Revelation wrote:

parapente wrote:

Boeing are never going to publicly say what everyone knows.Thats ok one would not expect them to.Just like Airbus saying that the 338 is a perfect mom a/c.Of course it's total BS but I would not expect them to say otherwise.
Boeing have a problem and its increasing by the day as the market moves upwards in (narrowbody) size.
Their 180-200 offering -The 8, is just fine for what it has to do and the 7 is there for those that need a 150-175 ac.
But above that...The 9 is rubbish and has had to be replaced.But the 10 is engineering by sellotape.
It's t/o performance will be better but not great.It is larger than the 9 but still too small and it is Range limited.

If these are Boeing's problems, then they are good ones to have.

Despite your opinions of the 737 product line, the production line is full for the foreseeable future.

Customers think enough of those 'rubbish' -9s and 'cellotape' -10s to spend $BILLIONS to buy them.

Having the market size move upwards is not a problem for Boeing, it's an opportunity.

Having the market size move upwards is a problem for Bombardier.

A lot of people on a.net like to think about maximum range and all the opportunities for a plane with more range. I've seen a number of posts about a bigger wing on the A320 family to give it more range. The reality from what I've heard is that airlines care about CASM on the core of the market. The average 737 flight is 900-1000 miles. Under 10% of flights are over 2000 miles. Airlines want maximum efficiency around 1,000 miles while having some flexibility to fly longer missions. There is a limit though. They don't want to be flying extra weight around burning fuel and paying higher landing fees. Very few passenger flights takeoff at MTOW and most passenger airlines operate their airplanes below the maximum MTOW option. The 737-10 being range limited may be just fine or better for some airlines who don't need 2500miles or more of range if the airplane burns less fuel over 500-1000 miles than its competitor if that is where an airline wants to use the plane.

The A321LR gets a lot of excitement on this forum for its range. How many photos of it have been shown as a MOM competitor in this thread? Well when reality comes into the conversation, maybe 2-4% of NEO family orders are the A321LR. More range on existing platforms is only going to sell a few planes. Perhaps a few hundred (which is enough to easily justify the cost of a 7000lbs MTOW increase on the A321). will be sold, but that's not what the NMA market would solely be comprised of.

The same conversation regarding how much range is too much range translates into the NMA. High max ranges offering flexibility are nice, but how much useless structural weight is being flown around? How many A330s & 787s are in regional configurations that never go more than 4000 miles? Smaller wing, smaller engines, smaller gear, lighter wingbox, lower thrust engines requiring less maintenance, lower landing fees, cheaper to build, can all result in the 10-20% CASM differences that can justify a new model. The question is how big the market is and how to size the airplane to capture the market.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

A lot of people on a.net like to think about maximum range and all the opportunities for a plane with more range. I've seen a number of posts about a bigger wing on the A320 family to give it more range. The reality from what I've heard is that airlines care about CASM on the core of the market. The average 737 flight is 900-1000 miles. Under 10% of flights are over 2000 miles. Airlines want maximum efficiency around 1,000 miles while having some flexibility to fly longer missions. There is a limit though. They don't want to be flying extra weight around burning fuel and paying higher landing fees. Very few passenger flights takeoff at MTOW and most passenger airlines operate their airplanes below the maximum MTOW option. The 737-10 being range limited may be just fine or better for some airlines who don't need 2500miles or more of range if the airplane burns less fuel over 500-1000 miles than its competitor if that is where an airline wants to use the plane.

Looking at things in terms of number of flights can be misleading. Consider an aircraft that flies 3 1000mile flights and 1 3000mile flights. You could say that the aircraft then spends 75% of flights on flights that were 1000 miles in length and therefore you should optimize it for the 1000 mile flight.

However, the single 3000 mile flight is going to take ~3x as long as a single 1000 mile flight. And so it will actually spend 50% of flight time on flights that were 3000 miles in length. So from that standpoint you would want an aircraft that was equally good on long flights as short flights.

nehalem wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Revelation wrote:

A lot of people on a.net like to think about maximum range and all the opportunities for a plane with more range. I've seen a number of posts about a bigger wing on the A320 family to give it more range. The reality from what I've heard is that airlines care about CASM on the core of the market. The average 737 flight is 900-1000 miles. Under 10% of flights are over 2000 miles. Airlines want maximum efficiency around 1,000 miles while having some flexibility to fly longer missions. There is a limit though. They don't want to be flying extra weight around burning fuel and paying higher landing fees. Very few passenger flights takeoff at MTOW and most passenger airlines operate their airplanes below the maximum MTOW option. The 737-10 being range limited may be just fine or better for some airlines who don't need 2500miles or more of range if the airplane burns less fuel over 500-1000 miles than its competitor if that is where an airline wants to use the plane.

Looking at things in terms of number of flights can be misleading. Consider an aircraft that flies 3 1000mile flights and 1 3000mile flights. You could say that the aircraft then spends 75% of flights on flights that were 1000 miles in length and therefore you should optimize it for the 1000 mile flight.

However, the single 3000 mile flight is going to take ~3x as long as a single 1000 mile flight. And so it will actually spend 50% of flight time on flights that were 3000 miles in length. So from that standpoint you would want an aircraft that was equally good on long flights as short flights.

Unless you are Mazda and invent a slogan of Engineering without Compromise, I don't see how it is possible to have an aircraft equally good on long flights as short flights. There are going to be compromises. I think (don't know, just a guess) that among current narrowbodies, there are very few airlines that would be willing to have OEW go up 5% if they could get 10% more range.

Fully agree with the observations of nehalem and newbiepilot on range, efficiency.

Not sure which company has been more aggressively promoting range over the years though..


http://www.airlinereporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/737-MAX-9_range.png
https://leehamnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/787-10-range.png
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/study-says-more-range-not-much-more-capacity-needed-nma

Had an interesting discussion with someone from Boeing over the last day or so. The answers while obvisoluy vague given sensitivity weren’t what most here (mys of included expected).

Avionics came across as much more important than I figured. I also get the impression the range of capacity to be covered by this program is wider than analyst and enthusiast expect. Some of my assumptions about constraints on the program scope were not accurate.

If it turns out to be correct people making opposing arguments for where this should be positioned payload and range wise could both end up being correct which would be interesting.

Interesting stuff.

Does this mean two different wings?

Or a super shrink and a super stretch in the MOM family?

The super shrink would be lighter due to a shorter fuselage and less passenger weight. So aux fuel tanks could be fitted to give 6000+nm range.

The super stretch would be slightly heavier and with a big passenger payload would only be able to carry a fraction of the fuel load before hitting maximum takeoff weight.

The super shrink would be like a mini 787 flying thin long haul. The super stretch would be flying short thick routes like Melb to Sydney with nearly as many seats as a a330 but with more better CASM.

bigjku wrote:

Had an interesting discussion with someone from Boeing over the last day or so. The answers while obvisoluy vague given sensitivity weren’t what most here (mys of included expected).

Avionics came across as much more important than I figured. I also get the impression the range of capacity to be covered by this program is wider than analyst and enthusiast expect. Some of my assumptions about constraints on the program scope were not accurate.

If it turns out to be correct people making opposing arguments for where this should be positioned payload and range wise could both end up being correct which would be interesting.

Not suprised, what it means is to make a business case for this to work (higher numbers) it will have be more than just a long range aircraft that seats 200-250 people. It will have to encompass in some respects part (top part) of the domestic NB market too. Hmmm, I wander why Boeing patented a short stubby widebody?

RJMAZ wrote:

Interesting stuff.

Does this mean two different wings?

Or a super shrink and a super stretch in the MOM family?

The super shrink would be lighter due to a shorter fuselage and less passenger weight. So aux fuel tanks could be fitted to give 6000+nm range.

The super stretch would be slightly heavier and with a big passenger payload would only be able to carry a fraction of the fuel load before hitting maximum takeoff weight.

The super shrink would be like a mini 787 flying thin long haul. The super stretch would be flying short thick routes like Melb to Sydney with nearly as many seats as a a330 but with more better CASM.

I expect so, one for long range and the other regional. That way Boeing gets away from Jack of trades master of none syndrome.

A year or two ago, Boeing had a patent for a design that had two different wing spans using the same wings. The span difference came from two different wing boxes, one of which had the wings almost bolted to each other.

I’ve always wondered if using two wing boxes with different widths were better than two different wing sets. I believe the AN225 uses AN124 wings, and the AN225 just has a much larger wing box and two additional engines mounted to the wing box. Maybe a similar approach is possible with MOM and NSA.

RJMAZ wrote:

Interesting stuff.

Does this mean two different wings?

Or a super shrink and a super stretch in the MOM family?

The super shrink would be lighter due to a shorter fuselage and less passenger weight. So aux fuel tanks could be fitted to give 6000+nm range.

The super stretch would be slightly heavier and with a big passenger payload would only be able to carry a fraction of the fuel load before hitting maximum takeoff weight.

The super shrink would be like a mini 787 flying thin long haul. The super stretch would be flying short thick routes like Melb to Sydney with nearly as many seats as a a330 but with more better CASM.

I believe you will see two different wings. The exact method of achieving that I don’t know.

It sounds like they just may be contemplating launching MOM and NSA at the same time using the same nose/barrel with two different wings/wing boxes.

Here comes the 7w oval!

One aircraft ,2 wings?
It's a big call.
Perhaps 2 variations of the same wing?Would keep costs down.

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like they just may be contemplating launching MOM and NSA at the same time using the same nose/barrel with two different wings/wing boxes.

Here comes the 7w oval!

I can't see any way Boeing launches NSA any time soon.

While it is a possibility that MOM & NSA may share a fuselage in the long run, IMHO, there are simply too many factors against launching NSA now:

MAX still selling very well (even if at less than parity with neo).
No engine available that will give the improvement over neo/MAX to justify the expense of a new plane.
Maybe RR might be interested, but PW and CFM are way too busy selling engines to recoup their investments.
Who's going to buy it? The combined neo/MAX backlog is now over 10,000 frames!
What does Boeing tell all its MAX customers?

parapente wrote:

One aircraft ,2 wings?
It's a big call.
Perhaps 2 variations of the same wing?Would keep costs down.

And a new wing does not turn your plane from a medium to long-haul solution into a short haul solution. You reduce the wing weight a bit, but the net effect on the OEW will be limited if you still use the same engines, fuselage, wingbox, MLG...

flyinggoat wrote:

I’ve always wondered if using two wing boxes with different widths were better than two different wing sets.

Minor point of order: you're taking about the CENTRE wing box, not "the wing box". The wing box is the main structural "tube" throughout the whole wing, made up from the upper and lower covers joined to the front and rear spars. The CWB is the bit of wing box which passes through the fuselage.

A lot of people on a.net get this mixed up so I just used your post to highlight this (not because I'm picking on you... ).

Otherwise, yes - interesting point!

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like they just may be contemplating launching MOM and NSA at the same time using the same nose/barrel with two different wings/wing boxes.

Here comes the 7w oval!

I can't see any way Boeing launches NSA any time soon.

While it is a possibility that MOM & NSA may share a fuselage in the long run, IMHO, there are simply too many factors against launching NSA now:

MAX still selling very well (even if at less than parity with neo).
No engine available that will give the improvement over neo/MAX to justify the expense of a new plane.
Maybe RR might be interested, but PW and CFM are way too busy selling engines to recoup their investments.
Who's going to buy it? The combined neo/MAX backlog is now over 10,000 frames!
What does Boeing tell all its MAX customers?

First I think this site needs some consistency on this subject. Is the MAX a problem child or not.? There is endless bitching about the MAX particularly at the largest end of the spectrum. My take on it, the MAX is likely the more efficient aircraft on the smaller and shorter range end of the spectrum but the A320 is better at the other end.

Second I have long believed part of what the 797 program is about is resetting the boundary between narrowbody aircraft and the rest of the market. I believe Boeing wants a clear break point between those as lots of competition, even if it isn’t great competition, moves into the 737/A320 space in various forms. The margins on narrows isn’t great as it is and will only get worse.

Third I find your proposition of what to tell MAX customers interesting. If the program takes 7 years from launch to service at present production rates both the MAX and A320 will have chewed through a ton of orders by then. By my math roughly 1,400 per year once spun up. A lot of planes will have been delivered by that point.

bigjku wrote:

Third I find your proposition of what to tell MAX customers interesting. If the program takes 7 years from launch to service at present production rates both the MAX and A320 will have chewed through a ton of orders by then. By my math roughly 1,400 per year once spun up. A lot of planes will have been delivered by that point.

I think this is a purely theoretical discussion because of my other points.

But, given the neo/MAX backlog, who's going to buy NSA in big numbers if it was launched tomorrow? If all those neo/MAX are delivered, the airlines aren't going to "throw" them away to buy NSA just a handful of years later. I also think Boeing would be very reluctant to let MAX customers switch orders to NSA because the drop in revenue from deliveries would be significant.

Net neo/MAX sales were over 1,600 last year, I wouldn't be surprised if the replacements for them don't arrive until 2035.

bigjku wrote:

scbriml wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like they just may be contemplating launching MOM and NSA at the same time using the same nose/barrel with two different wings/wing boxes.

Here comes the 7w oval!

I can't see any way Boeing launches NSA any time soon.

While it is a possibility that MOM & NSA may share a fuselage in the long run, IMHO, there are simply too many factors against launching NSA now:

MAX still selling very well (even if at less than parity with neo).
No engine available that will give the improvement over neo/MAX to justify the expense of a new plane.
Maybe RR might be interested, but PW and CFM are way too busy selling engines to recoup their investments.
Who's going to buy it? The combined neo/MAX backlog is now over 10,000 frames!
What does Boeing tell all its MAX customers?

First I think this site needs some consistency on this subject. Is the MAX a problem child or not.? There is endless bitching about the MAX particularly at the largest end of the spectrum. My take on it, the MAX is likely the more efficient aircraft on the smaller and shorter range end of the spectrum but the A320 is better at the other end.

Second I have long believed part of what the 797 program is about is resetting the boundary between narrowbody aircraft and the rest of the market. I believe Boeing wants a clear break point between those as lots of competition, even if it isn’t great competition, moves into the 737/A320 space in various forms. The margins on narrows isn’t great as it is and will only get worse.

Third I find your proposition of what to tell MAX customers interesting. If the program takes 7 years from launch to service at present production rates both the MAX and A320 will have chewed through a ton of orders by then. By my math roughly 1,400 per year once spun up. A lot of planes will have been delivered by that point.

Only on A.net does an airplane with a 4000 plane backlog get labeled as a problem child.

I appreciate your input, and information that you are finding. It makes me wonder

Newbiepilot wrote:

Only on A.net does an airplane with a 4000 plane backlog get labeled as a problem child.

To be fair, it's not only a.net where the MAX is somewhat maligned.

With a total of over 4,300 sales after just six full years, I don't really see how anyone can label it as a "problem child". I guess it's only a "problem child" if someone is coming from a perspective where Boeing should be dominating every market segment. However, that's not the World we're living in any more.

MAX could conceivably hit 5,000 sales in 2018. Boeing must be pretty happy with their problem.

scbriml wrote:

I can't see any way Boeing launches NSA any time soon.

While it is a possibility that MOM & NSA may share a fuselage in the long run, IMHO, there are simply too many factors against launching NSA now:

MAX still selling very well (even if at less than parity with neo).
No engine available that will give the improvement over neo/MAX to justify the expense of a new plane.
Maybe RR might be interested, but PW and CFM are way too busy selling engines to recoup their investments.
Who's going to buy it? The combined neo/MAX backlog is now over 10,000 frames!
What does Boeing tell all its MAX customers?

I agree with this. Everyone needs to make their money off their investments for a while. Planes aren't iPhones.
The status quo in the MAX/NEO market is just fine for both Boeing and Airbus for several years IMO.

bigjku wrote:

First I think this site needs some consistency on this subject. Is the MAX a problem child or not.? There is endless bitching about the MAX particularly at the largest end of the spectrum. My take on it, the MAX is likely the more efficient aircraft on the smaller and shorter range end of the spectrum but the A320 is better at the other end.

That'll never happen because (a) there is no logical decision process that could produce an answer to your question and (b) people here are largely informed by subjective rather than objective criteria so even if a decision could be reached objectively many would not accept it.

bigjku wrote:

Second I have long believed part of what the 797 program is about is resetting the boundary between narrowbody aircraft and the rest of the market. I believe Boeing wants a clear break point between those as lots of competition, even if it isn’t great competition, moves into the 737/A320 space in various forms. The margins on narrows isn’t great as it is and will only get worse.

I think our member newbiepilot has explained it several times. Boeing talks to airlines and ask them about the payload they want to carry and the distance they want to carry it. If such a break point exists it's because that's where the market space is available, not because Boeing wants to create a boundary between its product and existing narrowbodies.

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

seahawk wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

We may see this issue resolved by a new family of large narrowbodies ranging from 739 size to 753 (and above) size, using the same wing but with more range at the bottom than at the top end. Perhaps we will see 137', 162', and 187' variants with 6000nm, 5000nm, and 4000nm range respectively.

seahawk wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

Yep, 30 years ago range was lacking. Now that we have TATL 737s, it seems to be a solved problem.

Swadian wrote:

seahawk wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

We may see this issue resolved by a new family of large narrowbodies ranging from 739 size to 753 (and above) size, using the same wing but with more range at the bottom than at the top end. Perhaps we will see 137', 162', and 187' variants with 6000nm, 5000nm, and 4000nm range respectively.

Which means flying the variant with the highest CASM on the longest routes.. I can not remember that this ever was a good idea..

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

Yep, 30 years ago range was lacking. Now that we have TATL 737s, it seems to be a solved problem.

A plane with 4000nm design range, has 4000nm range, 30 years ago as well as today as well as in 2025.

seahawk wrote:

Ovid is possible from a construction perspective, but it only is efficient if you look at the width at floor height. If you move it to shoulder height, it is inefficient by nearly definition. In end you would need a complex frame with rather little curvature on the side and a nearly flat roof section.More a rounded rectangle than an ovid. And this is very challenging for a pressure vessel.

With CFRPs it can be done, but it will be a bit heavier than a double bubble or A350/787 like fuselage. It becomes a big challenge if you want to do this complex CFRP structure out of autoclave and with reduced production costs. Doable yes, but with a huge risk in design, development and maturing production technology. (risk meaning delays and cost overruns)

Fully agreed. Before CFRP enables an "as-good" ovoid design, it would provide a superior single aisle circular fuselage.

parapente wrote:

The only reason anybody is discussing an ovoid fuselage at X7 is because this is what all the editorial on the Boeing MOM suggests it will be.
I fully appreciate Boeing don't have a clue about aircraft and after reading this and many other threads will realise their elementary mistakes.

I fully appreciate Boeing has a clue about aircraft and will put the MOM plans back into the shelf after the numbers will not have added up (a twin aisles for the price of a single aisle with the economics of the single aisle).

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An observation: Every A and B plane since 1990: 777, 380, 787, 350 (and almost the reworked 330s) is a long ranger. They also lend themselves to being abused as a trans Atlantic. It seems time for an optimized at 3500-4500 nautical miles plane to appear.

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

Yep, 30 years ago range was lacking. Now that we have TATL 737s, it seems to be a solved problem.

the 737 and 320 cover rather few tatl city pairs though and some of those pairs virtually require a WB plane

rheinwaldner wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Ovid is possible from a construction perspective, but it only is efficient if you look at the width at floor height. If you move it to shoulder height, it is inefficient by nearly definition. In end you would need a complex frame with rather little curvature on the side and a nearly flat roof section.More a rounded rectangle than an ovid. And this is very challenging for a pressure vessel.

With CFRPs it can be done, but it will be a bit heavier than a double bubble or A350/787 like fuselage. It becomes a big challenge if you want to do this complex CFRP structure out of autoclave and with reduced production costs. Doable yes, but with a huge risk in design, development and maturing production technology. (risk meaning delays and cost overruns)

Fully agreed. Before CFRP enables an "as-good" ovoid design, it would provide a superior single aisle circular fuselage.

parapente wrote:

The only reason anybody is discussing an ovoid fuselage at X7 is because this is what all the editorial on the Boeing MOM suggests it will be.
I fully appreciate Boeing don't have a clue about aircraft and after reading this and many other threads will realise their elementary mistakes.

I fully appreciate Boeing has a clue about aircraft and will put the MOM plans back into the shelf after the numbers will not have added up (a twin aisles for the price of a single aisle with the economics of the single aisle).

Times like this I wish Anet was around when the 777 was conceived.
" A twin that can carry almost as much a 747? Stop dreaming."
"Engines the size of a 737 width? You are crazy, the engine makers would never make an engine that big, its impossible!"
"No one will fly a twin across the Pacific, its too dangerous in an engine out situation."

Boeing may indeed bookshelf this project as being impossible to hit numbers..............Or Boeing may just surprise us.

Very well said.

A plane w tatl range that is sized to connect will sell very well.

Boeing will be able to figure if it can compete against updated 32x and make the appropriate decision.

seahawk wrote:

Swadian wrote:

seahawk wrote:

And one of the biggest demands of airlines when the A300 was replaced by the A330 was more range.

We may see this issue resolved by a new family of large narrowbodies ranging from 739 size to 753 (and above) size, using the same wing but with more range at the bottom than at the top end. Perhaps we will see 137', 162', and 187' variants with 6000nm, 5000nm, and 4000nm range respectively.

Which means flying the variant with the highest CASM on the longest routes.. I can not remember that this ever was a good idea..

It really wasn't that long ago when the 77E outsold the 773 massively, the 752 outsold the 753 massively, and the A332 outsold the A333 pre MTOW increases. Airlines have no problems taking higher CASM smaller variants as long as it exceeds a threshold range that larger variants can't...

5000nm 7 abreast looks like a good product to fit in between current offerings.
I do wonder tough if Airbus won't surprise Boeing by launching a heavy redesigned C Series within 3-4 years that will eat into B's plans

An update from ALC:

Plans for a potential new Boeing mid-sized jet are gaining momentum, prompting Airbus to respond by beefing up its strong-selling A321neo model, Air Lease Corp Chief Executive John Plueger said on Monday.

“I think they (Boeing) feel they have momentum from the customers and that they are building momentum internally for the business case,” Plueger told Reuters on the sidelines of the annual Airline Economics conference, referring to a project for a 220-260-seat jet known as New Mid-Sized Airplane (‘NMA’).

“I think that they ... are feeling better about the NMA, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some time this year we saw a decision about a launch or not a launch,” he said in an interview.

But airlines and leasing companies have set Boeing stringent goals on the price at which they would be prepared to buy, insisting on only a narrow premium to single-aisle models.

The new plane should probably trade at some premium to the Airbus 321neo, but at a “very big discount” to small widebody jets like the Airbus 330neo and Boeing 787-8, he told delegates.

Article
https://www.reuters.com/article/aviatio ... SL8N1PH5OX

According to UA, a new airplane from Boeing could reach the market in 8 to 10 years.

A potential new mid-sized aircraft being studied by Boeing could reach the market in eight to 10 years, a senior United Airlines executive said on Tuesday.

United is holding off evaluating possible contenders to replace its Boeing 757 and 767 fleet as Boeing ponders whether to launch the new model, but the potential project is likely to “well defined” some time this year, Gerry Laderman, senior vice-president of finance at United Airlines said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aviatio ... SS8N1O3024

KarelXWB wrote:

According to UA, a new airplane from Boeing could reach the market in 8 to 10 years.

A potential new mid-sized aircraft being studied by Boeing could reach the market in eight to 10 years, a senior United Airlines executive said on Tuesday.

United is holding off evaluating possible contenders to replace its Boeing 757 and 767 fleet as Boeing ponders whether to launch the new model, but the potential project is likely to “well defined” some time this year, Gerry Laderman, senior vice-president of finance at United Airlines said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/aviatio ... SS8N1O3024

And Muilenburg ( https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ith-trump/ ) gives an interview where he discusses NMA:

Muilenburg said his commercial airplane team will introduce an innovative, highly automated manufacturing system and also a new development process that builds in opportunities for Boeing to sell follow-on services throughout the service life of the airplane.

“It’s more than an airplane,” Muilenburg said. “It’s the production system of the future, the design system of the future, it’s a new life-cycle lens on how we do product development.”

And Muilenburg plays to the audience, while the article suggests NMA will be launched this year:

As it ramps up production, Boeing is unlikely to cut more machinists. And with the launch of a new airplane ahead by 2019, the company could even start staffing up again on engineers late this year.

Muilenburg insisted that “Puget Sound is part of Boeing for the future in a very strong way.”

He re-iterates that the 777X wing plant will be used for other projects so it seems pretty clear that at least the wings and perhaps more will be built at KPAE.

Revelation wrote:

“It’s more than an airplane,” Muilenburg said. “It’s the production system of the future, the design system of the future, it’s a new life-cycle lens on how we do product development.”

Hmmm, didn't Boeing say exactly the same thing about 787 production?

Seattle is strangled by a lack of rapid transit and having mostly single unit residences. Help!! Mr Musk - get that cheap tunneling machine going. We need it yesterday. Along with killing the maze of zoning laws to provide more housing in the close in neighborhoods. Think row housing.

scbriml wrote:

Hmmm, didn't Boeing say exactly the same thing about 787 production?

...and the whole programming accounting deferred cost is / was all about getting that in place, that they lost billions doing it does not mean that it was / is not still their intention.
As of now they seem to have gotten most of it sorted out even to the point of finally going ahead with their increase in production which they had previously delayed.

Interesting Aurora D8 update.

http://aviationweek.com/future-aerospac ... sign-track

CFM will probably not jump on the geared-fan technology for the 797 powerplant:

Any bid by CFM International to power Boeing’s proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) is unlikely to incorporate geared-fan technology.

The GE Aviation/Safran joint venture would also be willing to adjust its thrust-range agreement if the engine exceeds the 50,000lb upper limit that currently ensures the partnership does not compete with its parent GE.

...

“We will use it when the right time comes. Right now, we feel we have enough value that we can bring without the complexity of a gear… and the reliability that we are ready to commit to at this point. It doesn’t mean we won’t in the future,” he says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ct-445532/

Perhaps that suggests that the power requirement (and range) from Boeing is coming down?
It has been hinted that they are looking more at a 4000knm range than the 5/5.5knm previously.
If the heart of the market was 250 pax at 4- 4.5knm (plus cargo) perhaps you can develop the existing engine technology?

I would say that the ongoing legal fight with P&W about GTF patents might play a huge part in it.

parapente wrote:

Perhaps that suggests that the power requirement (and range) from Boeing is coming down?
It has been hinted that they are looking more at a 4000knm range than the 5/5.5knm previously.
If the heart of the market was 250 pax at 4- 4.5knm (plus cargo) perhaps you can develop the existing engine technology?

The program will likely produce two different wings and therefore will have two different set of engine requirements.

I expect Pratt and CFM to have offerings on the smaller wing and GE plus someone else on the larger wing.

Why would the larger wing need bigger engines? The extra lift should reduce the thrust requirements for a similar TOW. And 4 engines for a new type sound excessive.

Maybe, I expect one wing centered around what we would call the core narrowbody range spectrum and the other to be 5,000-6,000 NM as far as it’s ideal range. If you can do it with just two engines they will. Pratt may do it with one. I guess CFM could do it as well but I expect them or GE by itself to use the larger wing as a chance to debut a geared fan. Unless you are right and the patent fight scares them off it. In which case it’s a huge win for Pratt if they ever get their act together.

Gearing aero engines to slow the cold front end is not new at all.If fact gearing fans is not even new.Williams did it ages ago if I am not mistaken.P&W worked with RR about 20 years ago on it as well.No one can patent planetary gears.
What GE have developed is mighty good.The pressures and temperatures they are running their 'simple' engine at (reliability) is astounding.
I can imagine that they are happy for the moment.They bought the Italian gear company that P&W use anyway - just to be safe!

parapente wrote:

Gearing aero engines to slow the cold front end is not new at all.If fact gearing fans is not even new.Williams did it ages ago if I am not mistaken.P&W worked with RR about 20 years ago on it as well.No one can patent planetary gears.
What GE have developed is mighty good.The pressures and temperatures they are running their 'simple' engine at (reliability) is astounding.
I can imagine that they are happy for the moment.They bought the Italian gear company that P&W use anyway - just to be safe!

GE bought the Italian company to work on a gearbox for GE or to block further PW geared turbo fans?

More on the future powerplant:

Proposals from the three major engine makers for Boeing’s planned New Mid-market Airplane (NMA) all differ in technologies and the airframer is also yet to publicly indicate whether it will adopt a single-source strategy.

“We have now brought in all three engine manufacturers,” he says. “They’ve all brought proposals and they’re all coming at the challenge in slightly different ways.”

Tinseth declines to comment on the specifics of the engine offers or the way the programme’s engine supply will be structured. “Our focus is on readiness of engines, capability of engines, those sort of things,” he says.

He admits that GE Aviation, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce “probably have an opinion, and it’s probably the same one” about a single-source deal to power the NMA.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-445673/

Thx Karel.
With the other recent pronouncements it does seem the engine(s) will need to be circa 50klbs.So it's a new engine which ever way you look at it.Hence the 'hurry up' from the OEM.
Will be a hard fought battle no doubt about it.The Boeing aspect does imho appear to be coming together for Farnbrough with Engine OEM's to follow that.

parapente wrote:

Thx Karel.
With the other recent pronouncements it does seem the engine(s) will need to be circa 50klbs.So it's a new engine which ever way you look at it.Hence the 'hurry up' from the OEM.
Will be a hard fought battle no doubt about it.The Boeing aspect does imho appear to be coming together for Farnbrough with Engine OEM's to follow that.

Since so much about this program depends on the economics, I would doubt the program announcement would happen until the engine oem is also willing to announce at the same time. Also Farnborough seems to be too early because http://aviationweek.com/singapore-airsh ... s-nma-plan said:

Sources within the company indicate such a move remains far off, as Boeing’s product development team has yet to finalize even a preliminary business case proposal for submission to the board.

A lot would have to come together in time to pull off Farnborough in late July.