Is Boeing outfoxing Airbus?


We've been hearing about the Boeing MoM/797 for a long time. Several people have also pointed out how Airbus has the strategic advantage to be in a position to be able to wait and respond to what Boeing offers. Airbus could increase the pressure on the 737MAX now by further developing the A320NEO and C-series duo. Yet they are waiting to see what Boeing does with it's MoM plane.


I wonder if Boeing is not using this advantage Airbus has against itself?


Let me explain. Let me list a few things we think we know about the MoM:


1 Boeing says the business case is hard to close

Who says that of their own product? What modern marketing department declares beforehand that it's product is barely sustainable?


2 It is rumoured to be an ovoid 7-abeast

A 7-abreast is an unusual choice. If it is ovoid it puts the floor in compression instead of the preferred tension and compromises cargo space. If it is not it will be less economic as the least efficient widebody lay-out.


3 It will use engines which might possibly be leapfrogged soon after by ultrafan type engines

This looks to me like a very risky part of the proposition.


4 It doesn't do anything to help the (future) competitiveness of the 737MAX

Perhaps this is the most important, the 737MAX will remain very vulnerable to further A320 and C-series developments.


But let's say Boeing will launch the 797 in the fashion that is being rumoured. Airbus can quickly and more cheaply respond to the bottom part of that market with the A320plus/plusplus. In the 2025-2028 time frame they could launch a A330 successor (around 205t MTOW, ultrafan type engines) and pinch the 797 from above and below. In the meantime Airbus could further increase the pressure on the 737MAX with further development of the A320/C-series that Boeing would be unable to effectively respond to because the 737MAX has insufficient development potential left and there would be no resources for a clean sheet design because it got it's hand full on the 797.

That looks to me like a very undesirable scenario for Boeing for a market/model that apparently is already hard to close a business case for.


What if Boeing is just waving around/dragging on this 7-abreast MoM/797 thing in order to achieve the following:


– Major Airbus current projects are far advanced, "engineers are sitting on their hands". By waiting to respond, Airbus R&D expenses are not as effectively being converted into new revenue providing products.
– A320plus/plus/plus which could hurt Boeing now are being delayed.
– 737MAX is given time to return on it's investment.
– Boeing has time to develop a new wider 3+3 to replace both the 737MAX and a better 757 replacement than the 757 itself was a it's time of launch.


Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the whole 7-abreast thing all of a sudden gets cancelled the coming years and as a rabbit out of it's hat comes a wider Boeing 737 and 757 replacement. This in fact being the plan all along and turning Airbus advantage of being able to wait to respond into having waisted a lot of time and opportunities waiting with a response on a product that never came.

I don't see how this jibes with the fact that Boeing has been shopping around a MoM widebody and numerous airlines are reported to be very enthusiastic about it. If Boeing is trying to do a head fake on Airbus, if anything it will be by making the 797 a lightweight 787 and putting the money saved back into the clean-sheet NSA to be ready a few years later.

Both have great products it just that some are better than others. A321 is coming in to its own and the A320 is selling like hot cakes. The 787 seems to have gained better traction and I'd imagine the margins make up on what the A320 family has in volumes.

Yes a few high profile orders of late may make it appear that B has the upper hand but it would be wrong to look at these in isolation regardless of what the fanboys of either side tell us.

No, its just a cyclical thing. Airbus had its heyday in the widebody market (specifically A330s) especially during end 2000s/early 2010s. But they are now trailing Boeing in the widebody segment.

Similarly, Boeing had its heyday with the 737s but is now trailing behind Airbus in narrowbody market. How this part of the market pans out for Boeing in the next 10 years remains to be seen.

monomojo wrote:

I don't see how this jibes with the fact that Boeing has been shopping around a MoM widebody and numerous airlines are reported to be very enthusiastic about it.

One of the qualities of a successful deception is that it is convincing.

But you don't use your all important lifeblood (called clients or customers) to create your little deception against the competition.Never.
Anyway 'conspiracy theories' are oh so yesterday.

parapente wrote:

But you don't use your all important lifeblood (called clients or customers) to create your little deception against the competition.Never.
Anyway 'conspiracy theories' are oh so yesterday.

Well, they've said all along that it was "hard too close the business case" haven't they? They could simply state, we haven't been able to successfully close the business case. In stead their all important lifeblood get's a shiny brand new double whammy (737MAX and 757 replacement) in a market that is far more important than the one in the middle. A few deserts after dinner and all will be good and forgotten again.


Also keep in mind what's at stake here for Boeing.


I realize it is far fetched, however apart from waiving around the "conspiracy theory" banner, perhaps you could also do me the courtesy to address the above paragraph:

Taxi645 wrote:

But let's say Boeing will launch the 797 in the fashion that is being rumoured. Airbus can quickly and more cheaply respond to the bottom part of that market with the A320plus/plusplus. In the 2025-2028 time frame they could launch a A330 successor (around 205t MTOW, ultrafan type engines) and pinch the 797 from above and below. In the meantime Airbus could further increase the pressure on the 737MAX with further development of the A320/C-series that Boeing would be unable to effectively respond to because the 737MAX has insufficient development potential left and there would be no resources for a clean sheet design because it got it's hand full on the 797.

That looks to me like a very undesirable scenario for Boeing for a market/model that apparently is already hard to close a business case for.

We have the similarities with the SonicCruieser program that morphed very quickly into 787
Branson was the only one who called the bluff and said "I will take the first 10" and in return he got a free ride on Boeing pr wagon

We all know the real question though is are Airbus outfoxing Boeing?

The question is who will come out of ME3 nectar hangover first.

In my sincere opinion, Airbus screwed up by not making A350 smaller, ME3 wants it big, it is easy to get per seat matrics, so let us build big. Both A & B got burnt.

With A330NEO going nowhere, Airbus should either increase the range of A321NEOLR or build a MoM based on A350.

It is not too late for Airbus, because whatever money Boeing makes by selling 787s and 737MAXes, it will burn on 777X.

jeffrey0032j wrote:

No, its just a cyclical thing. Airbus had its heyday in the widebody market (specifically A330s) especially during end 2000s/early 2010s. But they are now trailing Boeing in the widebody segment.

Similarly, Boeing had its heyday with the 737s but is now trailing behind Airbus in narrowbody market. How this part of the market pans out for Boeing in the next 10 years remains to be seen.

Apart from the 787 and A350 - both companies have long haul order droughts.

There is a shift coming. Both mfg have two wide body platforms (apart from the 380) and they can alleviate the rise and fall of one type with the other creating more stable cash flow.
This is much harder with the narrow body platform since they have only type each.

Boeing has a big problem replacing the 737 with new platfom, mainly the cashflow drought in the transition period combined with massive cost developing the new type plus building the production line.
There is another problem with sizing of the new family. When the program is launched, Airbus will immediately respond with new updated fuselage of the 320 family in matching sizes + 2-3 rows of seats creating permanent operating cost advantage, much like Boeing did when they designed the 737-800 a bit longer than the 320

I don't think they are outfoxing them. The problem is that Boeing realizes that the 737 isn't going one more update, it needs to be new. This is in an environment where the CS300 comes from below and the A321 is sitting in its own segment capturing more and more from the narrow body market. The idea with the 797 is right in my opinion, but it’s hard to define it. Basically, it needs the often-claimed double strategy: Have the guts and replace both over a period of 10 years.
In addition, the Shareholders are Investment averse and it’s hard for Boeing to define a long-term investment strategy, while still some 25b$ need to be re-accounted.

Then Boeing tries to clear the ground from the A330NEO to broaden the 797 Foothold and improve the business case. However, with the recent discounts they moved the price down for the 787 and then also in consequence have less margin for 797 pricing closer to the 737 'going' price which makes the business case even tougher.

I don't know if it is good or bad, but for me it’s not a good sign that it takes so long.

Flyflobal

packsonflight wrote:

When the program is launched, Airbus will immediately respond with new updated fuselage of the 320 family in matching sizes + 2-3 rows of seats creating permanent operating cost advantage, much like Boeing did when they designed the 737-800 a bit longer than the 320

...so you are saying that the NG additional size made it competitive over the smaller A320, ok, so in that segment the NG should have been the product and A320 sales decline right?
The 737 / A320 segment is where all or the vast majority of airlines operate, more factors other than a few more seats have a greater impact on the decision to choose an OEM, as the wide body segment involves more resources, the differentiation between OEM products has a greater effect.

Taxi645 wrote:

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the whole 7-abreast thing all of a sudden gets cancelled the coming years and as a rabbit out of it's hat comes a wider Boeing 737 and 757 replacement. This in fact being the plan all along and turning Airbus advantage of being able to wait to respond into having waisted a lot of time and opportunities waiting with a response on a product that never came.

Boeing isn’t going to go to Airlines presenting an airplane that they have quite possible already spent $1Billion in research and development on just for the purpose of outfoxing Airbus. Boeing would not drag Airlines through that. CEOs and exec leaders from Qantas, Singapore, Thomas Cook, United, Delta etc have all expressed interest. Boeing would not be showing an airplane to them if the plan all along was to scrap the idea. The sonic cruiser was scrapped because airlines told Boeing it used too much fuel. If airlines dont want to new MOM plane, it may be scrapped, but i seriously doubt Boeing would get this far if scapping was always the intention.

To me all the talk of the business case is showing that Boeing is being very careful before launch. One of the biggest problems with the 787 was that it was launched too soon in the development process where there were too many risks to the plan regarding, cost, price, schedule, supply chain, etc.. Boeing ended up with Billions in deferred production cost partly because they sold the airplane to launch customers too cheap. This time around they are waiting for the design and manufacturing to mature more before committing prices, performance figures and delivery dates.

Boeing is not outfoxing Airbus. They are being careful and deliberate to avoid some mistakes from the 787 in my opinion.

Taxi645 wrote:

parapente wrote:

But you don't use your all important lifeblood (called clients or customers) to create your little deception against the competition.Never.
Anyway 'conspiracy theories' are oh so yesterday.

Well, they've said all along that it was "hard too close the business case" haven't they? They could simply state, we haven't been able to successfully close the business case. In stead their all important lifeblood get's a shiny brand new double whammy (737MAX and 757 replacement) in a market that is far more important than the one in the middle. A few deserts after dinner and all will be good and forgotten again.


Also keep in mind what's at stake here for Boeing.


I realize it is far fetched, however apart from waiving around the "conspiracy theory" banner, perhaps you could also do me the courtesy to address the above paragraph:

Taxi645 wrote:

But let's say Boeing will launch the 797 in the fashion that is being rumoured. Airbus can quickly and more cheaply respond to the bottom part of that market with the A320plus/plusplus. In the 2025-2028 time frame they could launch a A330 successor (around 205t MTOW, ultrafan type engines) and pinch the 797 from above and below. In the meantime Airbus could further increase the pressure on the 737MAX with further development of the A320/C-series that Boeing would be unable to effectively respond to because the 737MAX has insufficient development potential left and there would be no resources for a clean sheet design because it got it's hand full on the 797.

That looks to me like a very undesirable scenario for Boeing for a market/model that apparently is already hard to close a business case for.

I'm still not sure I'm convinced of the logic. Apparently, Boeing is under discussions with several customers who like the concepts. When it becomes time to put their money where their mouths are, what happens? Does Boeing keep stringing the airlines along with some magic pie in the sky? For how long? Not everyone will wait, and I bet some would get the A321neo/A321LR simple because they're available on the market and they'll make money instead of a yet-to-be-launched concept. And once some competitors start buying A321s, the rest aren't going to sit around patiently for Boeing to launch a platform.

Also, what happens if Boeing actually takes orders for the NMA, only to cancel the program and relaunch it as the next clean sheet design spanning both the 737 and 757 ranges, like Airbus did with the original A350? I'm not sure it is in the interests of Boeing to shift orders over to a new program. A new program is already going to cost a fortune. No sense adding low price deals from another program, possibly reduced in price further to mollify customers. THAT would be hard to close the business case IMO.

monomojo wrote:

I don't see how this jibes with the fact that Boeing has been shopping around a MoM widebody and numerous airlines are reported to be very enthusiastic about it. If Boeing is trying to do a head fake on Airbus, if anything it will be by making the 797 a lightweight 787 and putting the money saved back into the clean-sheet NSA to be ready a few years later.

Combined Boeing built only a couple thousand passenger 757/767 and the market may still not be large enough for a full blown out MOM. This is complicated even further by the WB/NB/Cargo requirements and the stronger competition from Airbus that they did not have when the 757/767 were introduced.

They know they will sell a mega amount of NSA and probably should go full blown on a new NSA and go with the lightweight 787 for the MOM. This way they get the WB/NB/Cargo issues resolved. Boeing can then tap into both the higher capacity NB requirements of the MOM market along with the WB/Cargo market requirements of the MOM. For Boeing it may 2 aircraft that address the needs MOM market requirements. It may be both the higher capacity end of the NSA and a lighter 787 MOM that is ultimately offered. It will be interesting what finally happens.

Taxi645 wrote:

A 7-abreast is an unusual choice. If it is ovoid it puts the floor in compression instead of the preferred tension and compromises cargo space.

Draw us a free body diagram of this floor beam in compression.

There are at least 7 commercial airlines in the Americas, including Aeromexico, Copa, Flybondi, Gol, Southwest, Sun Country, and WestJet, that operate Boeing 737 planes and that do not operate any Airbus planes. Boeing will still have sales opportunities in the Americas, even if Airbus develops a successor to the A320neo family, because there are still some airlines in the Americas who are loyal to Boeing and who will likely continue to order the Boeing 737 or its successor.

Boeing and Airbus are making tons of money and have a gigantic backlog. The MOM NSA or whatever you may call it is simply a pipe dream , specially when you see thread after thread saying wishful features that will never be together, because quite frankly if you are selling your product by the truckload, why sour your own soup with the promise of a new one that will cost a fortune to make and might drive away your current customers...
I really feel that A net circa 2006 is alive and well when I see people here arguing about the AA 787 order and the 350 cancelation, as the end of the world for Airbus, or the constant bashing of the A380, or simply the deferred costs of the 787 and such are ad nauseaum... Boeing is taking as long as they can to avoid the Sonic cruiser debacle, or the 787 development debacle, and having a SOUND business case...

The weird thing is that seems that the A330Neo is having a though time, but (MARK MY WORDS) in the end if the 330 Neo is a market failure a decade down the line it will be the 757 MK II, the perfect aircraft that nobody wanted...

Best regards
TRB

Boeing's head fake was the Dreamliner. While Airbus wasted time and money on the A380, Boeing developed the 787 and it's kicking ass!! For a follow up kick the 777X will finish the job.

SC430 wrote:

Boeing's head fake was the Dreamliner. While Airbus wasted time and money on the A380, Boeing developed the 787 and it's kicking ass!! For a follow up kick the 777X will finish the job.

I actually agree with this ...... because Boeing realized the future was direct flights to cities vs the old hub and spoke model. The 787 / some airlines line BA have started to use the plane for what it was meant to be. Boeing still did invest in the 747-8i but I am guessing not nearly the same amount as Airbus did with the A380.

airbus did waste a lot of time / $$ on the A380 and then needed to play catch up wth A350s and the 330 NEO.

par13del wrote:

...so you are saying that the NG additional size made it competitive over the smaller A320, ok, so in that segment the NG should have been the product and A320 sales decline right?
The 737 / A320 segment is where all or the vast majority of airlines operate, more factors other than a few more seats have a greater impact on the decision to choose an OEM, as the wide body segment involves more resources, the differentiation between OEM products has a greater effect.

You are implying if I am right the 737 should have gone out of production. It is not that simple, it is not a black and white world, nor will winner take all, but it is easyer to price your product higher if it is more competitive and if your aircraft has more revenue capability than the competitior

packsonflight wrote:

Branson was the only one who called the bluff and said "I will take the first 10"

That's not true. AA did the same thing.

sspontak wrote:

Combined Boeing built only a couple thousand passenger 757/767

..."only?"

jplatts wrote:

there are still some airlines in the Americas who are loyal to Boeing and who will likely continue to order the Boeing 737 or its successor.

There's no such thing as "loyalty" in a publicly held company.

They simply go with the option that gets them the greatest return at the lowest cost, relative to what they have or could do. If they didn't, the shareholders would flay the board alive, and rightfully so.

I'm sure many of those airlines would stick with Boeing, as that'd be their most lucrative option based on current infrastructure. But it's not inconceivable for Airbus to snatch one/some if they come up with a superior offering.

LAX772LR wrote:

But it's not inconceivable for Airbus to snatch one/some if they come up with a superior offering.

The "CS-500" (formerly known as the A319 [/humor] ) will soon be nibbling at the small Maxes' market segment.
https://www.fliegerfaust.com/how-will-a ... 98175.html

The chess masters at work.
"With the CS300, the A319neo is the proverbial dead man walking." Tell 'em, Scottie.
https://leehamnews.com/2018/04/02/ponti ... hess-game/

CS-700, CS-900 ?? Metamorphosis of the A319 into BBD composites.

monomojo wrote:

I don't see how this jibes with the fact that Boeing has been shopping around a MoM widebody and numerous airlines are reported to be very enthusiastic about it. If Boeing is trying to do a head fake on Airbus, if anything it will be by making the 797 a lightweight 787 and putting the money saved back into the clean-sheet NSA to be ready a few years later.

Spot on. Quite a few people are starting to realise a lightweight 787 will work.

The 787-8 empty weight can easily be dropped from 120T to 110T and with a bit of extra cost and more unique optimised parts could probably hit 100T empty. A slightly shorter fuselage is also relatively easy.

The 787-9 received a lot of extra strengthening over the 787-8. The 787-10 received even more strengthening around the wing and wing box. The 787-8 has smaller wheels/tyres and brakes than the 787-9/10. The wheels are even closer together.

These same steps can be done again but in the opposite making it lighter. Using the trucks and wheels and tyres from the 767-300ER for example would be suitable size. This is just one of many parts that can be lightened. Instead of derating the genX engines using uprated LEAP engines would be much lighter.

I might create a big post with a part by part breakdown of the optimisation process.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Quite a few people are starting to realise a lightweight 787 will work.

I might create a big post with a part by part breakdown of the optimisation process.

Did Boeing not already try that - 787-3?

They did and they got 43 orders straight on launch day. The original 787-3 was going to fit a lighter landing gear, centre wingbox and inner wing. The engines were simple derated engines so they weighed the same. Going with smaller, lighter engines would have made an even bigger improvement.

It was put on hold because the 787-8 was so far behind schedule and over budget. So the 787-3 didn't get a chance to get more orders. The 787-9 had more orders so it was developed second.

Boeing briefly thought they could do a really basic 787-3 that shared all the heavy bits of the 787-8. They found it would weigh nearly the same and had no fuel fuel burn advantage, it only saved on airport fees. Airlines could just buy a standard 787-8 and fill it with less fuel so JAL and ANA did just that.

Boeing now has the cash and engineers ready to do the original 787-3 and probably even go a bit further and fit scaled up LEAP engines. The 787-10 has only just entered service this week.

Seeking Alpha articulate's it well "We maintain our view that Boeing's decision to pursue the 787 Dreamliner while Airbus was lost on A380 development was a strategic home run: "It's Official: Boeing Declares Victory." The A380, in our view, was a huge misallocation of resources for Airbus, resources that could have been spent trying to thwart Boeing's increasingly dominating presence in the smaller, widebody arena. Airbus is now years behind Boeing in that area, in our view, even after the widely publicized missteps related to the new aircraft development of the 787, now about a decade ago. At the end of February 2018, Boeing had 1,294 orders for the 787, with the majority for the dash-9 variant. Comparatively speaking, Airbus had fewer than 700 orders for the A350 at the end of March 2018. The American Airlines deal will give Boeing an even bigger lead, almost by double per our back-of-the-envelope calculations."

An amazing back log given deliveries of over 130 per year. The 787 gives Boeing ownership of the wide body sector for the forseeable future.

StTim wrote:

SC430 wrote:

Seeking Alpha articulate's it well "We maintain our view that Boeing's decision to pursue the 787 Dreamliner while Airbus was lost on A380 development was a strategic home run: "It's Official: Boeing Declares Victory." The A380, in our view, was a huge misallocation of resources for Airbus, resources that could have been spent trying to thwart Boeing's increasingly dominating presence in the smaller, widebody arena. Airbus is now years behind Boeing in that area, in our view, even after the widely publicized missteps related to the new aircraft development of the 787, now about a decade ago. At the end of February 2018, Boeing had 1,294 orders for the 787, with the majority for the dash-9 variant. Comparatively speaking, Airbus had fewer than 700 orders for the A350 at the end of March 2018. The American Airlines deal will give Boeing an even bigger lead, almost by double per our back-of-the-envelope calculations."

An amazing back log given deliveries of over 130 per year. The 787 gives Boeing ownership of the wide body sector for the forseeable future.

Seeking Alpha is not an impartial analyst - it is a Boeing cheerleader. It is well worth giving them a wide berth.

That's absolutely not true, Seeking Alpha is made of a whole bunch of individual contributors, each of which have their own views. Giving them a wide berth has nothing to do with them being Boeing cheerleaders, it's to do with many of them being spitballing amateurs.

That said, it's getting hard to argue against "The A380, in our view, was a huge misallocation of resources for Airbus" part no matter what views one has of Airbus or Boeing.

StTim wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

StTim wrote:

Seeking Alpha is not an impartial analyst - it is a Boeing cheerleader. It is well worth giving them a wide berth.

That's absolutely not true, Seeking Alpha is made of a whole bunch of individual contributors, each of which have their own views. Giving them a wide berth has nothing to do with them being Boeing cheerleaders, it's to do with many of them being spitballing amateurs.

That said, it's getting hard to argue against "The A380, in our view, was a huge misallocation of resources for Airbus" part no matter what views one has of Airbus or Boeing.

I am pretty sure with the benefit of hindsight Airbus may have chosen different investment options - BUT remember also that Boeing also thought the VLA market important enough to invest in the 747-8.

Yes, but isn't the main difference here the fact that the 747-8 has a life in the freighter business which is expanding as opposed to the A380? I would think the freighter side of the market had to give Boeing some reassurance that it could still turn a profit on the 747-8. Unless Airbus makes an A380F it's future is very limited at best.

StTim wrote:

I am pretty sure with the benefit of hindsight Airbus may have chosen different investment options - BUT remember also that Boeing also thought the VLA market important enough to invest in the 747-8.

And Boeing also approached the Airbus GIE parent companies to co develop a VLA.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/268 ... LINER.html

StTim wrote:

I am pretty sure with the benefit of hindsight Airbus may have chosen different investment options - BUT remember also that Boeing also thought the VLA market important enough to invest in the 747-8.

9/11 and Iraq war where a little hard to predict....

Taxi645 wrote:

What if Boeing is just waving around/dragging on this 7-abreast MoM/797 thing in order to achieve the following:


– Major Airbus current projects are far advanced, "engineers are sitting on their hands". By waiting to respond, Airbus R&D expenses are not as effectively being converted into new revenue providing products.

I guess Airbus can find enough work for their engineers

– A320plus/plus/plus which could hurt Boeing now are being delayed.

they can´t hurt Boeing right now, the A321 already does all the hurting Airbus can hope for. Whatever plus Airbus would do now, would eat into the A321 cashcow sales

– 737MAX is given time to return on it's investment.

It had enough orders to do that before Boeing even started to talk about mom

– Boeing has time to develop a new wider 3+3 to replace both the 737MAX and a better 757 replacement than the 757 itself was a it's time of launch.

You mean Boeing starts a multi-billion USD development program without telling their shareholders?

Aren´t there easier ways to get sued than that?

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the whole 7-abreast thing all of a sudden gets cancelled the coming years and as a rabbit out of it's hat comes a wider Boeing 737 and 757 replacement. This in fact being the plan all along and turning Airbus advantage of being able to wait to respond into having waisted a lot of time and opportunities waiting with a response on a product that never came.

I am pretty sure Airbus has something for all contingencies ready to present. They can do a clean sheet just as fast as Boeing can, and they can do do-over of the A320 family in a much shorter time.

Since Boeing is touting the MoM for three years already and still hasn´t authorize sales to offer something afaik it would rather seem like the shopped around plenty of potential specs, but no single one of those has attracted enough interest in itself to launch something.

Public listed companies simply can not do this kind of surprise, they have to tell shareholders pretty much everything that may effect a companies future. Embarking on a 10+ Billion aircraft project probably fits that bill.

best regards
Thomas

More than likely Boeing is awaiting new engines from Pratt, GE, and Rolls to begin their design around and I'll aso bet that whatever engines they go with will be maximized for Their airplane IF not exclusive TO their airplane.

strfyr51 wrote:

More than likely Boeing is awaiting new engines from Pratt, GE, and Rolls to begin their design around and I'll aso bet that whatever engines they go with will be maximized for Their airplane IF not exclusive TO their airplane.

Then EIS is almost certainly after 2025!

RJMAZ wrote:

I might create a big post with a part by part breakdown of the optimisation process.

I would be interested in reading it.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

Boeing had a chance to do a quick and dirty MOM by MAXing the 767, with the GEnx -2B's. They would have gotten 90% of the advantages of going all new, with a plane that is currently still in production and has an OEW almost exactly between the 321 and 330/787.

It would have ticked most of the range, efficiency, passengers, payload boxes that Boeing says they are looking for...and it would have cost peanuts to do. They could have filled the coming 767 sized gap with a better 767.

Now...they are stuck...mainly because of engines...and good luck with that. We've seen the problems all of the engine makers are having with bleeding edge engine tech, and the odds are pretty slim that they are going to end up with anything much more hi tech than the -2B anyway.

Airlines are really getting tired of getting the shaft by engine performance and reliability promises that just can't be met on time...if at all. As well, engine makers really must be getting tired of losing their shirts by footing the tab for warranty parts and engine replacements.

It might be time to consider a 3 or 4 holer for the MOM job. If Boeing insists on going all new, then a new engine configuration can be built into the airframe with less time, expense and grief than developing an all new engine.

3 GTF's or LEAP's put out almost exactly the thrust Boeing is looking for. Of course, the extra weight of adding a 3rd engine would negate a bunch of the OEW advantages of going all new, (instead of a 767MAX), but at least it would be new....right...?

The only way Boeing is 'outfoxing' Airbus (at least in the NB market, the WB market is a different kettle of fish) is cleverly having their media mouthpieces write articles about some NMA plane that no one knows exactly what it is, to distract from the fact that they currently have nothing to compete with the A321NEO/LR.

Pity Airbus doesn't seem to have as much (if any) media cheerleaders in Europe as Boeing (seemingly) have in the US. Must be nice to have automatic PR to promote whatever empty non-existent promises you're selling.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Boeing had a chance to do a quick and dirty MOM by MAXing the 767, with the GEnx -2B's. They would have gotten 90% of the advantages of going all new, with a plane that is currently still in production and has an OEW almost exactly between the 321 and 330/787.

It would have ticked most of the range, efficiency, passengers, payload boxes that Boeing says they are looking for...and it would have cost peanuts to do. They could have filled the coming 767 sized gap with a better 767.

Not working so well for A330neo, which is something of a surprise to me. Seems the market wants the new tech?

Now...they are stuck...mainly because of engines...and good luck with that. We've seen the problems all of the engine makers are having with bleeding edge engine tech, and the odds are pretty slim that they are going to end up with anything much more hi tech than the -2B anyway.

GE seems to be pretty happy to provide a LEAP 1.5 for NMA via CFM, which will (a) have much improved tech than GEnx and (b) will be much more optimized for the mission than a GEnx solution could ever be.

Airlines are really getting tired of getting the shaft by engine performance and reliability promises that just can't be met on time...if at all. As well, engine makers really must be getting tired of losing their shirts by footing the tab for warranty parts and engine replacements.

All three engine makers (PW, RR, CFM) say they want in to the NMA program.

It might be time to consider a 3 or 4 holer for the MOM job. If Boeing insists on going all new, then a new engine configuration can be built into the airframe with less time, expense and grief than developing an all new engine.

3 GTF's or LEAP's put out almost exactly the thrust Boeing is looking for. Of course, the extra weight of adding a 3rd engine would negate a bunch of the OEW advantages of going all new, (instead of a 767MAX), but at least it would be new....right...?

Absurd, IMHO. LEAP 1.5 will be fine for the twin-engine application.

The 330neo hasn't even entered service yet, so it's a bit early in the day to judge whether or not it will be a success.

Of course the engine makers say they can do it. They say lots of things. So far, it's taken a decade or so past their 'promise' dates to get the performance of the 787 engines up to spec. The newest Trent engines are still giving grief...and they are basically upgrades to the 787 engines. The GTF and LEAP engines are also problem children.

The LEAP 1.5 isn't even off the drawing board yet. Is it even a thing? When would it get here? Considering that considerable genx tech is in the LEAP, I'm not sure how it will be that much more optimized. Right now, the LEAP breaking bits at the bleeding edge, so increasing the power is somewhat problematic, at the moment.

I have no doubts the engine makers will eventually get their act together fixing the current problems...but are they really ready to do another all new engine, which will be mature, more efficient and reliable by the time the MOM is to debut?

Their track records indicate no.

Taxi645 wrote:

– Boeing has time to develop a new wider 3+3 to replace both the 737MAX and a better 757 replacement than the 757 itself was a it's time of launch.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the whole 7-abreast thing all of a sudden gets cancelled the coming years and as a rabbit out of it's hat comes a wider Boeing 737 and 757 replacement.

It could be done but could involve significant double investments where it matters, to offer something superior in both the 737 anf 757 segments.

crimsonchin wrote:

The only way Boeing is 'outfoxing' Airbus (at least in the NB market, the WB market is a different kettle of fish) is cleverly having their media mouthpieces write articles about some NMA plane that no one knows exactly what it is, to distract from the fact that they currently have nothing to compete with the A321NEO/LR.

Inconvenient truth: DL and QF both have large A321 fleets and their CEOs are willing to go on the record saying quite positive things about NMA.

So, either they are Boeing mouthpieces (who happen to have lots of Airbus products?) or you need to re-work your narrative.

JoeCanuck wrote:

The LEAP 1.5 isn't even off the drawing board yet. Is it even a thing? When would it get here? Considering that considerable genx tech is in the LEAP, I'm not sure how it will be that much more optimized. Right now, the LEAP breaking bits at the bleeding edge, so increasing the power is somewhat problematic, at the moment.

I have no doubts the engine makers will eventually get their act together fixing the current problems...but are they really ready to do another all new engine, which will be mature, more efficient and reliable by the time the MOM is to debut?

Their track records indicate no.

The LEAP engine is by far the least troubled of the new engines. It has a minor problem and a part will get swapped out during routine maintenance, this is par for the course. Most engines had similar problems we just didn't have the online forums to blow them out of proportion.

GE beyond doubt has the best track record out of the big 3.

How do you know the LEAP 1.5 isn't off the drawing board?

The rumours are so clear about the LEAP 1.5. This to me suggests the LEAP 1.5 has most likely won as the sole source engine for the NMA and is already under development. The entry into service date of 2025 has been confirmed by multiple CEO's and from Boeing themselves. This suggests the NMA has progressed further than most people think.

Airplanes aren't smart phones. It's not like Apple and Samsung trying to "outfox" each other on camera features to appeal to a consumer market. These are several billion dollar investments. Each manufacturer floats concepts to gauge interest from airlines and hone in on a design that airlines want to purchase in large numbers. They aren't trying to "trick" the other manufacturers. The developments take too long. At best, they would be able to trick the other manufacturer into a delay of a few months.

Airbus isn't doing anything now to upgrade the A320neo series further because the additional sales would not pay for the investment to do it. It hasn't been that long since they made the investment in the NEO. Boeing isn't launching the 797/MOM yet because they haven't come up with a configuration that they think will sell enough at a low enough production cost to make a profit, not because they are playing mind games with Airbus.

OK, I'm going to see how this goes.

Forest for the trees, people: what is the overwhelming business case for this new airliner, which for convenience sake I'll call 797 (not MOM, MMA, or anything else)? Boeing is not spending a single moment sweating whether certain NA-EUR city pairs can be tied together. All this endless debate about 767 vs 321 and... well, you're not thinking strategically.

Don't hate me but: the 737/320 is dead, as far as Boeing is concerned. Proof? Boeing didn't even invest the money to get the damn thing two feet higher off the ground. Sure, new engines (which Boeing didn't pay to develop), funky wingtips, sure... but real investment? At the end of the day, Boeing is publicly held, has to justify every capital expenditure to those who provide it (stockholders), and they have to think strategically knowing they will still be selling this 797 thing 50+ years from now.

The 737/320 space has become commoditized. The entry of the Chinese, in particular, guarantees that, if the CS and E190 didn't already. (Logical to think India will enter as well.) Boeing isn't Chevy; they have no need to make subcompacts to balance CAFE standards. If a plane isn't profitable, Boeing walks away; veteran Boeing employees know they'll virtually shut down the company rather than run at a loss. They walked away from 757/767 15+ – 15!! -- years ago and have never sweated a replacement; you think they are now because it fills one recently-discovered niche, which they did tell everyone about when it was released? No, no, no. It’s Boeing’s job to be profitable, not offer “variety for your shopping convenience!”

But Boeing is bracing for something big. They have brought manufacturing in-house or under control for this one. They’re buying expansion land next to their SC plant. And even though Boeing is stressing affordability, they are clearly ramping up in a way that returns maximum ROI. And the response from airlines has been jockeying to be the launch customer. Considering we haven’t even seen it, what would make airlines drool? The first thing you do is solve a seemingly insolvable problem:

CAPACITY. Airports aren't expanding (except for mature cities trying to squeeze the last few dollars out) but more importantly airport expansion and ATC improvements are something airlines can't control. But traffic is forecast to continue to grow. How do you get a bigger plane into an existing stand? THAT's the key thing, people. Boeing has to design this plane to use existing infrastructure. And you can find a 737/320 stand anywhere in the world.

The object of this plane: 250 pax, 30 min turns, fits a 737 stand, no infrastructure changes necessary. <<--- That's Boeing's must list. When I said Boeing has given up on the 737, a critical reason is that we've reached the limit of what a single-aisle can do. That it gets to Europe is simply a function of "The big boys go 9000+, the step down should do 4500-5000." (Stop thinking like first-world people; no growth there.) If you doubt it, the poster child for LCCs (WN) has the worst on-time rate in the U.S., and the more -800s and MAXs it takes delivery of the worse it will get. Engineers still can’t solve that damn human factor. Feedback has given Boeing the distinct feeling that single-aisles have maxxed out. (So sue me.) Cargo isn’t a concern now any more than it currently is with 737s. And the way this airliner is positioned, frankly, it doesn’t matter whether the customer is mainline or LCC: they’re going to use it as a people mover, nothing more.

It also helps to guarantee the life of the 737, which seems to contradict what I said. Boeing’s perfectly willing to sell you a 737; they’re just not going to lose money on it. The only way to do that is type commonality with the 797: now LCCs have a clear upgrade path without retraining. So you sell them as a set. How extraordinarily convenient that Boeing has just developed a state-of-the-art cockpit for the MAX – so that absorbed the development cost.

Think it over: Boeing’s going to be able to absorb development costs in other programs, again to maximize profit with the 797. The wings and “how to work with carbon fiber”: 787. Foldable wings – how you make the 797 fit the 737 stand – 777x costs. Ditto for the new flight deck and the MAX – an idea first used in 757/767, but this time it will SELL. The ovoid is the only real expense here. (And you note the expensive designer model 787 is where they learned and made mistakes, like outsourcing too much.) The 797 is designed to be low-cost and yet highly profitable, and not replicable by anyone but Airbus in the short term. (If the Chinese get there 20 years from now, Boeing figures it’s OK with the huge numbers and fleet strength it will have then.)

And look at the job distracting everyone Boeing’s done. I wonder if they’ve actually had people stirring up discussions online to distract you into ignoring that they are attempting to build, literally, the (air) bus of the 21st century.

Unfortunately for Airbus, who tend to look at sales numbers rather than the market, this is more bad news. The 380, we’ll leave behind, but the Bombardier thing – Boeing faked them out of their jockstraps. It didn’t cost either one any significant money, but here’s Airbus again doubling down on a demonstrably non-profitable part of the market. Boeing will willingly concede those markets unless it’s profitable for them.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 787-8 empty weight can easily be dropped from 120T to 110T and with a bit of extra cost and more unique optimised parts could probably hit 100T empty. A slightly shorter fuselage is also relatively easy.

er.

I might create a big post with a part by part breakdown of the optimisation process.

If Boeing could drop 10 tons from the 787-8 they would. If it would cost them $100,000,000 they would take that deal in a heartbeat.

You really think that Boeing could "with a bit of extra cost" drop the weight of a 787 by 20%?

That's just crazy.

Come on false flags never work w educated customers cause they are so easy to spot.

Brands are built on trust which can be lost so easily.

There are huge shifts coming and both companies know they must build up cash to pay for the RD that will be required to make compelling next (truly) gen NB.

Boeing is being deliberate because it can’t afford a mistake.


Last thought; Seeking Alpha is a great resource for the same reason this site is.


The only reason BA gets more coverage on seeking alpha is because the retail investment community is so much larger in the US.

That and seeking alpha does a fantastic job covering and dissecting earnings reports and conference calls.

Have some fun and make money doing so.