don't think since the obvious response from Airbus would be to stretch the A321 further with a new wing, to say 260 seats Y only (230 J+Y to be comparable with the 270 which I believe to be 2 class seating). I would think the per seat weight of those planes would be very close to each other. If the 270pax figure turns out to be single class seating, then the A321stretch would undoubtedly be the lighter frame, overall as well as on a per seat basis.

350helmi
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:09 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
My personal opinion is that the demand for premium cabin products only softens if the mission range is under 6 hours (2,500 nm real-world). So, to rationalize a unique cabin layout from the 787 or 737 family, the MOM would be range-limited to missions such as US transcon. I think then you could justify a 225-275 seat aircraft that slots between the A320/737 and 787.


I am more inclined to think that the MoM might be very well designed for six-to-eight hour missions for the reasons you put forward. Because with a modern long-haul (12 hour or more) two or three class configuration, 240-270 seats is what a 787 or A330 would offer.

Moving to something closer to 6-8 hours would mean you could get away with non-lie-flat seating for Business Class and the premium cabins would be smaller, so the bulk of seats would be Economy so the amount of floorspace you would need to accommodate 240-270 total seats would be less.



enzo011 wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying the MOM will be lighter per seat when you use the 270 seat aircraft and using that as a comparison in the 220 seat market where the MOM will have a competitor? Again, do you see where I am confused by your post?


I used quotes around "heavy" to note I was not speaking in absolute figures - as in an A322 would absolutely have an OEW higher than a MoM. I meant it more that a plane that is significantly modified to meet a performance target fairly beyond it's original design would not be as efficient in a weight context as one that as designed from the start to meet that performance target.
 
VS11
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:13 pm

parapente wrote:
Don't think 4,200nm is a ten hour flight is it?More 7.5 hours I would have thought?


10 hours is about right. 4,200nm=4833 statute miles @550 mph is around 9 hrs but obviously entire flights are not at cruising speeds.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7225
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:53 am

scotron11 wrote:
Walsh at IAG says the NMA could be too late to market. IAG is taking delivery in 2019 of the A321LR for EI, and could be deployed to other carriers in the group.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-441667/


For IAG, it might be too late to market. That doesn't mean that the "NMA" is overall too late to market. Certainly Airbus has captured a lot of that space already but there will be carriers who will be turning over fleets in the 2025-2035 period and they will need something more capable/modern than the NEO or MAX.
-Dave
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9185
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:01 am

Are we sure the 797 will be MOM ?

Couldn't it just be a 737 replacement, without all the 737 limitations ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1447
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:23 am

350helmi wrote:
This isn't difficult....He is saying that an A321 @220 seats is heavier than a 797 @270 seats on a per seat basis, which isn't that much of a stretch to imagine IMO. Not an apples to apples comparison I don't think since the obvious response from Airbus would be to stretch the A321 further with a new wing, to say 260 seats Y only (230 J+Y to be comparable with the 270 which I believe to be 2 class seating). I would think the per seat weight of those planes would be very close to each other. If the 270pax figure turns out to be single class seating, then the A321stretch would undoubtedly be the lighter frame, overall as well as on a per seat basis.


I understand that, but he was comparing the MOM against a A322 with a new wing and landing gear. That adds weight to the design and as he explains later he actually means one design is optimized for its missions and the other is a stretch that will have historic disadvantages. But why compare the OEW per seat of a A322 against the larger MOM when there is the MOM in the same space. Its like comparing the OEW per seat of the A35K against the 789 when the A359 is there for a more direct comparison that you can make.


Stitch wrote:
I used quotes around "heavy" to note I was not speaking in absolute figures - as in an A322 would absolutely have an OEW higher than a MoM. I meant it more that a plane that is significantly modified to meet a performance target fairly beyond it's original design would not be as efficient in a weight context as one that as designed from the start to meet that performance target.


Which is fair, but we are talking about comparing a twin aisle against a single aisle as well. So we will have to wait and see what Boeing comes up with to see if those advantages that come with a clean sheet design is enough to cover the disadvantages that come with a bigger design against the smaller one. And if/when Boeing comes up with the MOM it depends if Airbus actually goes ahead with a A322 as well.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:02 am

Aesma wrote:
Are we sure the 797 will be MOM ?

Couldn't it just be a 737 replacement, without all the 737 limitations ?

A 737 replacement is likely a decade or so away.

This new airplane, presumably the 797, will be the MoM. It will be a small twin aisle ovoid aircraft. It will have a carbon fiber fuselage and wing.
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2889
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:44 pm

350helmi wrote:
This isn't difficult....He is saying that an A321 @220 seats is heavier than a 797 @270 seats on a per seat basis, which isn't that much of a stretch to imagine IMO.

Not that difficult . . .? ?

(yes, I realize I'm pulling this slightly out-of-context).

I think it will be very difficult, if not imposisble, for a 797 to be lighter per seat than an A321 @220 seats, when at the same time it would have a (significant) range advantage . . .
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
User avatar
WROORD
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:32 pm

As it was said above take the B757 and the best features of B787 and you have a nice new jet. No reason to call it 797 757-Max would be sufficient.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:27 pm

Assuming Boeing is shooting for a 2025ish launch...what/when would the next step be? When do we get to see what this airplane (797, 757-MAX, 737-MAX666) is going to look like?
 
airzona11
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:30 pm

keesje wrote:
I agree the A330-800 wouldn't compete well against a brand new 797. The -200 / -800 are relatively heavy shrinks. The -200's sold just 700. It would be heavy compared to a 797 and only be considered by airlines that have >4500NM routes in their system and/or make money using standard cargo containers/ pallets on their flights... 700?


Yet Airbus doesn't look to be committing to this no brainer plane. The NMA /MoM/797/A360 whatever it be, the whole point is to efficiently attack planes in this size market. 767s make great money hauling cargo at airlines also flying A330s 777s 787s etc, and have since they started flying. Not sure that cargo factor is relevant.
 
User avatar
NYCRuss
Posts: 195
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:54 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:09 pm

Passedv1 wrote:
Assuming Boeing is shooting for a 2025ish launch...what/when would the next step be? When do we get to see what this airplane (797, 757-MAX, 737-MAX666) is going to look like?


The program launch might be next year. I imagine we'll see some mockup a then. It won't be anything like a 757, 737, or any other single aisle airplane.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:12 pm

airzona11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I agree the A330-800 wouldn't compete well against a brand new 797. The -200 / -800 are relatively heavy shrinks. The -200's sold just 700. It would be heavy compared to a 797 and only be considered by airlines that have >4500NM routes in their system and/or make money using standard cargo containers/ pallets on their flights... 700?


Yet Airbus doesn't look to be committing to this no brainer plane. The NMA /MoM/797/A360 whatever it be, the whole point is to efficiently attack planes in this size market. 767s make great money hauling cargo at airlines also flying A330s 777s 787s etc, and have since they started flying. Not sure that cargo factor is relevant.


The A330-800 has been on sale for over three years and only has 6 orders, so that likely means that there is plenty of opportunity for a lighter weight 797 to attract orders for its larger highest capacity version.
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:21 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
scotron11 wrote:
Walsh at IAG says the NMA could be too late to market. IAG is taking delivery in 2019 of the A321LR for EI, and could be deployed to other carriers in the group.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-441667/


For IAG, it might be too late to market. That doesn't mean that the "NMA" is overall too late to market. Certainly Airbus has captured a lot of that space already but there will be carriers who will be turning over fleets in the 2025-2035 period and they will need something more capable/modern than the NEO or MAX.


IAG isn't the only one out there that has a MoM fleet problem in the near future, though. Lots of venerable old 757s, 767s, and A330s are out there and getting old enough that they're not going to be reliable enough in 5 years to be flying daily longhaul passenger service. Some airlines are going to feel this pinch more acutely than others at first, but what they do is going to have a big effect on the potential size of the market whenever the 797 launches. AA in particular was mentioned upthread; if it decides that the LAA 763s and LUS 332s aren't going to hang around long enough for a 797, then does the exact mix of A321LRs/A330neos/B-787s it chooses to replace those planes matter? Not for the 797 program, not nearly as much as the fact that they will have just bought new aircraft, and won't be back in that market for another 10-20 years. And again, IAG and AA are not the only companies out there coming up on these hard deadlines.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am

airzona11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I agree the A330-800 wouldn't compete well against a brand new 797. The -200 / -800 are relatively heavy shrinks. The -200's sold just 700. It would be heavy compared to a 797 and only be considered by airlines that have >4500NM routes in their system and/or make money using standard cargo containers/ pallets on their flights... 700?


Yet Airbus doesn't look to be committing to this no brainer plane. The NMA /MoM/797/A360 whatever it be, the whole point is to efficiently attack planes in this size market. 767s make great money hauling cargo at airlines also flying A330s 777s 787s etc, and have since they started flying. Not sure that cargo factor is relevant.


If you'll pardon me saying it, the thread title not withstanding, both Boeing and Airbus seem to be extraordinarily slow in committing to the "no-brainer" MOM segment aircraft. We've been talking about this for a LONG time.

I heard an argument earlier that the design of the plane is mainly based on payload.
But this is not true.
It based on capacity, which is something different, AND range.

The analyses I've seen presented suggest that the 220-250 figure for pax is not in the same density LCC configuration as a narrowbody.
This implies a bigger (thus heavier) cabin.
A widebody configuration also seems to be the default now, i.e. 2 aisles.
A 7-seater 2-aisle widebody needs 25% more width to hold 15% more seats. 2 aisles means size.
Which suggests that Flipdewaf's figures from the Stamford model (or whatever it was) for the fuselage weight of the widebody being 13% heavier are in the ballpark.
And Range.
Range means fuel, which means weight, which means wing area, LG mass, engine size etc.

Bear in mind there are also some hard points that get exceeded, like code C wingspan, and single axle bogies on the MLG.
These also add weight.

For all of these reasons I'm still struggling a bit with MOM.
It won't just have to compete with a MOM equivalent from Airbus, but also existing narrowbodys and widebodys from either manufacturer.

5 500Nm range?
True, today's narrowbodys won't do that.
But it implies a max payload range down around 3 000nm.
I.e. long before its max range, the 787's of this world will be hauling much more payload, which may justify the "abuse"

Short sectors?
The code C narrowbodys with single axle bogies, which share commonality with tens of thousands of their siblings, own the space here.
5 500Nm range widebody will struggle against these IMO, whatever the technology.
Not only that, but the shorter the sector, the more frequency comes into play.
Average narrowbody seat counts are rising, but they are still comfortably in the A320/737-8 category.
I wonder how many MOM fans have pointed out that A321 sales are still only 28% of A320 sales?

None of the above is meant to imply that I don't think MOM will happen.
But the amount of noise from Boeing over the last 3 years or more, vs actual signal suggests to me that they are still very much trying to work out how to make the business case for this plane close.

This will be interesting to watch.

Rgds
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:27 am

Those who are saying the A322 would have an empty weight higher than the MOM are drawing a long bow.

Who says the MOM needs to have 4500+nm range?

The main market for this aircraft will be short thick routes NOT long thin routes. Airbus could do a simple stretch exchanging range for payload.

The A321LR NEO got a significant max takeoff weight boost over the previous A321. This was to allow for the three ACTs that weigh 600kg each just for the tanks and then 6000 litres of extra fuel.

With the ACTs removed that's 6000kg of weight saved. That would easily allow for a 5 metre stretch plus the extra passengers. The A321 has higher tail clearance so a 4-5m stretch puts it on par with the 737-9 in terms of rotation angle.

No extra thrust would be needed as the aircraft would weigh the same as a fully loaded A321LR.

The only downside would be that the A322 would have shorter range. Probably around 3000nm give or take 100nm.

This would make a great two punch combo.

1) A321LR for long range with 200-220 seats to travel 4000nm transatlantic

2) A322 with 230-250 seats to travel 3000nm, east coast to west coast of the US and throughout Asia.

This is the A322 Boeing has to plan against. This would result in the best short ranged CASM of any aircraft flying.

Airbus will not make a A322 with a 30% bigher wing with enough fuel for 5000nm range. That would need a 130T maximum takeoff weight. This would result in a higher weight per passenger than all members of the A320 and 737 families. Even on a 3500-4000nm flight you'd be better off using a A321LR as it would have better CASM and RASM.

The only flights where such a A322 would be most efficient would be between 4000-5000nm. As only a heavy widebody can fly that distance. What a tiny window. To develop a bigger wing and new landing gear would cost billions for such a niche aircraft. A simple stretch would cost a fraction of that and would result in excellent CASM on all routes below 3000nm. Airlines will upsize most of their A321 fleets to the new A322. As 99% of A321's are currently flying routes under 3000nm.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:39 am

Stitch wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
My personal opinion is that the demand for premium cabin products only softens if the mission range is under 6 hours (2,500 nm real-world). So, to rationalize a unique cabin layout from the 787 or 737 family, the MOM would be range-limited to missions such as US transcon. I think then you could justify a 225-275 seat aircraft that slots between the A320/737 and 787.


I am more inclined to think that the MoM might be very well designed for six-to-eight hour missions for the reasons you put forward. Because with a modern long-haul (12 hour or more) two or three class configuration, 240-270 seats is what a 787 or A330 would offer.

Moving to something closer to 6-8 hours would mean you could get away with non-lie-flat seating for Business Class and the premium cabins would be smaller, so the bulk of seats would be Economy so the amount of floorspace you would need to accommodate 240-270 total seats would be less.


That is the point where we lack information imho. 240 seats is a A321 in sardine can configuration as well as a premium heavy 787-8. If you reduce the standard of the premium product, you are reducing the amount of space needed per seat, which could favour the single aisle solution. If you do not reduce the standard of the premium configuration, you need a certain minimum range because you need an average flight length that warrants such a configuration. At the moment we can only guess which decisions Boeing will make, but it helps to rule out certain ideas, like a widebody with a premium heavy cabin and less than 3500nm range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:52 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
keesje wrote:
I agree the A330-800 wouldn't compete well against a brand new 797. The -200 / -800 are relatively heavy shrinks. The -200's sold just 700. It would be heavy compared to a 797 and only be considered by airlines that have >4500NM routes in their system and/or make money using standard cargo containers/ pallets on their flights... 700?


Yet Airbus doesn't look to be committing to this no brainer plane. The NMA /MoM/797/A360 whatever it be, the whole point is to efficiently attack planes in this size market. 767s make great money hauling cargo at airlines also flying A330s 777s 787s etc, and have since they started flying. Not sure that cargo factor is relevant.


The A330-800 has been on sale for over three years and only has 6 orders, so that likely means that there is plenty of opportunity for a lighter weight 797 to attract orders for its larger highest capacity version.


The A338 suffers from the fact that the trip cost increase of a A339 is marginal and the A339 now has enough range to cover most routes. But the A330 offers some interesting pointers for the possible MoM. The A333 always had the better CASM over the A332, but still the A332 sold better when the A333 offered less range than today. So it seems airlines requite a certain minimum range before they find a product of that size interesting.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10102
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:53 am

astuteman wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:


Fully agree with your observations. A EGHW variants of an aircraft often foregoes a capacity-range exchange. The A321 LR makes possible a simple stretch. Regardless of a capacity driven A322 development, Airbus has a payload - range hole gab for medium routes.

The A330 did well in this role, specially in Asia. If Boeing can come up with a better optimized design filling up the segment left open by the eighties 767, A300/A310 and 757 the A330 will no longer be competitive in this segment. The A321LR is a great aircraft but in the MoM role it has significant weakspots too. Those are forgiven by lack of competition.
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1369195

Apart from a stretch " A322" there might be a business case for a bigger NB addressing market needs / A321LR weakspots. It will require a new wing etc. to offer the range/ capacity / speed needed for longer flights. If it would be called A320 series is questionable IMO. When the A300 got a new wing / more range they changed the name.

As said everybody focussing on the medium range requirements would almost forget short range is where 200-250 seaters tend to be used most. A 250-300 seat <2000NM aircraft unbeatable on efficiency could be a next decade priority for both Airbus & Boeing. Both have been issuing patents.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:48 am

Astuteman is (as usual) spot on in his questions. And RJMAZ's presumption that the plane is for short thick routes is in my mind an indication of another issue -- exactly for what market do you optimise this plane for? And is *that* market sufficient, commercially, for all the R&D?

To me, this all still sounds a lot like "we want widebody with narrowbody economics", and I have two problems with that. One, it may not be in the manufacturers' interest to make that happen, because it will cannibalise too much of other products. And second, it may not be possible.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:50 am

Well they are down to comparing it with the economics of a 737NG (I believe CASM most likely), which seems doable.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:26 pm

AirlineCritic wrote:
To me, this all still sounds a lot like "we want widebody with narrowbody economics", and I have two problems with that. One, it may not be in the manufacturers' interest to make that happen, because it will cannibalise too much of other products. And second, it may not be possible.

The economics has less to do with the size of the aircraft but more to do with the range of the aircraft.

It is impossible for a widebody to have narrowbody economics if the widebody can fly more than 50% further. All that extra structure to support the fuel needed for the extra range. Even if the engines are half a generation newer and the thing is fully carbon its still not possible.

If the widebody has a similar max range to a narrowbody then it would be easy to make it have similar trip costs per passenger. Great for connecting two busy airports and reducing the number of flights.
 
parapente
Posts: 1857
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:27 pm

A lot of very good comments here.To me they all show just how hard it is to square the circle of this New 'Midrange'Aircaft is.Clearly Boeing 'think' they have and I will be very interested to see what it is.So much depends on what 'midrange' actually means.How many pax/class?How much cargo etc.There are a lot of huge variables in there,which massively effect what type of aircraft it will (or might) be.

In the short term Airbus' path is (IMHO) far clearer.It is to bust a gut to get every additional mile they can out of the 'LR'.


Whether that means second generation blended winglets and a carbon monolithic wing box section.If they can-they should as it closes any gap Boeing are looking at without resorting to a new plane and an 8 year wait.

As above ,yes it might well be possible to create a 'simple stretch' A322 trading capacity for range (a sort of mini 753).Perhaps 250 Y seats at 29" pitch.But it would decimate range (sub 3knm) and it appears that it is this extra (mid) range that is getting customers excited (even if on paper the range is sufficient for many routes).

For me the 797 is looking more and more like an ultra modern 767
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2488
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:49 pm

parapente wrote:
A lot of very good comments here.To me they all show just how hard it is to square the circle of this New 'Midrange'Aircaft is.Clearly Boeing 'think' they have and I will be very interested to see what it is.So much depends on what 'midrange' actually means.How many pax/class?How much cargo etc.There are a lot of huge variables in there,which massively effect what type of aircraft it will (or might) be.

In the short term Airbus' path is (IMHO) far clearer.It is to bust a gut to get every additional mile they can out of the 'LR'.


Whether that means second generation blended winglets and a carbon monolithic wing box section.If they can-they should as it closes any gap Boeing are looking at without resorting to a new plane and an 8 year wait.

As above ,yes it might well be possible to create a 'simple stretch' A322 trading capacity for range (a sort of mini 753).Perhaps 250 Y seats at 29" pitch.But it would decimate range (sub 3knm) and it appears that it is this extra (mid) range that is getting customers excited (even if on paper the range is sufficient for many routes).

For me the 797 is looking more and more like an ultra modern 767


I agree with you!! The B797 is going to be a digital Fly by Wire B767 between the -200 and the -300 with capability to stretch to the -400 capacity. More than likely NOT composite but Hi Tech Aluminum. Suitable for Mainland-Hawaii or USA-Europe.
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:03 pm

Like others, I cant understand the quote function, especially if I just want to quote the previous additional comment, and not the long multiple quote that it contains

Stirfry51 wrote: I agree with you!! The B797 is going to be a digital Fly by Wire B767 between the -200 and the -300 with capability to stretch to the -400 capacity. More than likely NOT composite but Hi Tech Aluminum. Suitable for Mainland-Hawaii or USA-Europe.

I would like to understand how much the aircraft doing what you claim will cost, and how that cost might compare to the largest single aisle and cheapest double aisle aircraft. I just wonder if there is enough wiggle room in there for a business to do business!
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 1911
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:38 pm

seahawk wrote:
Well they are down to comparing it with the economics of a 737NG (I believe CASM most likely), which seems doable.
If by comparing to an NG you mean that the CASM falls broadly in line with an NG then Boeing are going to go nowhere with an MOM of that ability. Why would an airline go for something that is more costly to both buy and operate than what is currently on the market?

Surely this is the same problem that the A380 currently faces?

Fred
Image
 
astuteman
Posts: 6598
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:28 pm

parapente wrote:
For me the 797 is looking more and more like an ultra modern 767


And there's the difficulty I'm having in one sentence.

If that really, really was the answer, then that is surely what the 787 would have been when it was launched.
But airlines turned their backs on that and Boeing ended up turning it into something that looked much more like an ultra-modern A330....

I've no "skin" in this by the way. If Boeing can make it work and turn it into a big seller - great! Another exciting new aircraft for us.
I'm not "feeling" it at the moment.
Here's hoping.

Rgds
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:39 pm

astuteman wrote:
parapente wrote:
For me the 797 is looking more and more like an ultra modern 767


And there's the difficulty I'm having in one sentence. If that really, really was the answer, then that is surely what the 787 would have been when it was launched.


It was what the 7E7 was when first dimensioned and presented to potential customers, but as you noted, the customers told Boeing to make it A330/A340/777-sized and capable.

But now that the airlines have that - in spades, no less, thanks to not just the 787, but also the A330neo, the A350 and the 777X - perhaps they are now more receptive to what the original 7E7 was envisioned as? There were over 600 passenger 767s and over 200 passenger A300s in operation two years ago so the category still appears to have life left in it.
Last edited by Stitch on Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5479
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:40 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Well they are down to comparing it with the economics of a 737NG (I believe CASM most likely), which seems doable.
If by comparing to an NG you mean that the CASM falls broadly in line with an NG then Boeing are going to go nowhere with an MOM of that ability. Why would an airline go for something that is more costly to both buy and operate than what is currently on the market?

Surely this is the same problem that the A380 currently faces?

Fred


Well in Paris the basic points I noted from Boeing´s statements:

about 20% more seats than a 757-200
More range than a 757-200WL (comfortable TATL all year round)
Operating costs of a 737 (a current single aisle)
 
User avatar
sassiciai
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:26 pm

Re: Boeing officially forms program office to flesh out 797 plans

Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:08 pm

This thread has been off-thread in all but a handful of posts. This is about the PO that Boeing has setup for the next possible development, the so-called B797

There have been so many earlier threads about the MOM, and this, unfortunately, has just become the latest. It offers little (or nothing) new that the earlier ones had, with more or less the same gang bringing up more or less the same opinions

I sorely miss contributions from people in the know of what Program Offices have done in the past at Boeing. If they never had such a beast, could someone explain why the need for one now! Is this a lesson from the B787 program?

Surely a PO has been established to ensure that the B787 fiasco does not happen again, but its mission is not to define the bird, but to define how the bird will be built and how its build will be planned, monitored, controlled and reported. What sort of earned-value mechanism might this PO propose to measure real progress this time round?

This thread fails so far to address those issues
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos