parapente wrote:

Re Seahawk -- Which I guess is why there has never been a 'one size fits all' aircraft in this 'middle market' sector.But...The moment you start breaking it up the business case drops away as Boeing are finding.Soooo they will come up with the best compromise.Since there is nothing in their MOM sector (as they have defined it) airlines will have compromise and take a 'nearly right' a/c.

seahawk wrote:

Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.

- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity

Samrnpage wrote:

Honestly, the smart thing to do would make the MOM or next clean sheet design to be the 737 replacement with a model list like the A320 series but bigger. Example:

797-700 170 seats
797-800 200 seats
797-900 230 seats
797-1000 250 seats

All with decent range of 3000-5000

So covers 737 and MOM and has fleet commonality with each other.

StTim wrote:

parapente wrote:

Re Seahawk -- Which I guess is why there has never been a 'one size fits all' aircraft in this 'middle market' sector.But...The moment you start breaking it up the business case drops away as Boeing are finding.Soooo they will come up with the best compromise.Since there is nothing in their MOM sector (as they have defined it) airlines will have compromise and take a 'nearly right' a/c.

And many will continue with their current compromises.

seahawk wrote:

Rumour mill says it is even more complex. there seem to be 4 definitions voiced by the airlines.
- US continental people mover (up to 300 seats (two class), no interest in cargo, >4000nm range, optimisation for routes around 2500nm)
- Medium haul widebody 4000nm range, cargo is important, not more than 300 seat (single class)
- 767ER replacement ~6000nm range, cargo capacity and around 250 seats two class
- small widebody around 270 seats single class, around 5000nm range, cargo capacity

Boeing has provisionally defined two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm.

Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.

StTim wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.

I am not sure I agree unless they go for either just bulk loading - or they define a new container to fit the "allegedly" oval cross section. If no new container they will have more seats per metre of length and the same cargo space. So less for no customer bags.

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

Whilst everyone keeps comparing to A330 et al, the NMA wide body frame will have a lot more cargo capacity than the current narrow bodies.

I am not sure I agree unless they go for either just bulk loading - or they define a new container to fit the "allegedly" oval cross section. If no new container they will have more seats per metre of length and the same cargo space. So less for no customer bags.

Not sure I follow.

More seats per unit length but also 2nd aisle so it all balances out.

Unique containers won't be the issue people here make it to be.

767 did just fine with its own container type.

Revelation wrote:

The cargo thing is a bit of a wildcard, but IMHO they will err on the side of efficiency rather than capacity.

william wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I've said this many times..

LD3 containers will NOT fit in a tight 8 abreast circular fuselage.

The fuselage if circular will need to be a roomy 8 abreast or a very tight 9ab abreast to fit LD3 containers. The A330 cross section is the absolute smallest you can go to fit LD3 containers. An A330 sized cross section would see 9 abreast used by many carriers on short routes. It would also be within 3-4% of the 787 cross section.

If LD3's are needed Boeing will use the 787 cross section which would make more sense. They would then make an optimised, lightweight, short ranged 787 version. Potentially even a second shrink for a medium ranged version.

Narrower LD2 containers are the only option to fit a tight 8 abreast circular cross section. So this would be the most likely option for a clean sheet design.

In terms of the NMA here are my estimates:
60% - It will be a lightweight optimised 787-3
20% - clean sheet circular tight 8ab LD2 containers
10% - clean sheet oval tight 8ab LD3-45 containers
5% - 767MAX 8ab for short haul 7ab medium haul
5% - clean sheet 7ab or 6ab design.

Or just buy a 787 if you need move LD3s. Mission creep will ruin the 797 mission of being an efficient people hauler.

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.

Newbiepilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

seahawk wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

That is my understanding as well. It makes sense, the only problem I see is that the plane would be in the same position as the 767 and would be equally vulnerable to an A330 replacement arriving 5-7 years later. The newer engines would allow Airbus to go 8 abreast while achieving a similar absolute fuel burn or offering more range while keeping the fuel burn per seat kilometre similar.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

Especially when they post high single class seat counts (with accompanying baggage) and maximum range in the same sentence.

Leeham spelled out the trade-offs:

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

So you can get 206 passengers in two classes (note: not the 240 one-class count) to max range (4000nm still air, 3500nm realistic) if you also use an unrealistic showroom configuration and do not use containers.

We shall see exactly what Boeing presents, but if you presume what we know from Boeing (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) is using similar assumptions (two classes, showroom configuration, bulk loading) there is a meaningful gap in terms of range and passenger count (and presumably, efficiency too).

StTim wrote:

If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

Revelation wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

Especially when they post high single class seat counts (with accompanying baggage) and maximum range in the same sentence.

Leeham spelled out the trade-offs:

With our trip through the realities of the Airbus A321neo, we have learned the different trades that have to be considered for an airline that buys a A321LR for Trans-Atlantic missions. A big influence will be the cabin and optional equipments choices. Airbus advertises the A321LR at launch as 16 business class (36 inch pitch) and 190 economy (30 inch pitch) for a total of 206 seats. Our model shows that the empty weight of the A321LR has to stay below 52t for this to work, so Airbus assumes a typical “OEM show room” configuration with very basic assumptions for seat weights, IFE, galley equipment, aircraft options, quite different from the typical Boeing 757-200W configurations we compared with from Delta Air Lines and United Airlines in October.

We can also see that Airbus has assumed non LD3-45 loaded passenger bags. The bags simply does not fit for 206 passengers in a containerized concept with normal assumptions for bags per passenger and bags per container. It requires nine containers free and we would only have seven after the three fuel tanks have been installed. With bulk-loaded bags, including using the bulk cargo area, the bags for 206 passengers will fit with a bit of room to spare.

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2015/01/15/airbu ... ats-there/

So you can get 206 passengers in two classes (note: not the 240 one-class count) to max range (4000nm still air, 3500nm realistic) if you also use an unrealistic showroom configuration and do not use containers.

We shall see exactly what Boeing presents, but if you presume what we know from Boeing (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) is using similar assumptions (two classes, showroom configuration, bulk loading) there is a meaningful gap in terms of range and passenger count (and presumably, efficiency too).

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make.

Leeham showed what Airbus quoted for Airbus A321LR (208 seats in two classes, 4000 nm still air / 3500 nm real world range) is realistic if you assume a showroom configuration and no containers. If you move that to a real LH configuration (actual business class seats, kitchens, lavs) and (presumably) containers, you do end up with something that LH would not find acceptable for general TATL service.

I'm presuming Boeing is also making favorable assumptions in the numbers we read (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) and they have to get knocked down too, but there's still a meaningful gap between A321LR and NMA when you compare marketing/brochure numbers.

seabiscuit wrote:

Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand

StTim wrote:

seabiscuit wrote:

Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand

Mostly the latter.

Newbiepilot wrote:

StTim wrote:

seabiscuit wrote:

Will this aircraft create more sales or just pull from 737 and 787 demand

Mostly the latter.

It will also pull from A321 and A330neo sales. The A330 family is the one where I see sales coming from. No airline in China has ordered the A330neo yet. Air China, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern, etc are big A330 customers. If the larger 797 has enough passenger and cargo capacity, but much lower operating costs, that could be very appealing in China.

People keep talking about Transatlantic, but I see the high capacity short to medium haul market having lots of opportunity. The A300 was decades too early. Back when it was in production, Beijing and Shanghai airports had about a dozen gates and were ghost towns.

Samrnpage wrote:

Honestly, the smart thing to do would make the MOM or next clean sheet design to be the 737 replacement with a model list like the A320 series but bigger. Example:

797-700 170 seats
797-800 200 seats
797-900 230 seats
797-1000 250 seats

All with decent range of 3000-5000

So covers 737 and MOM and has fleet commonality with each other.

StTim wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

StTim wrote:

Mostly the latter.

It will also pull from A321 and A330neo sales. The A330 family is the one where I see sales coming from. No airline in China has ordered the A330neo yet. Air China, China Southern, Cathay Pacific, China Eastern, etc are big A330 customers. If the larger 797 has enough passenger and cargo capacity, but much lower operating costs, that could be very appealing in China.

People keep talking about Transatlantic, but I see the high capacity short to medium haul market having lots of opportunity. The A300 was decades too early. Back when it was in production, Beijing and Shanghai airports had about a dozen gates and were ghost towns.

In which case they need the larger cargo capacity. I agree it will also be A321 (a bit but a bit more than the 737) and the A330.

william wrote:

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I don't see anything North American about my post. I can see specific airlines, be they Asian or North American wanting cargo above passengers. A really good cargo or a really good passenger plane will create the market. And no, this is not a case of build it and they will come. Asia will have as much need for this plane as NA or Europe or Africa or the Sub Continent. Some airlines won't need it. About the time Boeing has 1500 orders Airbus will come up with a competitive product, slightly different and maybe a little (emphasize little) more cargo friendly.

As things are looking now, Airbus might have a another cheaper, lighter responds rather 2-3 years before Boeing has the 797 ready. And they have 3000 A321NEO/LR's in the backlog today. The complication is, everybody knows / can predict.

It slow becoming visible In reality Airbus might have already won the first round of the battle, started with Boeings first MoM presentations, 5 years ago. The airlines are (again) not waiting. The A321LR is today by far the cheapest, most compatible workable TATL option. While Boeing is still doing powerpoints & dealing with airlines that do not agree with e.g. cargo capability.
.
http://aviationweek.com/awincommercial/airbus-a321lr-populate-iag-transatlantic-fleet

It been reported by trade mags the airlines were not interested in a Boeing A321, but you keep try sell something the customer says they are not interested in. I still looking for quotes of airline officials clamoring for a stretched A321 with a new wing. Such a plane of course would sell by nature being a part of the A320 family.

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

If you squeeze range by using such extreme tactics it becomes a real world range less than the A321LR which as we know is not enough for TATL for Lufthansa.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make.

Leeham showed what Airbus quoted for Airbus A321LR (208 seats in two classes, 4000 nm still air / 3500 nm real world range) is realistic if you assume a showroom configuration and no containers. If you move that to a real LH configuration (actual business class seats, kitchens, lavs) and (presumably) containers, you do end up with something that LH would not find acceptable for general TATL service.

I'm presuming Boeing is also making favorable assumptions in the numbers we read (two main NMA versions: a 225-seat model with a 5,000 nm range and a larger, 275-seat version with a range of roughly 4,500 nm) and they have to get knocked down too, but there's still a meaningful gap between A321LR and NMA when you compare marketing/brochure numbers.

At a press briefing outside closed-door talks with dozens of potential buyers of the 200-to 300-seat 7E7 jet family, a key Boeing official said the program was building momentum as the board of directors considers endorsing the project next month.

"This airplane, I believe, will be a superb machine for operating with the airlines in terms of its economy," said Peter Gardner, U.S. technical vice president at Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. "To match (the 7E7), the competition is really going to have to stretch out."

Slightly less enthusiastic was Nico Buchholz, senior vice president Corporate Fleet-Deutsche Lufthansa AG, who praised the "significant improvements" the 7E7 could offer, but reserved final judgment pending more details. "The aircraft from our perspective has developed positively into something which we see today. We still have some way to go," Buchholz said.

Boeing tentatively plans to build the 7E7 for deliveries starting in 2008, replacing its 757 and 767 models and going head-to-head with the popular A330 from rival Airbus SAS.

Airbus officials have said they might fit 7E7 engines on the A330, cutting the operating advantage, though questions have arisen over related engineering costs.

• Neither LH nor CX bought the 787 but obviously Boeing was in talks with them very early.
• The 787 massively grew in scope from a 757 medium-haul replacement to a 777-200LR replacement. The NMA has to be careful not to do the same.
• Airbus was very quick to consider an A330neo - the A350 Mk1 - but it took them 15 years to complete.

Newbiepilot wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The problem is that we have no idea what cabin configuration those seat numbers mean. 225 seats single class is 3 rows less than a 767-2 at 32" pitch, which today would probably be reduced to 30". So about 31-32 rows, which would be 737-8 length. So maybe 42m overall due to the bigger diameter. There is imho no way to achieve an acceptable fineness ratio for such a plane.
Even if they can squeeze the fuselage average diameter to 4,60m it is still an FR of around 9, which simply is bad. This short fuselage means that your tail also needs to be bigger and this adds an additional penalty. Imho there is no realistic way to even come close to an A321 or 737-1000 with such a design.

Boeing usually quotes two class configurations. The 767-200 is 216 seats and 767-300 is 261. That tells us the plane they are proposing is almost identical in size to the 767-200/300 but with less range.

I would suggest not getting distracted when people start quoting single class seat counts that make the A321 sound similar in size, when in reality there is a gap.

jagraham wrote:

As for A321LR efficiency, those three tanks carry 9000 liters extra fuel. For 39000 liters total. The standard 757 which has been so derided here carries 42000 liters. Not much difference. And the 757 has a higher weight variant which is what is used on most TATL flights. Even the 767-300 non ER holds 63000 liters - for 290 pax single class.

So the A321LR carries 189 liters per pax, the standard 757 carries 200 liters per pax, and the 767-300A carries 217 liters per pax (for almost 1/3 more pax, and much older technology). Which is why the established airlines are not rushing to park their 757s and 767s for A321LRs.

On the other end, to do 300 pax one class and 5000 nm creates a payload (30000 kg) and fuel (about 120000 liters, 97000 kg) which is 787 / A350 territory. The margin versus the existing planes will be too small for the investment.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The first is Boeings comment that the 787 was the heaviest barrel they ever would make.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The second is what 3D printing would be doing to simplify production.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

A third thing, related to the previous two is what Boeing has learned with the 777X wing design and production.

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

george77300 wrote:

tlecam wrote:

If this has been posted already, I apologize for the duplicate. Jon Ostrower recently posted this on his personal website (he left CNN).

https://jonostrower.com/2018/03/the-boe ... rendering/

This is finally a lot more solid information. Lots of airlines expressed interest now.