I don't understand why people say '7 across wont work' when Boeing appears to be saying -'yes it does!'
Indeed they have a rather successful aircraft that has been doing exactly that for the past 40 years!The (797) appears to be a major improvement on that successful aircraft.
It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with 8 across just that for the missions involved for this a/c x7 works (for them) better.
We know that Airbus can stretch the A321NEO to a 322.But so do Boeing - and they will of course have crunched the numbers.
Clearly This config can match/beat it or they wouldn't present it to prospective customers.Or am I missing something here?

parapente wrote:

I don't understand why people say '7 across wont work' when Boeing appears to be saying -'yes it does!'
Indeed they have a rather successful aircraft that has been doing exactly that for the past 40 years!The (797) appears to be a major improvement on that successful aircraft.
It's not that there is anything inherently wrong with 8 across just that for the missions involved for this a/c x7 works (for them) better.
We know that Airbus can stretch the A321NEO to a 322.But so do Boeing - and they will of course have crunched the numbers.
Clearly This config can match/beat it or they wouldn't present it to prospective customers.Or am I missing something here?

Seems to me that many responses have existing paradigms in mind. The 797 (or whatever it will be called) will not be like existing planes. From what I can gather, it will be a 2+3+2 plane like the 767, but it will be smaller than the 767. Hence the ovoid shape and LD3-45 containers. It may also gain additional lift from the ovoid shape, which will work towards the "twin aisle aircraft with single aisle economics" goal.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A repeat question, but couldn't this plane be designed from the beginning with two wings optimized for the variety of missions and niches a MOM needs?

I think the need for two wings is what resulted in the 757 and 767 being separate airplanes.

With the 737-10 being built, the smaller end of the Middle of the Market which was the 757-200 is partially covered. With the 787-8/9 the larger end of the Middle of the Market, which was the 767-300ER/767-400ER is partially covered. Two wings probably aren't needed.

I think it won´´t be ovid and smaller, because if you try this the shoulder room for the window passengers becomes laughable. It would be more like a double bubble wit the upper part having straightened sides.

I really want to read about the construction method. Will they keep with the barrel assembly as with the 787 or will they go to an all composite frame and panel assembly as with the a350. If the latter it would appear to be an admission of error in designing the 787. If the former I expect to see a faster more cost effective variation developing the technology needed for the narrow body designs coming in 2030.

NYCRuss wrote:

Do we know for sure that a 5500nm design would create that negative feedback loop?

You are always in that loop.
The effect is linked to the fuel fraction in an exponential way.

The worst outcome is in staged rockets where payload is in the single digit percent range.
Most energy there is expended to move fuel to where you need it.

Newbiepilot wrote:

There's a gap between the current narrowbodies and widebodies. Boeing doesn't need outlandish technological breakthroughs to optimize an airplane for a range/payload configuration that is currently not being filled. Keeping production and development costs down are essential to keeping it within sight of A321/737-10 acquisition prices while it is also important to ensure it has enough capacity to displace 787s, 777s and A330s currently used on shorter missions.

To put it another way, can you imagine the reaction here if Airbus just moved the head of the A350 program over to a lead a new project office whose goal is to launch a clean sheet aircraft reusing A350 and A380 technology on an aircraft sized between the A321 and the A330-800?

Many people here would need a change of underwear!

I doubt we'd be reading concerns about the technology breakthroughs needed to make it happen.

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems.

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on.

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).
.

No. The new Middle of the Market plane will probably erase the need for a 787-8 and it most likely will not be a narrowbody. I don't know of anyone talking about a lightened 787-8 other than you.

keesje wrote:

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems. .

No. The Middle of the Market airplane hasn't really impacted the MAX since Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX. The MAX has been doing well competing against the NEO in recent years and with the launch of the 737-10 addressed the capacity advantage of the A321. The NEO only has 104 gross orders so far this year. The MAX has double that. It seems just fine for right now with right around 4000 orders in the backlog.

keesje wrote:

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

No because a new narrowbody NSA isn't even being discussed publicly right now, so how would Airbus be responding to nothing? Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX and also work on a bigger airplane.

CRHoward wrote:

I really want to read about the construction method. Will they keep with the barrel assembly as with the 787 or will they go to an all composite frame and panel assembly as with the a350. If the latter it would appear to be an admission of error in designing the 787. If the former I expect to see a faster more cost effective variation developing the technology needed for the narrow body designs coming in 2030.

I doubt we'll hear much about that until very close to program launch.

My understanding is the monolithic barrels were a challenge to manufacture to the necessary tolerances and to join the sections efficiently to support the flow, but that was one of the seldom-discussed challenges Boeing had to solve, and they got past it.

The result is a fastener count reduction that I think ended up somewhere in the 5-figure range. That not only is intended to save the tooling and labor costs for assembling panels into barrels, but can help a bit with weight, too. Of course, building the barrels required some expensive fiber layup machines and mandrels that another engineer I know has described as the most complex composite mold tools he's ever seen, plus their large autoclaves, but at least the cost of that equipment is spread out over a very large number of airframes.

Now that they have experience working with monolithic barrel sections on a fairly large aircraft, I tend to suspect they'll continue with that technique and further refine it for the smaller aircraft.

Airbus avoided that learning curve with their more conventional A350 barrel design and rightly bragged about the smoother development they experienced as a result, but depending how well monolithic barrels work out for Boeing, Airbus may later find itself needing to learn how to work with them. Fortunately for Airbus, Boeing did not hold that technology very close to their hearts. A lot of that experience is in the minds of engineers working for 3rd party suppliers.

If Boeing does go with barrels built up from panels for the 797, that doesn't necessarily mean they regret the 787 design. What works for the 787's more uniform shape might not be as easy to adapt to a double-bubble design like RJMAZ is indicating makes the most sense for a widened fuselage profile.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on.

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).
.

No. The new Middle of the Market plane will probably erase the need for a 787-8 and it most likely will not be a narrowbody. I don't know of anyone talking about a lightened 787-8 other than you.

keesje wrote:

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems. .

No. The Middle of the Market airplane hasn't really impacted the MAX since Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX. The MAX has been doing well competing against the NEO in recent years and with the launch of the 737-10 addressed the capacity advantage of the A321. The NEO only has 104 gross orders so far this year. The MAX has double that. It seems just fine for right now with right around 4000 orders in the backlog.

keesje wrote:

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

No because a new narrowbody NSA isn't even being discussed publicly right now, so how would Airbus be responding to nothing? Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX and also work on a bigger airplane.

What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is going to happen Newbiepilot?

I don't lnow your age, but basing your expectations and opinions on "what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on. " has led to big surprises and dissapointments by many people over the last 15 years.

During the 787 days investors, stakeholders discovered you better check forums / blogs like this if you want to find out what is really going to happen. Good old JohnOstrower (used to be member) made a carreer out of ignoring the party line and using his commen sense.

Report in Leeham today regarding the A350 order future and replacement options:

'Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA), which Kerr says that as presented is of great interest.'

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... more-24883

So the new midsize aircraft is 220-270 and widebody.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on.

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).
.

No. The new Middle of the Market plane will probably erase the need for a 787-8 and it most likely will not be a narrowbody. I don't know of anyone talking about a lightened 787-8 other than you.

keesje wrote:

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems. .

No. The Middle of the Market airplane hasn't really impacted the MAX since Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX. The MAX has been doing well competing against the NEO in recent years and with the launch of the 737-10 addressed the capacity advantage of the A321. The NEO only has 104 gross orders so far this year. The MAX has double that. It seems just fine for right now with right around 4000 orders in the backlog.

keesje wrote:

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

No because a new narrowbody NSA isn't even being discussed publicly right now, so how would Airbus be responding to nothing? Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX and also work on a bigger airplane.

What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is going to happen Newbiepilot?

I don't lnow your age, but basing your expectations and opinions on "what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on. " has led to big surprises and dissapointments by many people over the last 15 years.

During the 787 days investors, stakeholders discovered you better check forums / blogs like this if you want to find out what is really going to happen. Good old JohnOstrower (used to be member) made a carreer out of ignoring the party line and using his commen sense.

There is no evidence that Boeing is planning a narrow body MoM, and no evidence that airlines are asking for one. All reports, including direct quotes from Boeing and airline executives, point to a small wide body.

Trying to pull rank, without offering any credible evidence to the issue at hand, is not a credible response.

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... ix-months/

"Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA)"

They say that Boeing's current NMA /MOM/797 = 220-270 passenger, twin-aisle aircraft with a range of 4,500-5,000nm. So no narrow-body in sight, even in the places we "should be looking at" instead of the Boeing PR.

Boeing recently booked several new 788 orders and had some downward conversions to the -8 as well. It does look like they are actively selling this model again after some years of focusing their sales efforts on the 787-9. Especially the JAL order could be of interest here as they are also a large 767-300 operator. If Boeing pitched a similar offer to JAL we might see them as one of the launch customers for the 797 in 2018 or 2019.

codc10 wrote:

I'm not sure of the exact data the chart is derived from, but my guess would be the early 1970s were skewed by the advent of the high bypass ratio turbofan and a lot of 747/DC-10/L10 deliveries, which burned much less fuel on a per-seat basis than the previous generation of jetliners. WB deliveries slowed down post-1973 oil crisis, but airlines were still taking delivery of comparatively less-efficient 727s, 737s, DC-9s, etc. through the decade. I also wonder if Concorde's 1976 EIS contributed to the little spike at mid-decade?

I agree. The JT8D began showing up everywhere in middle-market jetliners like 727, 737 and DC-9, while the big turbofans started appearing on 747, DC-10, L1011 and A300. These were more efficient than the JT3Ds and Conways whose production volume was going down by the late 1960s and early 1970s. But I'm not sure if Concorde's small fleet would have had such a big impact?

Also, as fuel costs seem to plateau, that means increment improvements in fuel burn become more valuable. The 1960s and 1970s show kind of how cheap it was (comparatively) to push down fuel burn. Today, a similar reduction as the late 1960s is unlikely unless a revolution in propulsion occurs. That means a 10% reduction today is a big deal compared to your competitors, but you have to pay a lot for it because the "cheap" innovations are already in the bank. It appears the industry requires expensive programs like 787 and C Series to chip away at the fuel burn chart.

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

Assuming they go the more A321-200neo route (increasing the order from the current 100 to 150-200), then would they necessarily need to order NMA? Their current A321 fleet is very young (they ordered them in 2011) so they will not need replacement for decades. As such, another 50-100 of them would almost assuredly be for expansion along with the 100 A321neos already on order.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on.

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).
.

No. The new Middle of the Market plane will probably erase the need for a 787-8 and it most likely will not be a narrowbody. I don't know of anyone talking about a lightened 787-8 other than you.

keesje wrote:

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems. .

No. The Middle of the Market airplane hasn't really impacted the MAX since Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX. The MAX has been doing well competing against the NEO in recent years and with the launch of the 737-10 addressed the capacity advantage of the A321. The NEO only has 104 gross orders so far this year. The MAX has double that. It seems just fine for right now with right around 4000 orders in the backlog.

keesje wrote:

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

No because a new narrowbody NSA isn't even being discussed publicly right now, so how would Airbus be responding to nothing? Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX and also work on a bigger airplane.

What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is going to happen Newbiepilot?

I don't lnow your age, but basing your expectations and opinions on "what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on. " has led to big surprises and dissapointments by many people over the last 15 years.

During the 787 days investors, stakeholders discovered you better check forums / blogs like this if you want to find out what is really going to happen. Good old JohnOstrower (used to be member) made a carreer out of ignoring the party line and using his commen sense.

Boeing has only certified 1 variant of the 737 MAX family. NSA is not in discussion currently.

Stitch wrote:

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

Assuming they go the more A321-200neo route (increasing the order from the current 100 to 150-200), then would they necessarily need to order NMA? Their current A321 fleet is very young (they ordered them in 2011) so they will not need replacement for decades. As such, another 50-100 of them would almost assuredly be for expansion along with the 100 A321neos already on order.

Keep in mind that the NMA won't be available until 2025, and that's assuming that the won't be program delays. AA could order more A321s for the near term, as well as 797s for the middle of the next decade.

Swadian wrote:

8-abreast is just too big for an aircraft with such short range.

Most think the 797 will have a range of 4,500-5,000nm. I don't consider that to be a "short range" plane. Airbus has sold nearly 1,700 8-abreast A330's and the vast majority of their missions are comfortably short of 5,000nm.

Swadian wrote:

We don't need another 762 or A310.

But that's exactly what many people believe is needed - an A310762neoMAX.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A repeat question, but couldn't this plane be designed from the beginning with two wings optimized for the variety of missions and niches a MOM needs?

There's absolutely no technical reason, but cost would probably rule it out.

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... ix-months/

"Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA)"

They say that Boeing's current NMA /MOM/797 = 220-270 passenger, twin-aisle aircraft with a range of 4,500-5,000nm. So no narrow-body in sight, even in the places we "should be looking at" instead of the Boeing PR.

Boeing recently booked several new 788 orders and had some downward conversions to the -8 as well. It does look like they are actively selling this model again after some years of focusing their sales efforts on the 787-9. Especially the JAL order could be of interest here as they are also a large 767-300 operator. If Boeing pitched a similar offer to JAL we might see them as one of the launch customers for the 797 in 2018 or 2019.

An interesting twist! Now that the MoM may come into play, AA seems interested in it to replace the 767-300ER rather than an A330neo converted from the order.

I wonder if adding the A321LR would benefit AA for long and thin.

NYCRuss wrote:

Keep in mind that the NMA won't be available until 2025, and that's assuming that the won't be program delays. AA could order more A321s for the near term, as well as 797s for the middle of the next decade.

I am very much keeping that in mind. AA has over 200 A321-200s in the fleet now and at least half of them are quite young (and probably a fair bit more than half). They also have 100 A321-200neos on order with deliveries scheduled for 2019 and extending likely well into the early-to-mid 2020s. If they then add a significant number more on top of that, those will likely have delivery dates post-2025: right in the range of early NMA deliveries. So I could see AA with an active fleet of 300 or more A321-200s and A321-200neos in the later 2020s. Where would a large (50-100 or more) fleet of NMA's fit into that? Especially if AA adds another score or two of 787-8s and 787-9s before then?

Stitch wrote:

NYCRuss wrote:

Keep in mind that the NMA won't be available until 2025, and that's assuming that the won't be program delays. AA could order more A321s for the near term, as well as 797s for the middle of the next decade.

I am very much keeping that in mind. AA has over 200 A321-200s in the fleet now and at least half of them are quite young (and probably a fair bit more than half). They also have 100 A321-200neos on order with deliveries scheduled for 2019 and extending likely well into the early-to-mid 2020s. If they then add a significant number more on top of that, those will likely have delivery dates post-2025: right in the range of early NMA deliveries. So I could see AA with an active fleet of 300 or more A321-200s and A321-200neos in the later 2020s. Where would a large (50-100 or more) fleet of NMA's fit into that? Especially if AA adds another score or two of 787-8s and 787-9s before then?

Gotcha. Not sure how AA will fit the NMA in with more 321s. I guess we'll get a better idea in six months when we learn what AA will do wth the A350s.

keesje wrote:

What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is (not) going to happen Newbiepilot?

Another straw man argument. He said "Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on." and you reply "What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is (not) going to happen Newbiepilot?". So, no, he never said he knew exactly what is and not going to happen, and then you proceed to beat on him as if he did say that. It's a shit tactic, one you use time and time again.

Prost wrote:

So the new midsize aircraft is 220-270 and widebody.

Where did I read that before?

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... ix-months/

"Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA)"

They say that Boeing's current NMA/MOM/797 = 220-270 passenger, twin-aisle aircraft with a range of 4,500-5,000nm. So no narrow-body in sight, even in the places we "should be looking at" instead of the Boeing PR.

Boeing recently booked several new 788 orders and had some downward conversions to the -8 as well. It does look like they are actively selling this model again after some years of focusing their sales efforts on the 787-9. Especially the JAL order could be of interest here as they are also a large 767-300 operator. If Boeing pitched a similar offer to JAL we might see them as one of the launch customers for the 797 in 2018 or 2019.

Very interesting!

Seems like a large heaping of crow is being prepared. Hope a few posters here have a big appetite.

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

AI126 wrote:

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

I MoM is a widebody, a stretch "A322" might not be a very effective counter.

So I could see why some would prefer it be a "757-300neo" as an "A322" could probably comfortably compete with it.

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Keesje, everything you are suggesting is pretty much the opposite of what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on.

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).
.

No. The new Middle of the Market plane will probably erase the need for a 787-8 and it most likely will not be a narrowbody. I don't know of anyone talking about a lightened 787-8 other than you.

keesje wrote:

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seems. .

No. The Middle of the Market airplane hasn't really impacted the MAX since Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX. The MAX has been doing well competing against the NEO in recent years and with the launch of the 737-10 addressed the capacity advantage of the A321. The NEO only has 104 gross orders so far this year. The MAX has double that. It seems just fine for right now with right around 4000 orders in the backlog.

keesje wrote:

A NB NSA would probably force Airbus to respond.

No because a new narrowbody NSA isn't even being discussed publicly right now, so how would Airbus be responding to nothing? Boeing is continuing to invest in the MAX and also work on a bigger airplane.

What makes you so sure you know exactly what is and what is going to happen Newbiepilot?

I don't lnow your age, but basing your expectations and opinions on "what is publicly coming out from what Boeing is working on. " has led to big surprises and dissapointments by many people over the last 15 years.

During the 787 days investors, stakeholders discovered you better check forums / blogs like this if you want to find out what is really going to happen. Good old JohnOstrower (used to be member) made a carreer out of ignoring the party line and using his commen sense.

You are making a straw man argument and then trying to attack my credibility. I am not some high school kid or casual fanboy who knows nothing about planes.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting any of your ideas. I dare you to find one credible source stating that Boeing intends to create a lightened 787-8, new small airplane with 2000nm range, or that Boeing believes that the MAX can't be left alone against the NEO. I think your intention is cast doubt over the proposed MOM plane.

Everything i am reading is pointing towards a small widebody twin incorporating 787 and 777x technology and keeping manufacturing costs low by avoiding moonshots and none of your ideas.

AI126 wrote:

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

We already have two fairly recent threads full of ideas:

4 months ago -- viewtopic.php?t=1362655

6 months ago -- viewtopic.php?t=1357281

I suggest you read through those threads.

Stitch wrote:

NYCRuss wrote:

Keep in mind that the NMA won't be available until 2025, and that's assuming that the won't be program delays. AA could order more A321s for the near term, as well as 797s for the middle of the next decade.

I am very much keeping that in mind. AA has over 200 A321-200s in the fleet now and at least half of them are quite young (and probably a fair bit more than half). They also have 100 A321-200neos on order with deliveries scheduled for 2019 and extending likely well into the early-to-mid 2020s. If they then add a significant number more on top of that, those will likely have delivery dates post-2025: right in the range of early NMA deliveries. So I could see AA with an active fleet of 300 or more A321-200s and A321-200neos in the later 2020s. Where would a large (50-100 or more) fleet of NMA's fit into that? Especially if AA adds another score or two of 787-8s and 787-9s before then?

That is the part of the article I find most interesting: that AA is worried about the A350 being too small of a sub fleet but apparently sees enough space for a sizeable fleet of 797s despite taking more A321s and 788s. It would appear that AA sees a good size gap in the MoM and thinks Boeing has a good idea for how to fill it. If Boeing was looking for a way to sell the BoD on doing the plane, AA as a 30+ order launch customer would be a compelling argument.

tjh8402 wrote:

That is the part of the article I find most interesting: that AA is worried about the A350 being too small of a sub fleet but apparently sees enough space for a sizeable fleet of 797s despite taking more A321s and 788s. It would appear that AA sees a good size gap in the MoM and thinks Boeing has a good idea for how to fill it.

I don't know how AA deploys their 767-300ERs right now. Per Wiki, they will only keep the ones with a flat-bed Business Class product so I assume they are long-haul - TATL and South America? If MoM has the legs for those missions, then I could see AA ordering a couple score plus a score more to replace the 767s. And what of the 757s? I assume they fly a number of them to Hawaii? MoM could replace those, as well.

But that means where do all the extra A321neos go? Domestic 767 and 757 replacement? That's maybe a score of two of frames and AA could have 150-200 A321neos.

tjh8402 wrote:

If Boeing was looking for a way to sell the BoD on doing the plane, AA as a 30+ order launch customer would be a compelling argument.

I think AA would need to order 50 minimum, to be honest. Same with UA. Boeing's Board is going to want serious commitment from some blue-chip customers in the US and probably EU / Asia.

N292UX wrote:

Can't we just get a 757, put raked wingtips and new engines on it and let it rip?

I know a few a.netters from across The Pond who would dearly love that.

Can't we just get a 757, put raked wingtips and new engines on it and let it rip?

N292UX wrote:

Can't we just get a 757, put raked wingtips and new engines on it and let it rip?

I think you just let one rip!

The 797 should be designed as a single aisle aircraft that replaces the 737-8 to the 757-300.
170 passengers to 250 passengers. Let the 787 and 350 cover everything above the 250 passenger mark and the C Series, 319, E195 take everything below..

Stitch wrote:

AI126 wrote:

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

I MoM is a widebody, a stretch "A322" might not be a very effective counter.

So I could see why some would prefer it be a "757-300neo" as an "A322" could probably comfortably compete with it.

That depends. Airbus could do the re-winged A322 to attack it from below and use the A330NEO to attack it from above. So they would get a share of the market without directly competing with Boeing, which imho both firms and their shareholders could like.

Stitch wrote:

I MoM is a widebody, a stretch "A322" might not be a very effective counter.

So I could see why some would prefer it be a "757-300neo" as an "A322" could probably comfortably compete with it.

It would not be an effective counter on its own but to cut the bottom of the market of the MOM, the 220 seat market, it would fit quite nicely. I still don't see how you could get the economics of a twin aisle to compete against a single aisle so the bottom of the market would be very competitive if Airbus decides to stretch the A320.

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

Stitch wrote:

I am very much keeping that in mind. AA has over 200 A321-200s in the fleet now and at least half of them are quite young (and probably a fair bit more than half). They also have 100 A321-200neos on order with deliveries scheduled for 2019 and extending likely well into the early-to-mid 2020s. If they then add a significant number more on top of that, those will likely have delivery dates post-2025: right in the range of early NMA deliveries. So I could see AA with an active fleet of 300 or more A321-200s and A321-200neos in the later 2020s. Where would a large (50-100 or more) fleet of NMA's fit into that? Especially if AA adds another score or two of 787-8s and 787-9s before then?

AA has in total about 800 narrow bodies in their fleet right now. The 737-8s and A321neos will replace a large part of this fleet until 2025. Which will mostly be an upward replacement, the 737-8s will replace A319s and A321neos will replace 737-800s.

This leaves enough room for a larger replacement of the current 757s and the earliest A321s and a more 1 on 1 replacement of the 767s. Yes there will be a time gap, unless AA wants to use the 757s and 767s beyond 2025. The 788s which Boeing is pitching to them will bridge that gap, when the 797s come in they can be used as part of the A332 replacements. It's a bit of a puzzle but you can make it work.

AI126 wrote:

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

For a 4-5m stretched 4750 NM rewinged A322, about 7-10t lighter I guess.

keesje wrote:

AI126 wrote:

How best would Airbus be able to respond if Boeing launches the 797 as a suitable MOM? Is a potential A322 the only thing they can do? How well would that stack up against a cleansheet 797?

For a 4-5m stretched 4750 NM rewinged A322, about 7-10t lighter I guess.

With all this talk about MOM and 322 i noticed nobody mentioned the following; what kind of span would this frame have?

321neoLr is a code C frame as 737, 757 is code D, so where would this MOM or 322 fall in?

Re Zedzg.Whether it be a 322 rewinged or the potential 797.The answer will be 'is the wing hinged or not'.Boeing know how to do this so they 'could' but it comes with a weight penalty.Airbus have a patent of a hinged wing 'droop'(i.e. It hangs down rather than lifted up).But again there will be a weight penalty.
Others have stated that with the demise of the 757/767 a/c there are plenty of code D slots available (but I assume they are more expensive?).
So both A&B are in a position to go down either route.
Having said that,since these MOM's are not competing directly with the classic NB's in either pax or range it may be simpler,cleaner,lighter and therefore cheaper to keep to a single piece wing.

Glad someone of authority has repeated (yet again) the Boeing general peramiters (220-270 pax/4,500-5,000nm in a wide body twin aisle format).So hopefully we can put the ghosts to rest!
I note he refers to it as a new midrange a/c rather than 'MOM'.Is there a shift in emphasis (range)?Perhaps am reading too much into it.Either way (if you split the numbers down the middle) 250 pax going 4,750nm does seem on the money.
Any bets when they go official?The obvious time would be Farnbrough 2018 I would have thought.Full availability 8 years later?

Is there any word on how this 220-270 pax is configured? Does it mean one size 220 for a more premium layout and 270 for squeezed in like sardines or is 220-270 mean a similar density and the two cabin sizes give these different pax values? As we know you can get more pax in an A321 than ANA put in their 788 so a pax figure leaves a lot of margin to mean anything.

Fred

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I MoM is a widebody, a stretch "A322" might not be a very effective counter.

It would not be an effective counter on its own but to cut the bottom of the market of the MOM, the 220 seat market, it would fit quite nicely. I still don't see how you could get the economics of a twin aisle to compete against a single aisle so the bottom of the market would be very competitive if Airbus decides to stretch the A320.

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

enzo011 wrote:

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

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

keesje wrote:

A bigger better narrowbody NMA would help the relaunch of a lightened, more 787-9/-10 competible 787-8 later on. (The 787-8 backlog has evaporated).

It would also create space for an ultra lean 120-180 seat / 2000NM NSA series. Boeing can't look at this in isolation & the 737 MAX can not be left alone with the NEO's too long it seem.

They can simply do this by buying the C-Series off of Bombardier and develop the CS500 and whatever else from it without the hassle and cost of a clean sheet. Boeing seemingly fears the hell out of it.

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... ix-months/

"Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA)"

They say that Boeing's current NMA /MOM/797 = 220-270 passenger, twin-aisle aircraft with a range of 4,500-5,000nm. So no narrow-body in sight, even in the places we "should be looking at" instead of the Boeing PR.

Boeing recently booked several new 788 orders and had some downward conversions to the -8 as well. It does look like they are actively selling this model again after some years of focusing their sales efforts on the 787-9. Especially the JAL order could be of interest here as they are also a large 767-300 operator. If Boeing pitched a similar offer to JAL we might see them as one of the launch customers for the 797 in 2018 or 2019.

I thought A-Net had spoken and Boeing wasn't offering the 788 anymore.

Give AA nice price on the 788 for placing early orders for 797. Seems the 5he official launch of the 797 is but a fomality at this point.

If they are still around(on life support according to Half of A-Net) I could see Norwegian being a launch customer along with a topping off of 788s.

Despite the thread title which is about the establishment of a project office, this thread has drifted into version 21 of "what is the MOM". It would be nice if the thread looked back to the opening post, and debated what was stated there.

Reading much of the same speculative POVs about something that is not yet even an official design is a bit repetitive and tiring.

So I urge posters to return on topic and debate what the Mom/797 might be elsewhere. I am sure that the project office is not responsible for designing the thing! More process-oriented, I imagine. I wonder what skillsets the PO will bring in

sassiciai wrote:

Despite the thread title which is about the establishment of a project office, this thread has drifted into version 21 of "what is the MOM". It would be nice if the thread looked back to the opening post, and debated what was stated there.

Reading much of the same speculative POVs about something that is not yet even an official design is a bit repetitive and tiring.

So I urge posters to return on topic and debate what the Mom/797 might be elsewhere. I am sure that the project office is not responsible for designing the thing! More process-oriented, I imagine. I wonder what skillsets the PO will bring in

The program office is actually directly responsible for designing the airplane. It's the office that leads the engineering teams who do all the design work. Boeing usually has a vice president and general manager of a program. Reporting to that person is a chief project engineer as well as the production planning teams and the manufacturing teams. At this point, most of the work will be centered around the engineering side.

Having a program office is part of the process of starting work on the actual configuration of the airplane. That's probably why people are talking about the design of the airplane.

Is Boeing using the 797 moniker or is that Jon Ostrower taking some liberty?

enzo011 wrote:

Stitch wrote:

I MoM is a widebody, a stretch "A322" might not be a very effective counter.

So I could see why some would prefer it be a "757-300neo" as an "A322" could probably comfortably compete with it.

It would not be an effective counter on its own but to cut the bottom of the market of the MOM, the 220 seat market, it would fit quite nicely. I still don't see how you could get the economics of a twin aisle to compete against a single aisle so the bottom of the market would be very competitive if Airbus decides to stretch the A320.

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

While a theoretical A322 could be and effective way to compete from below, the A338 should not be any serious competition from above. If it is, Boeing will either a) not launch the plane or b) have severely screwed up the MOM.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Momo1435 wrote:

Leehamnews article on the faith of the AA A350 order has some interesting side info on Boeing's pitch to the airline for the 767-300ER replacements.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/09/28/ameri ... ix-months/

"Boeing is pitching a re-order of the 787-8 and the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA)"

They say that Boeing's current NMA /MOM/797 = 220-270 passenger, twin-aisle aircraft with a range of 4,500-5,000nm. So no narrow-body in sight, even in the places we "should be looking at" instead of the Boeing PR.

Boeing recently booked several new 788 orders and had some downward conversions to the -8 as well. It does look like they are actively selling this model again after some years of focusing their sales efforts on the 787-9. Especially the JAL order could be of interest here as they are also a large 767-300 operator. If Boeing pitched a similar offer to JAL we might see them as one of the launch customers for the 797 in 2018 or 2019.

I thought A-Net had spoken and Boeing wasn't offering the 788 anymore.

Give AA nice price on the 788 for placing early orders for 797. Seems the 5he official launch of the 797 is but a fomality at this point.

If they are still around(on life support according to Half of A-Net) I could see Norwegian being a launch customer along with a topping off of 788s.

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

The NMA will surely include type commonality for the 787 (possibly the same cockpit and/or tail), and a minor update to the 788 in particular would surprise precisely no one, I believe, other than perhaps Leeham. So it would make some sense to offer family discounts/place joint orders for both aircraft.

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