seahawk wrote:
The problem with this is that according to the known market research less than 15% of all interested airlines want more than 250 seats, while over 50% asked for less than 200 seats.

Partycrasher!

Eyad89 wrote:

This isn't about Boeing or Airbus. It's about a 757-sized aircraft vs a 767-sized aircraft that can carry 200+ passengers up to 4,500 - 5,000 nm maximum. If Boeing is to start a clean-sheet design using the best technology they can get their hands on in terms of CFRP, aerodynamics, engine choices, etc, which aircraft would more likely sell more? To me personally, I still see it as a 757 successor. Let's keep A vs B out of this question.

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem with this is that according to the known market research less than 15% of all interested airlines want more than 250 seats, while over 50% asked for less than 200 seats.

At what density though?

JAL has only 186 seats in their 787-8. https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Japan ... 7-800.php#

AA's has only 102 seats in their transcon A321 fleet.
https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... 1_new.php#

The numbers we throw around for consistency is 28-30" pitch full economy cabin. This is simply for comparison purposes only. 2 class and 3 class cabins will have a significantly lower seat count.

Usually the longer the flight, the more spacious the cabin will be with a larger percentage of the cabin dedicated to business class seats. Let's say the
797-8/9/10 has 250/300/350 seats all economy. In real life that will probably end up being 150/220/290 seats. The 787-8 being longer range will have a huge portion of the cabin dedicated to premium seats. Where as the 787-10 for short flights would probably only have a couple rows of slightly wider recliner seats.

Passengers on average are less likely to upgrade to a business class seat on a short domestic flight.

My comments were based on this:

In summary 120T maximum takeoff 70-75T OEW
797-8 250 seat economy, 200 seat 2 class, 5000nm,
797-9 300 seat economy, 240 seat 2 class, 3500nm,
797-10 350 seat economy, 280 seat 2 class, 2000nm,

The available data show little support for the medium variant and nearly no interest in the larger version.

If we go with the EASA recommend 105kg per pax, the larger version would need to carry 37,8t just for the pax and their bags. Which means that with a 75t OEW they would have a whooping 7,2t for fuel, crew, reserves and cargo. I do not see this sell at all.

The short version would need 26,25 t only for the pax, leaving it with just 23,75t for fuel, crew and cargo. That is just 10% more than A321CEO with 230 seats, but it needs to fly 36% further.

seahawk wrote:

The problem with this is that according to the known market research less than 15% of all interested airlines want more than 250 seats, while over 50% asked for less than 200 seats.

And those 50% of airlines would find that the A321NEO and it's LR version are available now and fit their needs for a low price. Making a clean-sheet competitor just to compete with that, rather than exploit the hole in the market that has occurred since all modern WBs are pushing 6000nm range, would be a grave mistake IMO.

RJMAZ wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

The problem I see with trying to justify an aircraft with twice as many aisles, 60-70% extra seats that can simply match the CASM of the smaller aircraft to enable a reduction of frequencies and not a lot else, is that it isn't enticing for the airlines to actually want to take that risk.

The real challenge is determine whether I'm talking about the
A321NEO vs RJMAZ _797-10
or
77W vs A380.

If the smaller plane either matches or has slightly higher CASM then that is the "winner"

Fred

Two 15" aisles means 30" of aisle versus one 22" aisle in the A320. That's not twice the aisle. 2-4-2 acts like a pair of 2-2 cabins so each aisle can be narrower. Than the aisle in a 3-3.

The A380 reduction in frequency is a bad example. We are talking 20+ daily 737 flights where they have flights 15 minute apart in the peak. Upgauging to say 12 797-10 flights with equal CASM is a huge improvement. Less fees and pilots etc

Upgauging from say 7 weekly 777 flights to 4 A380 flights. Some days there would be no flights. Even if the A380 had better CASM it probably wouldn't be a good idea.

That is a good explanation of how you can make a 7ab aircraft with the same economics of a 6ab aircraft. Use slightly smaller seats too, as Boeing typically does compared to Airbus, and the 7ab should be comparable in size/seat to the 6ab. And remember the A320 is something like 8 inches wider than the B737 is and yet it is competitive.

Basically in some hypothetical "fair fight"(same tech, same seats, equiv aisles width) a 6ab will beat a 7ab dual-asile. But the B797 doesn't need to beat some theoretical "fair fight" plane it likely needs to beat a A321 or "A322".

The only danger is if a Boeing makes a 7ab plane and Airbus decided to counter with a cleansheet 8ab with the same "narrow" seats and aisles.

I think that if you buy a 300+ seat / 5000Nm aircraft you expect it to be capable enough to transport standard cargo on top of the passenger loads, unconstrained on all your TATL routes, up to Italy and /or ATL-IAH-ORD. Like your 767s, A330s, 787s. Something less capable for part of those routes might decrease your fleet & cargo network flexibility.

keesje wrote:

If the lower fuselage would be just a bit higher, circular, it would be lighter and it could optionally take the same LD3 containers / pallets as the 787, 777 and A350s. If it has high BPR engines, it would have high main landing gears anyway.

RJMAZ, NewbiePilot and Keejse, I think you are all stating the same thing and would agree with the above concept. Look at the sizes and corresponding decreasing ranges.

With that said, I think the pax numbers for the 10 version is wrong. It should be closer to 300. This aircraft will bring a sea change to the domestic markets like the A321 is doing presently. The 260 capacity is too close to the A321. The return of the domestic widebody, whats old is new again.

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the lower fuselage would be just a bit higher, circular, it would be lighter and it could optionally take the same LD3 containers / pallets as the 787, 777 and A350s. If it has high BPR engines, it would have high main landing gears anyway.

RJMAZ, NewbiePilot and Keejse, I think you are all stating the same thing and would agree with the above concept. Look at the sizes and corresponding decreasing ranges.

With that said, I think the pax numbers for the 10 version is wrong. It should be closer to 300. This aircraft will bring a sea change to the domestic markets like the A321 is doing presently. The 260 capacity is too close to the A321. The return of the domestic widebody, whats old is new again.

I think his 260 was 2 class. 350 was single class in his largest configuration. I think that number is important as it’s basically then a 2 for 1 replacement for the two biggest selling variants of the 737 and A320 for LCC who use single class layouts. It makes both route planning and substitutions fairly simple if you hit that size.

If you shrink the seats and the aisle, you are only save until somebody shrinks the seats and the aisle for a single aisle.

seahawk wrote:

The problem with this is that according to the known market research less than 15% of all interested airlines want more than 250 seats, while over 50% asked for less than 200 seats.

Well that market research is at least a year old and was just a basic question about capacity and range. Boeing's discussions with airlines are much more granular and include at least some performance metrics. As such, the airline's response to that may very well be different than what they said to the generic poll.

Stitch wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem with this is that according to the known market research less than 15% of all interested airlines want more than 250 seats, while over 50% asked for less than 200 seats.

Well that market research is at least a year old and was just a basic question about capacity and range. Boeing's discussions with airlines are much more granular and include at least some performance metrics. As such, the airline's response to that may very well be different than what they said to the generic poll.

It’s also by percentage of airlines responding not market share or what they would order. A huge percentage of airlines don’t operate anything bigger than a 737/A320 anyway and never will.

Maybe an extension into an ideal, slightly higher circular fuselage wouldn't be heavier.

As said, for high BPR engines / rotation angles, you need long legs anyway.

It would create the options for airlines to include LD3's / pallets, lavatories, galleys, crewrest etc. if they wanted.

That could potentially open up space for extra revenue seats, without enlarging the fuselage!



https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthansa/Airbus-A340-642/591519/L

https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/7/2/3/0214327.jpg?v=v40

bigjku wrote:

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the lower fuselage would be just a bit higher, circular, it would be lighter and it could optionally take the same LD3 containers / pallets as the 787, 777 and A350s. If it has high BPR engines, it would have high main landing gears anyway.

RJMAZ, NewbiePilot and Keejse, I think you are all stating the same thing and would agree with the above concept. Look at the sizes and corresponding decreasing ranges.

With that said, I think the pax numbers for the 10 version is wrong. It should be closer to 300. This aircraft will bring a sea change to the domestic markets like the A321 is doing presently. The 260 capacity is too close to the A321. The return of the domestic widebody, whats old is new again.

I think his 260 was 2 class. 350 was single class in his largest configuration. I think that number is important as it’s basically then a 2 for 1 replacement for the two biggest selling variants of the 737 and A320 for LCC who use single class layouts. It makes both route planning and substitutions fairly simple if you hit that size.

Allegiant is putting 186 seats into their new A320s. Spirit 's A321s hold 228. Now all of this will depend upon the seat pitch of course. 350 pax or a little higher should be enough of a difference between the A321 and 797.

Nahalem regarding 7AB. The minimum aisle width is 15". So a 7AB will then have a total of 30" of aisle. That is 50% more aisle space for 16% more seats compared to a 737. This is why 8AB is better as the aisle space stays the same with one extra seat. So the aisle space is now a lower percentage of wasted space.

Seahawk you can't shrink the aisle of a 757 sized narrowbody to 15" it simply would take too pong to board. Aisle width per passenger needs to stay fairly constant. A 2-2 can have a narrower aisle than a 3-3. A 2-3-2 can have narrower aisles than a 3-4-3.

Kessje regarding LD3 container use. They simple can not fit. The A330 is the absolute minimum cross section you can use with LD3's. With airlines fitting 9AB for regional work into the A330 shows that its a little too wide for 8AB. A tight 8AB would be roughly 12inch narrower than the A330 and 6inch wider than the 767. LD2 containers would be the only option. The 767 even had to go a slightly taller fuselage to fit LD2's so a 6inch wider full circular fuselage would fit LD2's like a glove.




Eyad89 we may have to agree to disagree. One last shot by designing two hypothetical aircraft. If the 737 was stretched to 752 length with a taller gear it would easily have an empty weight 10T below the 752. Let's call it a 737-11. Both aircraft the 752max and 737-11 are fitted with equal technology engines, wing and fuselage materials. This would push the 752's range up to 4500nm. Both fitted with 240 seats for the comparison.

With a full passenger load the 737-11 could only fill its fuel tanks up to approx 50% capacity before hitting MTO. Still enough to fly up 1500nm.

Now if both aircraft flew Melbourne to Sydney the 737-11 would be flying 10-15% lighter than the 752 with the same passenger load. The 737-11 would have superior CASM over the 757max on all short trips.

The design range of both aircraft would be 1500nm vs 4500nm. You can see how designing for a short reduces empty weight and improves CASM.

Now this same theory still applies if the aircraft aren't the same capacity. For instance a 300 seat widebody designed for short haul (2000nm) would weigh less than a 200 seat narrowbody designed to fly ultra long haul (7000nm). The widebody would have much better CASM on a short trip. The link between design range, empty weight and CASM is pretty obvious to me.

RJMAZ wrote:

Nahalem regarding 7AB. The minimum aisle width is 15". So a 7AB will then have a total of 30" of aisle. That is 50% more aisle space for 16% more seats compared to a 737. This is why 8AB is better as the aisle space stays the same with one extra seat. So the aisle space is now a lower percentage of wasted space.

Seahawk you can't shrink the aisle of a 757 sized narrowbody to 15" it simply would take too pong to board. Aisle width per passenger needs to stay fairly constant. A 2-2 can have a narrower aisle than a 3-3. A 2-3-2 can have narrower aisles than a 3-4-3.

Kessje regarding LD3 container use. They simple can not fit. The A330 is the absolute minimum cross section you can use with LD3's. With airlines fitting 9AB for regional work into the A330 shows that its a little too wide for 8AB. A tight 8AB would be roughly 12inch narrower than the A330 and 6inch wider than the 767. LD2 containers would be the only option. The 767 even had to go a slightly taller fuselage to fit LD2's so a 6inch wider full circular fuselage would fit LD2's like a glove.




Eyad89 we may have to agree to disagree. One last shot by designing two hypothetical aircraft. If the 737 was stretched to 752 length with a taller gear it would easily have an empty weight 10T below the 752. Let's call it a 737-11. Both aircraft the 752max and 737-11 are fitted with equal technology engines, wing and fuselage materials. This would push the 752's range up to 4500nm. Both fitted with 240 seats for the comparison.

With a full passenger load the 737-11 could only fill its fuel tanks up to approx 50% capacity before hitting MTO. Still enough to fly up 1500nm.

Now if both aircraft flew Melbourne to Sydney the 737-11 would be flying 10-15% lighter than the 752 with the same passenger load. The 737-11 would have superior CASM over the 757max on all short trips.

The design range of both aircraft would be 1500nm vs 4500nm. You can see how designing for a short reduces empty weight and improves CASM.

Now this same theory still applies if the aircraft aren't the same capacity. For instance a 300 seat widebody designed for short haul (2000nm) would weigh less than a 200 seat narrowbody designed to fly ultra long haul (7000nm). The widebody would have much better CASM on a short trip. The link between design range, empty weight and CASM is pretty obvious to me.

While I don’t agree with your rationale for what killed the 757-300, you are spot on in the statements above.

Payload/seat count, design range, and to some extent field performance, will all ultimately determine CASM. The 757-200 vs A321ceo vs 737-900ER is the perfect example of this. The 757 was designed to have greater range and greater field performance than either of the competitors. That design point drove a larger wing area and larger engines, which ultimately a drove higher OEW/MTOW. This became a problem for carriers that weren’t using that capability 95% + of the time - they realized that for those 95% of missions, they were getting killed by 737-900ERs and A321s due to their superior economics.

Whilst it would be great to see a 797 launch next summer and yes it has been Boeing pushing the concept of a -
New Midrange Aircraft.
I would have thought the timing was poor for them.
They have their hands full with 2 very important (critical?) projects.
The 737-max 10.Not a trivial development I would have thought.
The 777x series.This is a huge project in itself.
Ok the 787-10 is nearing completion now.But none the less adding a massive clean sheet project now would surely be overstretching them?

Perhaps not?But things might look a lot easier in a year or two's time.Its not as if they are losing out to Airbus in this imaginary sector.The 338 is hardly setting the World alight whereas the 788 keeps ticking along nicely.Why the rush?
(PS I don't think the Engine OEM's are ready either btw).

parapente wrote:

They have their hands full with 2 very important (critical?) projects.
The 737-max 10.Not a trivial development I would have thought.
The 777x series.This is a huge project in itself.
Ok the 787-10 is nearing completion now.But none the less adding a massive clean sheet project now would surely be overstretching them?

The engineering stage of the 777x is mostly complete. The focus now is on producing the first aircraft, and will then be on flight test and regular production.

The 737 MAX 10 is not a huge project -- the big design effort will be for the landing gear, which isn't trivial, but isn't a whole airplane either.

Boeing has the bandwidth to take on a new airplane project. The questions they have to figure out are more about:

1) whether they can define an airplane that customers want and that will have an advantage over future A321-class airplanes
2) whether the technologies they need for their airplane are ready
3) whether they have an appetite for the amount of risk that a new airplane program entails

Jon Ostrower's Twitter ( https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 0073282560 ) gives us this:

The aerospace world is getting ready for Boeing’s 797. Three big hints.

First, Delta: “The addition of geared-turbofan technical knowledge at Delta TechOps will not only be applied to the 200 engines that will power Delta’s A321neo fleet, but will also uniquely position TechOps as an MRO leader in this space as future engine types are developed.”

Second, @SpiritAero: “The new technology can cure composite parts 40% faster at half the cost and supports a wide range of composite components across industries, from wind turbine blades to the next generation of composite aircraft.”

Third, from Boeing itself: No immediate plans for property being acquired on its behalf in North Charleston https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... ffe5e.html … (via @David_Wren_)

Three great stir-the-pot ( ) posts!

Interesting. Jon is usually a bit more circumspect than that.

Well, whatever does come out, its gonna be a fascinating journey to see how they make it* work.

*if its single aisle, how it first of all competes with A321 then how it replaces the 737.
*if its a twin aisle, how it competes with both A321 and 788/332 and how Boeing evolve the airframe beyond its initial design.

Boeing can no doubt find a design point where a twin aisle is the superior solution. But, I'm very unconvinced they can find a sizeable enough design range where its the superior solution over the three boundary options to make a twin aisle sell enough to justify investment.

seabosdca wrote:

Interesting. Jon is usually a bit more circumspect than that.

True.

I think the first point isn't that significant. DL's hint that they would want to service next generation GTF engines is interesting but doesn't move the needle, IMHO.

The second point is more interesting. Boeing has been saying that the 797 is all about getting the manufacturing right. The stuff in the article ( http://www.spiritaero.com/media-highlig ... se/136953/ for full presser ) comes from a key supplier. The main issue is whether OOA composites have the right TRL for use in the 797's time period. Something tells me that they must for the program to move ahead.

The third point also doesn't move the needle. Adding 19 more acres to a 450 acre site is interesting, but we have no idea if it's being done to meet current requirements or for the 797 program.

That is technology readiness level 5, that is not going to cut it without a huge risk for a 2025 EIS.

Washington State is already setting up a committee to give tax breaks to Boeing for NMA/MOM:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... lane-here/

Revelation wrote:

Washington State is already setting up a committee to give tax breaks to Boeing for NMA/MOM:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... lane-here/

Oh, those horrible ME3 companies and their subsidies...

For better or worse it seems the 797 is now as good as launched.They are now fighting over the 'where'.
Either way it's late very in the day.Cant see many 757's ( or 767's for that matter - other than US3 perhaps) still being around when this aircraft gets into full production in nearly a decades time.Perhaps it will be aimed more at 332's?

parapente wrote:

For better or worse it seems the 797 is now as good as launched.They are now fighting over the 'where'.
Either way it's late very in the day.Cant see many 757's ( or 767's for that matter - other than US3 perhaps) still being around when this aircraft gets into full production in nearly a decades time.Perhaps it will be aimed more at 332's?

I think this aircraft is aimed at a market segment more than an aircraft to be replaced.

I assume 275 seats single class - 4500NM with reserves for the -8 base version.


4500NM from ATL

Revelation wrote:

The main issue is whether OOA composites have the right TRL for use in the 797's time period.

Like the ones Irkut have been making?

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... nd-wingbox

https://www.compositesworld.com/blog/po ... rst-flight

Amiga500 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The main issue is whether OOA composites have the right TRL for use in the 797's time period.

Like the ones Irkut have been making?

https://www.compositesworld.com/article ... nd-wingbox

https://www.compositesworld.com/blog/po ... rst-flight

Very interesting. Looks like they're Making Russia Great Again!

parapente wrote:

For better or worse it seems the 797 is now as good as launched.They are now fighting over the 'where'.
Either way it's late very in the day.Cant see many 757's ( or 767's for that matter - other than US3 perhaps) still being around when this aircraft gets into full production in nearly a decades time.Perhaps it will be aimed more at 332's?

I disagree. We had more tangible specifications for the Sonic Cruiser than we do this so-called 797. Product launch is not a given. Can anyone provide even basic specifications for this "as good as launched" airplane?

DfwRevolution wrote:

parapente wrote:

For better or worse it seems the 797 is now as good as launched.They are now fighting over the 'where'.
Either way it's late very in the day.Cant see many 757's ( or 767's for that matter - other than US3 perhaps) still being around when this aircraft gets into full production in nearly a decades time.Perhaps it will be aimed more at 332's?

I disagree. We had more tangible specifications for the Sonic Cruiser than we do this so-called 797. Product launch is not a given. Can anyone provide even basic specifications for this "as good as launched" airplane?

I totally agree that product launch at this point is not a given.

How could it be, when no-one knows what it is or does!

Arguing about "where" when there is nothing clearly defined in the public domain about firstly "how" and secondly "what" is silly IMHO. This is the latest thread on a.net devoted to this topic, and I see zero convergence and no real news since the first. There are many apparent claims of interested airlines queuing up to be launch customer. Seems no-one can agree on a size, width, range, capacity, what materials to use, what engines to use. Only that it must be cheap, and cheaper than the likely existing competitors (cheap = acquiring price + operating costs)

Now that's a real challenge for any OEM. I am willing to stand corrected, but I dont see the Boeing Corp of 2017 ready to commit to this, er, nebulous concept.

Edited to add: I am a believer that Boeing set up this so-called Program Office to look into the "how" rather than exploring the "what". You need customer interaction to move on the "what", but the "how" is all about increasing automated production and reducing production costs, determining if metal or plastic will be quicker & cheaper, and how to organise the supply chain. A BIG warning to Boeing, after the 787 journey, will be addressing the market desire for this plane to be "cheap". If Boeing tries to stuff cost savings down the supply chain as they did with the 787, then they will only reap once more what they sow

parapente wrote:

For better or worse it seems the 797 is now as good as launched.They are now fighting over the 'where'.
Either way it's late very in the day.Cant see many 757's ( or 767's for that matter - other than US3 perhaps) still being around when this aircraft gets into full production in nearly a decades time.Perhaps it will be aimed more at 332's?

Sure, but why do we always think in terms of replacement? From what we know, this a/c will have less range than A332 but also should be a lot more economical. When you read what little Boeing has told us about this a/c, we read things like:

Boeing head of sales Ihssane Mounir said there’s no airplane today fitting this specification, and many airlines are excited at the concept because it would allow them to open up entirely new and unserved routes — just as the 787 did in the ultralong-haul market.

He cited Washington, D.C., to Budapest as an example.

Such a plane could potentially entice low-cost carriers to open regional international flights such as routes around Southeast Asia or transatlantic.

It might also replace many single-aisle jets flying the highly congested routes between China’s three largest cities — Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou.

“I’m bullish about it,” Mounir said.

So we expect it will not just replace some aircraft, but it should also create some new opportunities.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... 97-awaits/

DfwRevolution wrote:

I disagree. We had more tangible specifications for the Sonic Cruiser than we do this so-called 797. Product launch is not a given. Can anyone provide even [b]basic specifications[/b] for this "as good as launched" airplane?

I agree with the idea that we don't know much about the a/c. The best ref I could find was from the same article:

Mike Delaney, Boeing’s vice president of new-airplane development, described the concept as a twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers with a medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles.

This is a plane significantly bigger than the single-aisle 737. And though it has much less range than a 787 Dreamliner, it has enough to make it easily a transatlantic airplane.

Seems you will need to be an airline customer in order to learn more than that.

Revelation wrote:

I agree with the idea that we don't know much about the a/c. The best ref I could find was from the same article:

Mike Delaney, Boeing’s vice president of new-airplane development, described the concept as a twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers with a medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles.
This is a plane significantly bigger than the single-aisle 737. And though it has much less range than a 787 Dreamliner, it has enough to make it easily a transatlantic airplane.

Seems you will need to be an airline customer in order to learn more than that.

I get it now. It's a secret plane

Jayafe wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I agree with the idea that we don't know much about the a/c. The best ref I could find was from the same article:

Mike Delaney, Boeing’s vice president of new-airplane development, described the concept as a twin-aisle airplane seating 220 to 270 passengers with a medium range of 5,500 to 5,700 miles.
This is a plane significantly bigger than the single-aisle 737. And though it has much less range than a 787 Dreamliner, it has enough to make it easily a transatlantic airplane.

Seems you will need to be an airline customer in order to learn more than that.

I get it now. It's a secret plane

If launched, it won't enter service for at least another seven years, and it's a safe bet that more will be known by then.

One might argue that it is likely that its max range will dovetail with the low end of the given passenger spectrum (one assumes is a one class number given it is a smaller plane than the 787) and its low end range coincides with the max pax suggested.That would give them 2 quite different aircraft in fact.Neither of which really steals from the 787 family.
Bold and innovating move if they do it.Look forward to Farnbrough 18!

I think Boeing might be reconsidering if the MAX (-10) isn't strong enough and Boeing is not willing to go below 40% marketsharket (probably 30 % revenue share) in the NB segment.

If JAL, United, lessors and the undisclosed customers (800+) start moving in their seats, Boeing might review their investment roadmap for the next decade.

SCAT15F wrote:

Where is this "767-400 has taller landing gear to fit the PW4000 94-inch fan" stuff coming from? The taller gear has absolutely NOTHING to do with the engines.

The 767-300 uses exactly the same size engines (93 and 94-inch fans) as the 767-400. The only difference is the thrust rating, and the higher rating is available for the -300 as well.

ex WP:EN:767:
The 767-400ER features a larger, more widely spaced main gear with 777 wheels, tires, and brakes

IMU to accommodate 18t higher MTOW?

keesje wrote:

I think Boeing might be reconsidering if the MAX (-10) isn't strong enough and Boeing is not willing to go below 40% marketsharket (probably 30 % revenue share) in the NB segment.

If JAL, United, lessors and the undisclosed customers (800+) start moving in their seats, Boeing might review their investment roadmap for the next decade.

Yes because ANA ordered the A321 three years ago, JAL is rumored to be looking at buying airplanes and since United is a major 737-10 customer, Boeing should shut down the program office and reconsider everything such as a 767MAX, extra wide long narrowbody and relaunch the 787-8. Makes perfect sense.

[/quote]
ex WP:EN:767:
The 767-400ER features a larger, more widely spaced main gear with 777 wheels, tires, and brakes
[/quote]

I've never seen a 764 with a triple bogey before.

Newbiepilot, do you feel the 737 MAX series is ok to ensure Boeing a good enough marketshare for the next 10 years? I think Boeing had some question marks and loosing more home games (Delta) didn't remove those question marks. What is your opinion?

The DL order means little, if PW gives DL a full engine MRO certificate and the freedom to market this to third parties and CFM does not, there is little Boeing can do.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot, do you feel the 737 MAX series is ok to ensure Boeing a good enough marketshare for the next 10 years? I think Boeing had some question marks and loosing more home games (Delta) didn't remove those question marks. What is your opinion?

I believe Boeing is focused on building more than 4000 737MAX rather than revamping the 737 or focusing on the narrowbody market under 200 seats. The 737max and A320neo compete well.

The focus is on a market that currently has a lot of potential with no plane optimized for the higher capacity short to medium haul market. I fully believe that they have a program office studying an all new plane.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot, do you feel the 737 MAX series is ok to ensure Boeing a good enough marketshare for the next 10 years? I think Boeing had some question marks and loosing more home games (Delta) didn't remove those question marks. What is your opinion?

I believe Boeing is focused on building more than 4000 737MAX rather than revamping the 737 or focusing on the narrowbody market under 200 seats. The 737max and A320neo compete well.

The focus is on a market that currently has a lot of potential with no plane optimized for the higher capacity short to medium haul market. I fully believe that they have a program office studying an all new plane.

If that is true, Boeing can just keep on building the adjusted MAX portfolio for the foreseeable future and can focus on a larger segment.

The market will tell how the position of the 737 will be versus the CS/NEO in the coming years.

The question is can Boeing wait for that. Are first signals encouraging? A responds can take 7 years.

I think Boeing will adjust it's strategy in 2018.

There is a certain misery riding a single aisle and for thousands of miles. A twin aisle MOM will enjoy some of the same status as a 380 over any other twin. It will generally be more comfortable, toilets more accessible etc.

Meantime for the near future A and B are pumping out those 1 aisles as fast as they can. Preceding hints of disaster are pretty much illusions.

keesje wrote:

I think Boeing might be reconsidering if the MAX (-10) isn't strong enough and Boeing is not willing to go below 40% marketsharket (probably 30 % revenue share) in the NB segment.

If JAL, United, lessors and the undisclosed customers (800+) start moving in their seats, Boeing might review their investment roadmap for the next decade.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Boeing does launch MAX-10 with great response by customers, launches program office for NMA and moves senior 787 leaders to it, and Keesje spends all his time promoting everything else. Well, if nothing else, you are consistent.

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile, in the real world, Boeing does launch MAX-10 with great response by customers, launches program office for NMA and moves senior 787 leaders to it, and Keesje spends all his time promoting everything else. Well, if nothing else, you are consistent.

I just view keesje as the doppelgänger of Halibut, whose every post was how Airbus was always "in a pickle" due to their product portfolio and decisions.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

There is a certain misery riding a single aisle and for thousands of miles. A twin aisle MOM will enjoy some of the same status as a 380 over any other twin. It will generally be more comfortable, toilets more accessible etc.

If you flew a 3-3-3 787 the single aisle A320 is not that bad any more.

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think Boeing might be reconsidering if the MAX (-10) isn't strong enough and Boeing is not willing to go below 40% marketsharket (probably 30 % revenue share) in the NB segment.

If JAL, United, lessors and the undisclosed customers (800+) start moving in their seats, Boeing might review their investment roadmap for the next decade.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Boeing does launch MAX-10 with great response by customers, launches program office for NMA and moves senior 787 leaders to it, and Keesje spends all his time promoting everything else. Well, if nothing else, you are consistent.

Don’t forget resurrecting old threads and posting the same information again and again in 3 month old threads like this so that they won’t die.

So far this comment from Boeing is probably closer to reality than anything You quoted

"The formalising of a structure was really to make sure we have our best and brightest taking a hard look at what our customers want, and what are the economics for them and for us in doing this airplane," McAllister says. "We're listening to our customers from around the globe on what market they need," he adds.

"There's a big space between the single-aisle and the twins. We think, with the composite technology and the airplane technology, we can fill that with a very compelling airplane. We'll continue to study it with customers and continue to look at can we get the right business plan."

And then this quote describes why they are taking their time

The decision to take on another programme is one that you do very rigorously and carefully. These are big investment decisions, and we'll obviously put the right diligence into making it," he says. "If we get to something that hunts on a cost – a good solve and investment profile – and we've got the right value for customers, then we'll take it to [Boeing chief executive] Dennis [Muilenburg] and the board."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ef-441749/

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

keesje wrote:

I
"The formalising of a structure was really to make sure we have our best and brightest taking a hard look at what our customers want, and what are the economics for them and for us in doing this airplane," McAllister says. "We're listening to our customers from around the globe on what market they need," he adds.

"There's a big space between the single-aisle and the twins. We think, with the composite technology and the airplane technology, we can fill that with a very compelling airplane. We'll continue to study it with customers and continue to look at can we get the right business plan."

/

There are 2 things in the quotes above that surprise me

The first is ""We're listening to our customers from around the globe on what market they need," - do airlines need a market, or are they actually confronted by one and required to service it? In which case, it is not the role of an OEM to tell them what market they need, nor what spec of aircraft will fit that bill!

The second is an admission at this moment that while Boeing thinks it has defined a "very compelling airplane", Boeing as yet has no viable business plan for said airplane

You guys (Newbiepilot, Stitch, Revelation) sound like those who thought that entertaining the plans for the 7J7 was some great time filler for Boeing in the eighties, while Airbus exploited the weakness of the 737 Classics to raise from a side liner to a mighty competitor. Remarkable that the MOM ideas of a small twin aisle are also just copy-paste from the 7J7...

Like Kessje I predict that no MOM will be launched before the market dynamics are understood, that could cost Boeing any meaningful NB presence...

sassiciai wrote:

The first is ""We're listening to our customers from around the globe on what market they need," - do airlines need a market, or are they actually confronted by one and required to service it? In which case, it is not the role of an OEM to tell them what market they need, nor what spec of aircraft will fit that bill!

I believe "what market(s) they need to address" is likely a better interpretation of what is being said, direct quote notwithstanding.

Reports indicate that airlines are responding to Boeing's enquiries with two divergent desires. One set desires less capacity with greater range, whereas the other desires greater capacity with less range. Adding capacity or adding range adds weight and adding both adds that much more weight than doing one or the other.

sassiciai wrote:

The second is an admission at this moment that while Boeing thinks it has defined a "very compelling airplane", Boeing as yet has no viable business plan for said airplane

Which is not very surprising at this early stage of the program.

sassiciai wrote:

The first is ""We're listening to our customers from around the globe on what market they need," - do airlines need a market, or are they actually confronted by one and required to service it? In which case, it is not the role of an OEM to tell them what market they need, nor what spec of aircraft will fit that bill!

Why not both? Clearly there are people still using 757 and 767 and might become NMA customers, and clearly Boeing pictures new markets could be enabled by NMA's economics.

sassiciai wrote:

The second is an admission at this moment that while Boeing thinks it has defined a "very compelling airplane", Boeing as yet has no viable business plan for said airplane

Of course they don't. The "very compelling airplane" line is just market speak. They are still in the process of figuring out what the customers want, what they're willing to pay for, and what it should cost Boeing to make. We won't know what they come up till they put the product on the market. Getting all this right is difficult. Look at how long it took Airbus to go from A3XX to A380 and they still got it wrong. Be patient. Time will tell if the business case closes or not.

rheinwaldner wrote:

You guys (Newbiepilot, Stitch, Revelation) sound like those who thought that entertaining the plans for the 7J7 was some great time filler for Boeing in the eighties, while Airbus exploited the weakness of the 737 Classics to raise from a side liner to a mighty competitor. Remarkable that the MOM ideas of a small twin aisle are also just copy-paste from the 7J7...

And you, like others, are showing how (in one post, none the less) that you'll criticize Boeing when they don't take risks, and also criticize them when they do consider taking risks.