O530CarrisPT wrote:

Well, I still think that the 797 will exist one way or other (either as the NMA or a combination between the NMA and the NSA, replacing the 737 in the way). There's opportunities for both Airbus and Boeing in the 180-240 seat (and Boeing likely won't wait such amount of time to compete with Airbus's proposals).
And rewinging the A321 and morphing it into a A322 won't happen too soon unlike you claim. It may take several years for Airbus having a proper reaction to Boeing's NMA if they decided to do so. And the A321LR is a good aircraft, although it may likely have problems to compete with Boeing's NMA when it is launched.

However, with the decision of delaying the 797 decision at least for a year, the likelihood of a NMA by Boeing may be considerably lower. There's possibilities for both Airbus and Boeing in the sector, but finding the right combination may be tricky. Is likely that Boeing may merge the NMA program with a potential 737 replacement, but it may took a considerable amount of time to come with something.

AirlineCritic wrote:

The delay is not surprising, but is a confirmation of the difficulties Boeing is facing in finding the right combination of market segment, tech, and economics that make sense for them and their customers.

Exactly. I admit that Boeing is finding difficulties in finding the perfect combination for the NMA, since the Middle of the Market is a large market consisting of both longer single aisles and smaller widebodies. Therefore, an realistic approach from Boeing for this market must be required in order to come with a decent product.

planecane wrote:

I can guarantee you the 797 will exist. Whether it is the currently envisioned MOM or morphs into a 737 replacement/A320 family competitor developed by the Boeing/Embraer JV is anybody's guess. The only reason for Boeing to enter that JV is to get engineering and production resources for a new program. They could have co-marketed the E2 family with a simple agreement.

Fantasies are a good thing, as long as your stock doesn't fall. As of right now, Boeing hasn't launched the project. If they could, they would. But they are getting a major reality check. Nobody wants a new type. Neither a 737 replacement, nor a new "MOM", nor ANYTHING. Evolution is the only way to go. And Boeing has nothing to evolve. All their planes are either old, or were exceedingly expensive to develop.

As for Embraer JV (which, may I remind you, doesn't even exist yet!), I don't think even Mullenburg knows why they jumped into it. Building small regional jets is a great expertise, but Boeing wants them to develop a much larger airliner, and that's a whole different story. They stepped on that rake once already when they thought companies like Vaught, Allenia and Fuji would be able to develop things they'd been building for decades. It backfired so hard that Boeing is still licking their wounds 10 years later. Boeing has just had a 4-billion-dollar knee-jerk reaction to Airbus-BBD alliance. And they have NO idea what they bought and what they're going to do with it. The "unboxing video" at Boeing Board would be a fun show. But again, I'm not a person to ruin someone's hope, so you can keep your dreams alive!

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Well, I still think that the 797 will exist one way or other (either as the NMA or a combination between the NMA and the NSA, replacing the 737 in the way). There's opportunities for both Airbus and Boeing in the 180-240 seat (and Boeing likely won't wait such amount of time to compete with Airbus's proposals).
And rewinging the A321 and morphing it into a A322 won't happen too soon unlike you claim. It may take several years for Airbus having a proper reaction to Boeing's NMA if they decided to do so. And the A321LR is a good aircraft, although it may likely have problems to compete with Boeing's NMA when it is launched.

Well, of course it will exist! One way or the other. Problem is, will Boeing live long enough, and what kind of aircraft will it be? It's similar to saying, there will be more effective automobile engines one way or the other. My point is very different. Boeing made a very loud announcement that they are starting the 797 program as the competitor to A320 program (they used different wording of course, something like "another game-changer"). Now they are slowly realizing that it's not going to happen.

As for stretching the A321, of course it's not easy. And of course, it'll take a few years. BUT! Airbus will have the fuselage and several well tested major components like landing gear, wings, properly configured (and, again, tested) electronic systems, etc. Boeing will have to start literally from scratch. 737 fuselage dates back to 707 and won't work in any shape or form in the new aircraft. Most system were ad-hocs shoe-horned into a frame flight-tested by Wright-brothers. What I'm trying to convey is, Boeing will need to spend a lot more time and money to develop their entry into this segment than Airbus. But yes, if Boeing survives the next 10 years, 797, by all mean, will exist.

I look forward to the wonderful sight of the first 797 being wheeled out of the factory.
(hopefully in better condition than the first 787 )
But I'm not holding my breath.

Boeing have been remarkably up front about their market research, and engineering ideas.

Ominously, Airbus have been surprisingly low key. Their 320/330 NEO and A350 products
are out there now and all that design/manufacturing expertise is presumably fully available.
It seems to me to be unwise to think that they might just fiddle around with say, an A322.
They might well have a real NMA of their own, quietly cooking. In what we all think will be
a critical market segment into the future that would be wise. Watch that space !

XT6Wagon wrote:

and thats with many of the improvements already being worked on in the A320NG program which had already put new interiors and other bits into the A320 prior to the A320NEO. Definitely time saved there compared to starting fresh on the program. The winglets alone were a huge time and resource sink since they had issues finding something worth putting on.

NEO announcement to EIS was paced by the engines.
Everything else was more or less unrelated or preparatory
( fiddling with the wing to make the winglets weight neutral,
the sharklets themselves ... )
The way things developed 5 years on the engine side wasn't enough either.
( and we previously could observe similar unrushability on the 787 engines. )

BREECH wrote:

Well, of course it will exist! One way or the other. Problem is, will Boeing live long enough, and what kind of aircraft will it be? It's similar to saying, there will be more effective automobile engines one way or the other. My point is very different. Boeing made a very loud announcement that they are starting the 797 program as the competitor to A320 program (they used different wording of course, something like "another game-changer"). Now they are slowly realizing that it's not going to happen.

I admit that Boeing has difficulties to find a viable market combination for the Boeing's NMA, and there's the likelihood that the NMA may not be what is expected (like the 797 becoming an NSA with also an approach to the Middle of the Market), as I stated in a post which revised and corrected my previous post which you quoted (note that I quoted you before I read that the 797 decision got delayed):

However, with the decision of delaying the 797 decision at least for a year, the likelihood of a NMA by Boeing may be considerably lower. There's possibilities for both Airbus and Boeing in the sector, but finding the right combination may be tricky. Is likely that Boeing may merge the NMA program with a potential 737 replacement, but it may took a considerable amount of time to come with something.

As Keesje said, the current situation of Boeing's narrowbody offer is somewhat dire (even with the 737 MAX 10, because of Airbus's A321LR's being somewhat closer to a 757 replacement). Therefore, there's the likelihood of Boeing getting the NMA postponed or folded into a 737 replacement, although much later than a rewing of Airbus's A321.

JayinKitsap wrote:

.......So the 737 is close to par with the A320 in the airlines preference but the A320 is going to slaughter new clean sheet designs.

Can't you just leave that guy alone to live his fantasy and his own twisted definition of facts?

keesje wrote:

Boeing seems to delay a 797 decision at least a year.

The actual quote says:

Boeing must decide whether it will make a New Mid-Market Airplane (NMA) by the end of 2019 if it's to deliver jets to airlines by 2025, Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Kevin McAllister said.

McAllister said Boeing has decided to vet the business plan for the potential new jet, which some call the 797, more rigorously than it did in the past.

“We’re using time more intelligently on this NMA airplane than maybe we would have in the past, to really do a rigorous vetting of the airplane, the market, and the production system,” he said.

Yet he doesn't say the company is shifting resources to other efforts, etc. Instead he says they're doing a really rigorous vetting.

On post 1 of page 1 of this thread you seem to hate I wrote "it really does have a tight window to hit in terms of price/performance" and this is still true.

If the decision is later than some aviation media people said it would be so a more rigorous vetting can be done, so be it.

The 787 showed that haste makes waste.

seahawk wrote:

And with the A338 practically dead the 787-8 has no competition and would be the plane closest in size for 763/764 replacements.

But that does not mean the 787-8 will be the de facto replacement, however. Airlines could trade capacity for frequency (multiple 73X/A321) or upgauge capacity (A339/789) depending on the mission they're currently being used on. NMA would strengthen Boeing's hand in the former.

keesje wrote:

Maybe Boeing has signals Airbus will launch a smart wing. There are signals. If the 737 is really to soldier on until 2030, things could get pretty ugly. They are already.

Google Translate tells me "heilbot" is the Dutch word for the "halibut" fish, but I sometimes wonder if "keesje" is a slang version.

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

Maybe Boeing has signals Airbus will launch a smart wing. There are signals. If the 737 is really to soldier on until 2030, things could get pretty ugly. They are already.

Google Translate tells me "heilbot" is the Dutch word for the "halibut" fish, but I sometimes wonder if "keesje" is a slang version.

I think a combined message on how strong the NMA segment is and delaying the decision, is keeping Boeing marketing department up at night.

People will ask why tomorrow & the "deliberate decision" and "talking to 60 airline" "fully understanding airline needs" statements lost their power over the years.

https://247wallst.com/aerospace-defense/2018/07/15/uk-airshow-all-about-boeing-airbus-sales/

Just a general question really.Boeing says that they must make a decision by EO 2019 to be delivering the new planes by 2025.
So 2020 - 2025.Obviously that an absolute max of 5 years to EIS .Is that possible for a brand new aircaft ?? ( iand it's 'new' in every possible way).
Is there a recent example of this speed of turnaround?I always thought it required more time than this.

Well this is the most detailed look I've seen about what Boeing said pre -Farnsborough

Highlights:
2 jet family serving 220-270 pax
twin aisle
range - Chicago to mid Europe
need build costs such that Boeing can profitability sell the 797 for around $70 million

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-r ... 00085.html

As I see it: tight 8 abreast for trips under 5 hours, 7 abreast for those over, or as Y+, and 2-2-2- for American style first class. A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture. The former small twin will be able to charge a small but significant higher price. That 8 abreast with a modestly generous pitch (ala WN) would be fairly comfortable for a 5 hour flight. The $64K, can it be built and fly for the price?

keesje wrote:

I think a combined message on how strong the NMA segment is and delaying the decision, is keeping Boeing marketing department up at night.

People will ask why tomorrow & the "deliberate decision" and "talking to 60 airline" "fully understanding airline needs" statements lost their power over the years.

All of this is consistent with it being a difficult decision to make.

Demand is strong IF you can hit price, performance and delivery targets.

The key word is IF.

bob75013 wrote:

Well this is the most detailed look I've seen about what Boeing said pre -Farnsborough

Highlights:
2 jet family serving 220-270 pax
twin aisle
range - Chicago to mid Europe
need build costs such that Boeing can profitability sell the 797 for around $70 million

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-r ... 00085.html

Interesting article. It suggests to me at least that the "rigorous vetting" is happening on the business side of the program:

The 797 would complement another Boeing initiative to take more work in-house, from luxury seats to auxiliary power units. Doing so gives Boeing rights to sell the spare parts for those components over a jet’s 30-year commercial life. Deal’s team has a laser focus on growth after Muilenburg launched the division last year with marching orders to triple revenue to $50 billion over a decade.

“To design an aircraft for life-cycle management, means you fundamentally restructure the content from your suppliers to give you more after-market royalties,” said Kevin Michaels, managing director, AeroDynamic Advisory, a consultant in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Restructuring the traditional arrangements and getting the vendors to agree to them probably takes a lot more time than just rolling with the traditional agreements.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture.

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/11/25/ten-abreast-economy-isnt-upgrade-no-matter-spin/

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture.

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/11/25/ten-abreast-economy-isnt-upgrade-no-matter-spin/

But we're not discussing a 10 abreast 777 here, are we.

I thought we are discussing the 797

bob75013 wrote:

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture.

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/11/25/ten-abreast-economy-isnt-upgrade-no-matter-spin/

But we're not discussing a 10 abreast 777 here, are we.

I thought we are discussing the 797

We are discussing the opinion that above 200 seats a single aisle approaches torture, aren’t we?

I illustrate it has to do with seat / aisle dimension, that often is a result of cabin width.

keesje wrote:

bob75013 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/11/25/ten-abreast-economy-isnt-upgrade-no-matter-spin/

But we're not discussing a 10 abreast 777 here, are we.

I thought we are discussing the 797

We are discussing the opinion that above 200 seats a single aisle approaches torture, aren’t we?

I illustrate it has to do with seat / aisle dimension, that often is a result of cabin width.

I suspect that a 200+ seat single aisle will cause significantly more boarding/exiting torture than the rumored twin aisle 797.

or f you want to talk about real deplaning torture, how about 45 minutes to exit an A380?

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture.

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

High profile aviation guy like you can't swing business or first class?

neutrino wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

.......So the 737 is close to par with the A320 in the airlines preference but the A320 is going to slaughter new clean sheet designs.

Can't you just leave that guy alone to live his fantasy and his own twisted definition of facts?

I think that would be a good advice, in my opinion. The situation of the Boeing narrowbody can be somewhat dire but not as much dire than was before the entry of the 737 MAX 10. In fact, the 737 MAX 10 balanced the things in favour of Boeing a little bit.

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A single aisle over 200 passengers begins to be the definition of torture.

Give me a wide A321 seat / armrest / aisle with enough knee room over the cramped 10 abreast 777 economy seat / aisle / armrest I had yesterday..

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/11/25/ten-abreast-economy-isnt-upgrade-no-matter-spin/

I'd prefer a mini-widebody like the A310 or 767-200 instead of a 200-seater narrowbody. They at least have decent seat widths at 8 or 7 abreast while carrying 200+ passengers and retaining important widebody economics (including the possibility of carrying a considerable amount of cargo).
I'd prefer a mini-widebody NMA, although it won't be able to get into the NSA territory (and subsequently being a 737 replacement) as a single aisle NMA can.

BREECH wrote:

planecane wrote:

I can guarantee you the 797 will exist. Whether it is the currently envisioned MOM or morphs into a 737 replacement/A320 family competitor developed by the Boeing/Embraer JV is anybody's guess. The only reason for Boeing to enter that JV is to get engineering and production resources for a new program. They could have co-marketed the E2 family with a simple agreement.

Fantasies are a good thing, as long as your stock doesn't fall. As of right now, Boeing hasn't launched the project. If they could, they would. But they are getting a major reality check. Nobody wants a new type. Neither a 737 replacement, nor a new "MOM", nor ANYTHING. Evolution is the only way to go. And Boeing has nothing to evolve. All their planes are either old, or were exceedingly expensive to develop.

As for Embraer JV (which, may I remind you, doesn't even exist yet!), I don't think even Mullenburg knows why they jumped into it. Building small regional jets is a great expertise, but Boeing wants them to develop a much larger airliner, and that's a whole different story. They stepped on that rake once already when they thought companies like Vaught, Allenia and Fuji would be able to develop things they'd been building for decades. It backfired so hard that Boeing is still licking their wounds 10 years later. Boeing has just had a 4-billion-dollar knee-jerk reaction to Airbus-BBD alliance. And they have NO idea what they bought and what they're going to do with it. The "unboxing video" at Boeing Board would be a fun show. But again, I'm not a person to ruin someone's hope, so you can keep your dreams alive!

Ok. You've convinced me. Airbus is the greatest aircraft manufacturer to ever exist. Nobody wants a new plane but they want the C-Series because since Airbus named it the A220 nobody knows it is a new design. They also don't know the 787 or A350 are new designs. That's why the A330NEO and 777X are winning all the widebody orders.

Boeing's board of directors just threw $4 billion at a JV without any thought or strategy. Boeing will be out of business in 10 years.

keesje wrote:

Boeing seems to delay a 797 decision at least a year. That (major) rumour / news is so unwelcome, it was rerouted to this contain & burry all thread twice.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1399075

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1399015&p=20557009

Dollars to donuts Boeing looked at the engine manufacturer RFP that was due a couple of weeks ago, and has decided that the engine they want most isn't far enough along in development for them to make a final decision yet. If they can wait until the end of next year to make a decision on engines while still hitting 2025 EIS, presumably while still developing the parts of the aircraft that aren't dependent on engine choice, the smart money is to do so.

Stitch wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And with the A338 practically dead the 787-8 has no competition and would be the plane closest in size for 763/764 replacements.

But that does not mean the 787-8 will be the de facto replacement, however. Airlines could trade capacity for frequency (multiple 73X/A321) or upgauge capacity (A339/789) depending on the mission they're currently being used on. NMA would strengthen Boeing's hand in the former.

But is that NMA not awfully close to the 787 from what we hear.

Range from ORD to mid-Europe so for example FRA - which is ~4400nm and we should guess that it will do this without a significant payload penalty. This is just 1000nm less than what a 787-8 could do with a full payload. Sure the payload would be around 40t less, but those 40t can be used to create revenue on a 787-8 as it has free belly space with a 250 seats 2 class configuration. (or you could add more seats)

planecane wrote:

BREECH wrote:

planecane wrote:

I can guarantee you the 797 will exist. Whether it is the currently envisioned MOM or morphs into a 737 replacement/A320 family competitor developed by the Boeing/Embraer JV is anybody's guess. The only reason for Boeing to enter that JV is to get engineering and production resources for a new program. They could have co-marketed the E2 family with a simple agreement.

Fantasies are a good thing, as long as your stock doesn't fall. As of right now, Boeing hasn't launched the project. If they could, they would. But they are getting a major reality check. Nobody wants a new type. Neither a 737 replacement, nor a new "MOM", nor ANYTHING. Evolution is the only way to go. And Boeing has nothing to evolve. All their planes are either old, or were exceedingly expensive to develop.

As for Embraer JV (which, may I remind you, doesn't even exist yet!), I don't think even Mullenburg knows why they jumped into it. Building small regional jets is a great expertise, but Boeing wants them to develop a much larger airliner, and that's a whole different story. They stepped on that rake once already when they thought companies like Vaught, Allenia and Fuji would be able to develop things they'd been building for decades. It backfired so hard that Boeing is still licking their wounds 10 years later. Boeing has just had a 4-billion-dollar knee-jerk reaction to Airbus-BBD alliance. And they have NO idea what they bought and what they're going to do with it. The "unboxing video" at Boeing Board would be a fun show. But again, I'm not a person to ruin someone's hope, so you can keep your dreams alive!

Ok. You've convinced me. Airbus is the greatest aircraft manufacturer to ever exist. Nobody wants a new plane but they want the C-Series because since Airbus named it the A220 nobody knows it is a new design. They also don't know the 787 or A350 are new designs. That's why the A330NEO and 777X are winning all the widebody orders.

Boeing's board of directors just threw $4 billion at a JV without any thought or strategy. Boeing will be out of business in 10 years.

It’s ok. As he mentioned the JV doesn’t exist yet. The Boeing Board will read his posts and scrap the idea. He obviously has much better insight than Boeing does.

seahawk wrote:

But is that NMA not awfully close to the 787 from what we hear.

People hear "240 to 270 seats in two classes" and presume a Business Class with 75" pitch like on long-haul widebodies. I expect Boeing is instead using their standard OEM configuration which is domestic US3 First Class at 38". The closest analog we have to that is ANA's domestic 787-8's where their Premium Class cabin is similar to the US3 domestic First Cabin and those frames seat 335.

seahawk wrote:

Range from ORD to mid-Europe so for example FRA - which is ~4400nm and we should guess that it will do this without a significant payload penalty. This is just 1000nm less than what a 787-8 could do with a full payload. Sure the payload would be around 40t less, but those 40t can be used to create revenue on a 787-8...

A 797-6 would be significantly lighter than a 787-8 and should therefore have significantly lower trip costs and total operating costs. So that 787-8 would need to be able to maximize it's payload advantage to counter the higher TOC. There are probably missions where it will, but there will be missions where the 797 will pencil out as the better option, as well.

keesje wrote:

For years I've been expecting the NMA to shrink into NSA territory.

Maybe Boeing has signals Airbus will launch a smart wing. There are signals.

If the 737 is really to soldier on until 2030, things could get pretty ugly. They are already.

Where to invest most?

We have pretty clear evidence that the NMA is a 220 and 270 2-class configuration widebody. That is not shrinking into NSA territory. You keep trying to flip NMA conversations towards the A321 family, yet it is closer in capacity to all those A330-200s flying around in China. The NMA capacity is very close to the 767-200 and 767-300 and most people on this website discuss the A330 and 767 as competitors more than the A321 and 767 as competitors.

On a side note, why are you so critical of this airplane and spreading false information about it?

viewtopic.php?t=1399015&p=20557009

After I recently flew AA 788 from ORD to DFW, I am very skeptical we will ever see a 797. The 788 is not that much larger than A321. It seems to me now that it would be a lot of wasted money and effort to develop a plane whose dimensions are between an A321 and B788 to address somewhat of a marginal mission profile.

Newbiepilot wrote:

We have pretty clear evidence that the NMA is a 220 and 270 2-class configuration widebody. That is not shrinking into NSA territory. You keep trying to flip NMA conversations towards the A321 family, yet it is closer in capacity to all those A330-200s flying around in China. The NMA capacity is very close to the 767-200 and 767-300 and most people on this website discuss the A330 and 767 as competitors more than the A321 and 767 as competitors.

On a side note, why are you so critical of this airplane and spreading false information about it?

viewtopic.php?t=1399015&p=20557009

What Keesje does is basically flipping the conversations of the NMA towards the A321 or supposed stretched versions of the airplane. But that is not where the NMA will actually be located (it is located in 767 territory). Although it'd be more favourable to make the NMA a single aisle to make it suitable for creating NSA from it, I think that I'd prefer a 7-abreast mini-widebody for the NMA, since it can retain widebody economics which the A321 or any stretch won't have (such as cargo revenue), in my opinion.

PS: When I referred that there's the likelihood that the NMA could be actually a NSA with an approach to the Middle of the Market, I referred that is just possible BUT with a VERY small likelihood (and is more certainly that will not happen).

Stitch wrote:

seahawk wrote:

But is that NMA not awfully close to the 787 from what we hear.

People hear "240 to 270 seats in two classes" and presume a Business Class with 75" pitch like on long-haul widebodies. I expect Boeing is instead using their standard OEM configuration which is domestic US3 First Class at 38". The closest analog we have to that is ANA's domestic 787-8's where their Premium Class cabin is similar to the US3 domestic First Cabin and those frames seat 335.

seahawk wrote:

Range from ORD to mid-Europe so for example FRA - which is ~4400nm and we should guess that it will do this without a significant payload penalty. This is just 1000nm less than what a 787-8 could do with a full payload. Sure the payload would be around 40t less, but those 40t can be used to create revenue on a 787-8...

A 797-6 would be significantly lighter than a 787-8 and should therefore have significantly lower trip costs and total operating costs. So that 787-8 would need to be able to maximize it's payload advantage to counter the higher TOC. There are probably missions where it will, but there will be missions where the 797 will pencil out as the better option, as well.

I am not saying there is no business case, I am wondering what airlines would buy if Boeing does not make the 797s. In the end routes want to be served and people want to fly. And I believe that a lot of the sales of the MoM would go to the 787 if there is no MoM.

In addition I agree with your remarks about the cabin configuration, but for airlines the question would be if customers would accept lesser comfort configurations on 4500nm missions. Today´s 767s are mostly offering a similar product to larger jets.

Stitch wrote:

Google Translate tells me "heilbot" is the Dutch word for the "halibut" fish, but I sometimes wonder if "keesje" is a slang version.

diminutive of Kees. ( male name linked to "Cornelis" )
https://nl.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kees

VS11 wrote:

The 788 is not that much larger than A321.

It's about 70% larger in terms of cabin floor area.

seahawk wrote:

I am not saying there is no business case, I am wondering what airlines would buy if Boeing does not make the 797s. In the end routes want to be served and people want to fly. And I believe that a lot of the sales of the MoM would go to the 787 if there is no MoM.

Based on what ANA have said for regional operations between Japan and China / Korea / Northern Mariana Islands, the 787-8 is some 20% more efficient than the 767-300ER, so that does seem to be a very high bar for NMA to cross and in theory should favor the 787-8 for 767-300ER replacement. Which is probably why NMA has to be so efficient (from a structural and propulsive standpoint) to compete. But that potential efficiency does seem to be something airlines are interested in and Boeing feels they could deliver.

seahawk wrote:

In addition I agree with your remarks about the cabin configuration, but for airlines the question would be if customers would accept lesser comfort configurations on 4500nm missions. Today´s 767s are mostly offering a similar product to larger jets.

Yes, actual airline configurations will vary. Looking at the US3 fleets, while 767-300ERs and 787-8s offer similar overall seat counts with the same product, the 787s tend to have larger Business and much larger Premium Economy cabins. So I could see the 797's offering the same seats as the 787s, but with smaller Business and (much smaller) Premium Economy cabins and used on more leisure-heavy routes where they would mostly be carrying their design payload (passengers and their baggage) whereas the 787s would be running routes with strong cargo yields.

As such, I think Boeing may be tailoring NMA towards the US3 and European LCCs who want a smaller and lighter frame with longer range and I think AKH (A320 style) containers are going to be the standard. In such a scenario, the Asian operators who want serious belly cargo capability will be directed to the 787 family.

I see Boeing pitching NMA as the "next generation 767" designed to fragment TATL traffic today in the same way as the 767 did three decades ago. Keeping the span within ICAO Code D like the 767 will allow the 797 to operate out of smaller gates at smaller airports than the 787 and the lower COC will allow connections from tertiary cities to hubs and secondary cities, bypassing the current intermediate stop (or two) via a regional jet or requiring passengers to drive/train to a larger airport to fly out of.

I expect Airbus is doing the same "TATL fragment" pitching with the A321-200neoLR, which is why NMA would have to offer "narrowbody economics" while also offering more capacity than the A321LR to serve as a "stepping stone" between a narrowbody and a "full-size" widebody like the 787 and A330.

bob75013 wrote:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-r ... 00085.html

The issue I have with this article discussing a potential new a/c is that they list the 767 and 777, would make the issue clear if they remove the 767 and put an check mark beside the 777 which is still available for sale.

Stitch wrote:

VS11 wrote:

The 788 is not that much larger than A321.

It's about 70% larger in terms of cabin floor area.

seahawk wrote:

I am not saying there is no business case, I am wondering what airlines would buy if Boeing does not make the 797s. In the end routes want to be served and people want to fly. And I believe that a lot of the sales of the MoM would go to the 787 if there is no MoM.

Based on what ANA have said for regional operations between Japan and China / Korea / Northern Mariana Islands, the 787-8 is some 20% more efficient than the 767-300ER, so that does seem to be a very high bar for NMA to cross and in theory should favor the 787-8 for 767-300ER replacement. Which is probably why NMA has to be so efficient (from a structural and propulsive standpoint) to compete. But that potential efficiency does seem to be something airlines are interested in and Boeing feels they could deliver.

seahawk wrote:

In addition I agree with your remarks about the cabin configuration, but for airlines the question would be if customers would accept lesser comfort configurations on 4500nm missions. Today´s 767s are mostly offering a similar product to larger jets.

Yes, actual airline configurations will vary. Looking at the US3 fleets, while 767-300ERs and 787-8s offer similar overall seat counts with the same product, the 787s tend to have larger Business and much larger Premium Economy cabins. So I could see the 797's offering the same seats as the 787s, but with smaller Business and (much smaller) Premium Economy cabins and used on more leisure-heavy routes where they would mostly be carrying their design payload (passengers and their baggage) whereas the 787s would be running routes with strong cargo yields.

As such, I think Boeing may be tailoring NMA towards the US3 and European LCCs who want a smaller and lighter frame with longer range and I think AKH (A320 style) containers are going to be the standard. In such a scenario, the Asian operators who want serious belly cargo capability will be directed to the 787 family.

I see Boeing pitching NMA as the "next generation 767" designed to fragment TATL traffic today in the same way as the 767 did three decades ago. Keeping the span within ICAO Code D like the 767 will allow the 797 to operate out of smaller gates at smaller airports than the 787 and the lower COC will allow connections from tertiary cities to hubs and secondary cities, bypassing the current intermediate stop (or two) via a regional jet or requiring passengers to drive/train to a larger airport to fly out of.

I expect Airbus is doing the same "TATL fragment" pitching with the A321-200neoLR, which is why NMA would have to offer "narrowbody economics" while also offering more capacity than the A321LR to serve as a "stepping stone" between a narrowbody and a "full-size" widebody like the 787 and A330.

Yet a A321 will never come close to a 787 in capacity. You can stretch it, you can give it a new wing, but it will never be close. On the other hand a MoM and a 787-8 might be close, especially if you give the 787 more premium seats, which means higher revenue potential. For me the simple question is what would airlines buy if there is MoM. If the clear majority of the money (not the number of frames) goes to Boeing, why do a MoM. One only needs to look up the average route length of a 787 to see that the biggest competitor to the MoM would be their own product, the product that enjoys a clear market domination over the competition. Imho they will drop the MoM when the decline of the A330NEO continues and the 787 reigns supreme in the market segment.

We don’t have to always discuss the NMA in A vs B context. I am very intrigued by what appears to be a design maturing towards launch. I think quite a few observers believe Boeing sold early 787s far too cheaply. Too many incorrect forecasts and assumptions were made regarding production. I think Boeing is trying to address that by pushing much further into the business case to have more definitive information instead of assumptions and also having a much better understanding of what the sales price and production price need to be. I think people forget that the design process can continue before launch. Launch is the point where the airplane is sold and contracts are made so the dollars in the business case really matter. Boeing doesn’t want years of deferred costs piling up again.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

We have pretty clear evidence that the NMA is a 220 and 270 2-class configuration widebody. That is not shrinking into NSA territory. You keep trying to flip NMA conversations towards the A321 family, yet it is closer in capacity to all those A330-200s flying around in China. The NMA capacity is very close to the 767-200 and 767-300 and most people on this website discuss the A330 and 767 as competitors more than the A321 and 767 as competitors.

On a side note, why are you so critical of this airplane and spreading false information about it?

viewtopic.php?t=1399015&p=20557009

What Keesje does is basically flipping the conversations of the NMA towards the A321 or supposed stretched versions of the airplane. But that is not where the NMA will actually be located (it is located in 767 territory). Although it'd be more favourable to make the NMA a single aisle to make it suitable for creating NSA from it, I think that I'd prefer a 7-abreast mini-widebody for the NMA, since it can retain widebody economics which the A321 or any stretch won't have (such as cargo revenue), in my opinion.

PS: When I referred that there's the likelihood that the NMA could be actually a NSA with an approach to the Middle of the Market, I referred that is just possible BUT with a VERY small likelihood (and is more certainly that will not happen).

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

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

parapente wrote:

Just a general question really.Boeing says that they must make a decision by EO 2019 to be delivering the new planes by 2025.
So 2020 - 2025.Obviously that an absolute max of 5 years to EIS .Is that possible for a brand new aircaft ?? ( iand it's 'new' in every possible way).
Is there a recent example of this speed of turnaround?I always thought it required more time than this.

New but based on experience with concepts and methods developed for the 787. Look at previous Boeing projects. The 707 was supposed to be the civilianized version of the KC-135. It turned out customers wanted a cross-section that would enable 6-abreast, so the 707 has a different upper fuselage lobe but shares systems. The 720 was a more optimized and lightened derivative of the 707 for domestic use. The 727 has the same upper fuselage lobe and passenger cabin dimensions as the 707 but smaller lower lobe and shares lots of other components. The 737 shares the same fuselage cross-section as the front half of the 727 plus systems, and engines. The 757 shares the fore and aft fuselage cross-sections of the 727 and interior fittings of the 727 and 737.

The 787 really is Boeing's modern 707 program that will provide the tehnologies and systems for the next several decades and multiple models of Boeing commercial airliners.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

I admit that Boeing has difficulties to find a viable market combination for the Boeing's NMA, and there's the likelihood that the NMA may not be what is expected (like the 797 becoming an NSA with also an approach to the Middle of the Market), as I stated in a post which revised and corrected my previous post which you quoted (note that I quoted you before I read that the 797 decision got delayed):

As Keesje said, the current situation of Boeing's narrowbody offer is somewhat dire (even with the 737 MAX 10, because of Airbus's A321LR's being somewhat closer to a 757 replacement). Therefore, there's the likelihood of Boeing getting the NMA postponed or folded into a 737 replacement, although much later than a rewing of Airbus's A321.

"Boeing has difficulties to find a viable market" is a HUGE understatement of the problem. They simply have noone who is interested in a new type. And they are not alone. Airbus cancelled (or actually never started) the NSR for that simple reason. The customers just told them to re-engine the existing aircraft.

Both companies are in the same catch-22. They sold so many of their planes that nobody wants to have new service facilities, new set of parts, nobody wants to re-train the mechanics, etc. Only Airbus has a newer and more advanced plane, while Boeing has an (come on, honestly!) vintage machine that even their sales people struggle to sell.

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

parapente wrote:

Just a general question really.Boeing says that they must make a decision by EO 2019 to be delivering the new planes by 2025.
So 2020 - 2025.Obviously that an absolute max of 5 years to EIS .Is that possible for a brand new aircaft ?? ( iand it's 'new' in every possible way).
Is there a recent example of this speed of turnaround?I always thought it required more time than this.

With modern CAD systems like Dassault CATIA it's quite possible. Besides, I don't think Boeing has only just started working on it. Maybe they have some technical work already done and tested.

planecane wrote:

Ok. You've convinced me. Airbus is the greatest aircraft manufacturer to ever exist. Nobody wants a new plane but they want the C-Series because since Airbus named it the A220 nobody knows it is a new design. They also don't know the 787 or A350 are new designs. That's why the A330NEO and 777X are winning all the widebody orders.

Boeing's board of directors just threw $4 billion at a JV without any thought or strategy. Boeing will be out of business in 10 years.

Not quite right. I wasn't trying to convince you. The greatest aircraft manufacturer to ever exist is Dassault. I never said anything about CS or A220. I don't think renaming an aircraft gives it any technical or financial advantages, but I'm not too well versed in either of those fields. 787 and A350 and the planes they are replacing are not built in thousands, whereas 737 and A320 are owned in hundreds by some companies. The rest is right. Thank you for being such a supportive chap!

BREECH wrote:

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

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

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

Newbiepilot wrote:

Here are sone statements from relatively objective sources

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagot ... y,amp.html

Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. are among the operators that have signaled their interest in the 797, which is known within Boeing as the NMA -- for new middle-of-market aircraft.

“You’re going to see us participate in Boeing’s middle-of-the-market campaign,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian in a message to employees on the company’s internal website. “I hope that we’re going to be a launch customer on that program as well.”

https://www.google.com/amp/compositesma ... t-797/amp/

Joyce sees the Boeing 797 as an ideal candidate for transcontinental flights as well as some nearby Asian routes, making it a potential replacement for the Airbus A330s.

Speaking at today's briefing for the airline's half-yearly financial results, which saw Qantas turn in a bumper six months with a pre-tax profit of $976 million – a 15% boost over the same period last year – Joyce talked up the Boeing 797 as "a lighter aircraft than some of the widebody, twin-aisles that we have today."

“It has a range that’s designed to fly transcontinental and maybe into South-East Asia so it’s not over-spec'd for the domestic operation."



https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... boeing-797

Thomas Cook Group is a potential buyer of Boeing's tentative middle-of-the-market airliner, Chief Airlines Officer Christoph Debus said. Boeing has proposed to design and build a new mid-sized airplane, informally dubbed the 797. It would be larger than the 737 Max single-aisle family of jets but smaller than the widebody 787 Dreamliner. "It's definitely attractive for us," said Debus, who is also CEO of subsidiary Thomas Cook Airlines. "It's definitely on our radar and we are definitely interested in such an aircraft.” 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bizjou ... d.amp.html

Obviously there are many interested airlines.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 737 shares the same fuselage cross-section as the front half of the 727 plus systems, and engines.

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

Matt6461 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 737 shares the same fuselage cross-section as the front half of the 727 plus systems, and engines.

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

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

The real answer will be if there is a an update at the airshow. If they are silent on the matter, then don’t expect much in the future. But if they continue to hype the progress, it’s just a matter of time.

I find it unlikely that they would set an engine deadline only to drop the whole matter 2 weeks later. Unless all 3 engine proposals were so bad that Boeing was convinced it can’t work. But I doubt that because they have been in discussions for years.

The time between final engine proposals and the comments here saying it’s dead simply isn’t enough time to even talk to all the airlines about the engines. So it’s all just speculation from people that have some vested interest in Boeing not launching it.

bob75013 wrote:

Matt6461 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

The 737 shares the same fuselage cross-section as the front half of the 727 plus systems, and engines.

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

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

But that's irrelevant. The original 737 was definitely derived from concepts, systems, and parts developed from Boeing's previous jet transport aircraft. The 797 will also use ideas and parts from the 787 program

I agree that it has become impossible to discuss 797 / MoM without some people turning it into an A320 vs 737 debate. I do wish those other people would take that debate to another thread.

Orders mean nothing if you cant deliver.

Deliveries and profit margin are the most important. Airbus or Boeing could simply heavily discount the 737 or A320 models to get a big order book. Airbus could now be overquoting due to their big backlog which explains why the 737 is getting recent orders. Or it could go the other way Boeing has been overquoting for the last 5 years which is why it is down on orders.

Back on topic I think the 797 will be a slam dunk and it will sell 4000+ aircraft.

The small cabin length but longer range 797 will probably get an ER version in 10 years time and it will open up more long thin routes than what the 787 did. The 787 is selling well because it offers close to A340/777 range in a smaller, cheaper and more efficient product. If the long range 797 can fly 75% as far as a 787-8 with 70% of the of the passengers while burning 65% of the fuel then it will sell in huge quantities. These are pretty easy targets.

The large cabin length short range model will be as efficient as the 737 and A320 families which you take into account pilot/fuel/fees cost per passenger. Again it is an easy target as larger size usually gives efficiency.

The efficiency spectrum that the 797 will have will allow it to simplify fleet planning around fewer aircraft types. It will allow for a lighter, short range optimised narrowbody to enter the market.

VS11 wrote:

After I recently flew AA 788 from ORD to DFW, I am very skeptical we will ever see a 797. The 788 is not that much larger than A321. It seems to me now that it would be a lot of wasted money and effort to develop a plane whose dimensions are between an A321 and B788 to address somewhat of a marginal mission profile.

A321 has MTOW of ~190,000 pounds. The 787-8 535,000. These planes are nowhere near each other in size.

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

Then the board will decide whether authority to sell is justified, and if (when) that happens, Boeing then goes back to those airlines and secure MOUs and possibly actual order contracts from the primary launch customers (as UFOs).

Then at next years air show, Boeing will officially launch the aircraft with 300+ orders from major airlines in Airbus own back yard, if they wait that long. The 787 was launched in April then a bunch more “orders” were announce at the airshow.

The difference will be that Boeing won’t exclude lessors at launch and there won’t be any Blue Panarama type carriers in the list either.

Imho the big question is if they can kill the A330NEO. With the fall of HNA group and if they can get AirAsia to switch to the 787 the 787 can achieve complete dominance of the smaller widebody market. If they achieve this do, it would be wiser to use the MNA money for a 737 replacement or hold back in case Airbus re-acts with a A330 replacement.

seahawk wrote:

Imho the big question is if they can kill the A330NEO. With the fall of HNA group and if they can get AirAsia to switch to the 787 the 787 can achieve complete dominance of the smaller widebody market. If they achieve this do, it would be wiser to use the MNA money for a 737 replacement or hold back in case Airbus re-acts with a A330 replacement.

I doubt AirAsia will go 787 because of many (but not all) relatively short flights. Among Airbus' 330 / 350 families, the 333 is the most efficient plane at 2 hours and below, and the 339 is best between 2 and 4 hours, with the 359 reigning above 4 hours. While the 789 is lighter, it is not that much lighter to overwhelm an A333 even before acquisition costs on short flights.

Now the 797 - if done correctly - will be another story. If Boeing makes it light enough, if they make the wings long and skinny enough, they can use a slightly uprated LEAP or GTF and be in A321NEO CASM territory. With more range and a longer, wider cabin. Yes that is a lot of ifs. But if Boeing does those ifs right, and the engine manufacturer doesn't totally blow it, a 797 family with narrowbody derivative engines in the low 40K thrust level should be very attractive to LCCs.

seahawk wrote:

Imho the big question is if they can kill the A330NEO. With the fall of HNA group and if they can get AirAsia to switch to the 787 the 787 can achieve complete dominance of the smaller widebody market. If they achieve this do, it would be wiser to use the MNA money for a 737 replacement or hold back in case Airbus re-acts with a A330 replacement.

Correct, that’s the big question. If they can Switch Air Asia to the B789 then the A330Neo is in danger.
I personally do not believe it as Airbus will try the utmost to prevent it, even if it means a loss based on today’s cost Basis.

Now indication is that AirAsia stays with the A330NEO - we will know it probably soon enough - probably today so we can speculate what happens today.

For me yesterday announcement that Boeing further continues 797 Business case studies indicates for me as well that the A330 eraser Mission way not be successful but then what happens:

As one of many 'extremely qualified armchair CEOs' here with Anet I share my latest prediction:
797 will be split into two Projects:
1) a short range 787 Version 787-7 and 787-6 with a short range wing and the 787-7 with the 787-8 length and a shortened 787-6 Version with weight saving measures where possible. This is to cover the upper range of the previous 797 Definition with 7 abrest.

2) a real new NSA that replaces the 737 Long term-6-abrest - fighting as a clean sheet alternative to the A32x program and further developments starting just above (+ 30 seats) the E2 Program.


Flyglobal