lightsaber wrote:

I don't consider in misinformation to have the people who design aircraft help accelerate production. They know what can and cannot be changed and the cost to recertify an assembly. Every aerospace manufacturer does this.

Interesting. In the space I work (basically data communication equipment) the people who do logical (software and hardware) design and the people who do physical (environmental and manufacturing) design are almost always separate groups of people. I can see some short term movement on occasion, but expecting to move a bunch from one specialization to another on the fly for anything but a limited period of time would be counter productive. It'd lead to a lot of frustration and more than a few resumes on the street.

I'm sure there will be something that will follow the A320 Family, but right now there are more important problems to solve such as tackling the existing Backlog.

Airbus may have their hands full with production issues.But equally Boeing right now have their hands full with development programs for the heavily revised 737-10 and the 778x and indeed the 779x.I am sure they would be happy to maintain the status quo for a couple of years.Also it seems customers are happy with using the 788 as a top end MOM at present.
Btw the recent tests may be showing that A321LR range is more than enough for the vast majority of customers.

par13del wrote:

OA940 wrote:

The interest for the 797 is in the hundreds of aircraft, and there isn't even a final design yet. Airlines are swooning for the 797, which can replace both the 757 and 767 with two variants.

Remind us again how long Boeing has been going on about its new MOM a/c, if so many airlines are interested one would think they would do something by now, after all, it only took AA to make a big order for NEO's and presto, the NSA was gone and the MAX appeared.
I guess it can be similar to the PR around the plastic plane, even Airbus cancelled a perfectly good MK1 because they could not overcome the client's plastic is better mindset....
This may be revised history so............

You do know planes take a while to be designed, right? Especially completely new ones, even more so when you're trying to replace TWO types with them. Boeing was studying the MoM and its feasibility, the interest from airlines, and how well it would compete against the highly capable A321neo. In 2017 they consulted the big 3 engine manufacturers for engines similar in specs to those of the 757, which was our first indication they were even considering a MoM. A department was created after the summer (either October or November) of 2017. They expect to launch it by 2019. That's pretty good if you ask me, especially so considering they wanna use one aircraft to replace both the 757-200 and 767-300ER.
And with Delta, United, Norwegian, Southwest, Qantas, Singapore and others having stated they're interested (and that's just publicly) I assume the demand is there.

I can see a couple of possibilities here; in both, Airbus could have decided just to wait and see what innovations Boeing does announce with their MoM project, giving them a better idea of what their response should be.

First, it could just be a pause in the 320/330 "plus" development to incorporate both their own innovations and matching Boeing's. Tweaking the existing 320/330 series would enable Airbus to deliver a reasonable competitive response to market much faster than a clean-sheet. That would give them some shorter term sales advantage, even if the 797 is a functional masterpiece.

On the other hand, my thought is that Boeing's Max response to the Neo sidelined their MoM development to the point where now we won't see it on the gate until the mid-2020's. Airbus could come to a similar conclusion and may have decided to go whole-hog on their new MoM/CoC product, rather than rewarming the 320/330 again, and falling behind on the new generation of airlines. How much more can they do with those, especially in view of the soft market for the 330Neo now?

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797....Airbus inside sources have confirmed that Boeing cannot make a business case so it is pointless for Airbus to continue the study, the A321 will reign supreme for another 10 years or so while the MAX10 brings up the rear.
Cool.....

The 797 will happen.

I think Airbus shelving the A320/A321 NEO PLUS program tells us that Boeing's 797 will in fact be a 787-6 and a 787-7...... We are looking at 757-300 - 767-300ER replacement market here..... which many feel the 787-8 and 787-9 were too big and too capable for..... and where the A359 is too big... and where the A338/9 are not getting the hoped for traction....

So instead of worrying trying to position the A320 Family to compete in that space... they will leave it as it is where it continues to beat the tar out of the 737 MAX8 - MAX10... a nice position to be in...

Pick your battles.....

Seems they aren't joking about focusing on A320 production:

Airbus SE and its suppliers have agreed to lift the target production rate for its A320neo in response to strong demand for the narrow-body aircraft, according to people familiar with the matter.

The European planemaker now aims to produce 63 jets a month by the second quarter of 2019, up from a previous goal of 60, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the new rate hasn’t been made public. The company has previously said it could lift rates to as high as 70 a month, based on market demand, and was in talks with its supply chain.

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -on-demand

Thing is, many of us presumed they could increase production rate AND bring A320+ to market at the same time.

Nothing wrong with harvesting profits, IMO.

It does feel like a shift in strategy, in the wake of many senior leaders leaving the building.

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797....Airbus inside sources have confirmed that Boeing cannot make a business case so it is pointless for Airbus to continue the study, the A321 will reign supreme for another 10 years or so while the MAX10 brings up the rear.
Cool.....

So what you are saying is that you don't want Boeing to stand a chance?

See I don't get that. In my perfect world the orders would be 50/50 in wide bodies and narrow bodies. I don't want anyone to "reign supreme" on anything.

Were you as enthusiastic when the 777-300ER was destroying the A340?

Andre3K wrote:

So what you are saying is that you don't want Boeing to stand a chance?

Stand a chance with what, you think it is a contest?
Boeing had the 757 / 767 combo, Airbus produced its combo one trading range and payload for efficiency - A321 - the other increasing range and payload - A330.
Sales of the 757 dried up and Boeing killed it, and for years were content to have the 737-9 service the lower end of the market.
Now the market is shifting, the A321 is moving into the segment that they initially designed out of their 757 competitor for efficiency, times change.
The gap in Boeing's line has existed since the 757 went out of production, the 787 was supposed to be closer to the 767-300 but customers wanted larger so the gap remained and with no more pax 767's being produced the gap is even larger. The MAX-10 is coming but it is not much larger than the -9 so.,,,
Boeing has known about this gap for years, they did not need to build into it due to low demand, now the demand is higher and growing so they need to address it.
In my opinion they know as much about the gap as they need to, they also know their cost of production, they also know that Airbus is charging a premium for their A321, so even if they match the A321 in efficiency they will get customers if their price is competitive, the best option is something competitive which is cheap to produce and bring to market. Note the new talk of existing engines, to me that means either lower expectations or quicker to market, so 787-8 Lite, reworked 767-200 or just announcing they can't build a business case, they have minded the gap for a number of years and know it inside out.

ODwyerPW wrote:

I think Airbus shelving the A320/A321 NEO PLUS program tells us that Boeing's 797 will in fact be a 787-6 and a 787-7...... We are looking at 757-300 - 767-300ER replacement market here..... which many feel the 787-8 and 787-9 were too big and too capable for..... and where the A359 is too big... and where the A338/9 are not getting the hoped for traction....

So instead of worrying trying to position the A320 Family to compete in that space... they will leave it as it is where it continues to beat the tar out of the 737 MAX8 - MAX10... a nice position to be in...

Pick your battles.....

I don’t understand how Airbus shelving the A320plus tells us that the 797 will be a 787 shrink. I just don’t see how Airbus’ decision to focus on production rates tells us what Boeing is doing. I think Qantas, Delta, United, Singapore, Thomas Cook, etc are telling us more about a potential 797 than Airbus’ A321plus strategy.

I also personally don’t think 57% market share for the A320neo equates to beating the tar out of the 737, but I guess we have different definitions.

ODwyerPW wrote:

I think Airbus shelving the A320/A321 NEO PLUS program tells us that Boeing's 797 will in fact be a 787-6 and a 787-7...... We are looking at 757-300 - 767-300ER replacement market here..... which many feel the 787-8 and 787-9 were too big and too capable for..... and where the A359 is too big... and where the A338/9 are not getting the hoped for traction....

So instead of worrying trying to position the A320 Family to compete in that space... they will leave it as it is where it continues to beat the tar out of the 737 MAX8 - MAX10... a nice position to be in...

Pick your battles.....

Yes, I think Boeing is finding the business case for a clean sheet MoM aircraft difficult. It would be lower risk to have a modified 787.

For Airbus, it is best that the new management get their cash cow A320 family into full ramp and to sort out the engine problems ASAP. With a steady delivery stream, it will underpin profits and give Airbus a steady cash flow stream too. Then, it can have the space to focus on slow widebody and VLA sales.

neutronstar73 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

They will have seen that a warmed over plane can not compete with the all new 797. Just like the A338 is not good enough to compete with the 787-8. They know they need something to fight the MoM and replace the failed A330NEO and warmed over A321 won´t cut it.

This might be a bigger factor than most realize. Many felt that Airbus could get away with knocking on the 787 with the A330Neo and it appears they have bet incorrectly. Even though many said that the A330NEO would be developed "cheap", it still has to sting that the A338NEO is basically dead as soon as it rolled out of the factory, so that is money that was almost blown into the wind. The A339 has a better future, but you have to wonder for how long and how robust. If the 797 turns out to be a great platform, then Airbus knows another A321 derivative likely won't survive long and they'll need a replacement.

And if they do a 797 then they can come out and see if a updated stretched will work. I also Agree with REV that There is some corp warfare going on here and its getting good. : )

flee wrote:

Yes, I think Boeing is finding the business case for a clean sheet MoM aircraft difficult. It would be lower risk to have a modified 787.

I think Boeing has already made their business case 1-2 years ago and the decision has been made. They will definitely be producing a medium range widebody. The aircraft and engine design would be well underway by now with the Leap being scaled up.

They crunched the numbers and the cleansheet 7ab or 8ab lost to a lightweight 787 in terms of value for money. Everything is pointing to a lightweight 787, the reported wing size, the engine thrust even the 6X and 7X names. Say hello to the 787-7X and 787-6X.

It would provide massive benefits to the larger 787 models. Boeing has been progressively putting newer 787-9 parts onto the older 787-8 providing they are easier to produce not that they are lighter. The most recent one is the tail section will start being fitted to the 787-8 next year.

I could see lighter 787-7X and 787-6X parts making their way onto the original 787-8 in a similar fashion.

So you will have a two heavy weight long range models the 787-9 and 787-10. These both have 80% commonality with eachother and share the 254T MTO.

You will then have two light weight short range models the 787-6X and 787-7X. These both have 80% commonality with eachother, but share very few parts with the heavy models.

You then have the medium weight 787-8 which can combine the best parts from the light and heavy models. In theory it would have masive cost savings and the production volumes would be so high it would be really hard for an Airbus cleansheet.

boeing737max wrote:

The 797 will happen.

Or not.

Jayafe wrote:

boeing737max wrote:

The 797 will happen.

Or not.

Ok then, that just about covers things folks. Nothing more to see here.

jaehaerys48 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797

Uh, we really don't know that.

Well, never say never. There's market and interest on the potential Boeing 797. Airbus, by suspending the A320neo-plus study is likely waiting to see what Boeing will do with the 797, to launch a competitor (which could be a clean sheet "A360" or a derivative of the A321neo).
However, for what I've read in this thread (sorry for repeating some things), the Boeing 797 may not happen as it was expected (as a 757 replacement). It could be a lightweight derivative of the 787-8 with a lower MTOW and slightly less range which can be produced in the same tooling of the current 787 products.

bigjku wrote:

On a 20 year purchase operating cost as are if not more important than your purchase price. If I can get significantly better performance in 2-4 years why not wait?

NB: I thought I'd posted this yesterday, I see it sitting in my browser now. So might be a bit out of place in the thread...





No doubt the numbers would adjust somewhat, but it'll do for approximations.

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Into that $10m, Boeing must fit in (i) the R&D costs of the program and (ii) the additional manufacturing costs of the larger airframe.

This is an incredibly high bar in the context of what the average stage length will be. Despite lethargic sales, the re-engined A330 is within spitting distance of the 787, being expected to lose out significantly only on long range cruise.

This article smacks of disinformation, put out by either Boeing: to make Airbus look bad or Airbus themselves to force the Boeing 797 issue.

O530CarrisPT wrote:

jaehaerys48 wrote:

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797

Uh, we really don't know that.

Well, never say never. There's market and interest on the potential Boeing 797. Airbus, by suspending the A320neo-plus study is likely waiting to see what Boeing will do with the 797, to launch a competitor (which could be a clean sheet "A360" or a derivative of the A321neo).
However, for what I've read in this thread (sorry for repeating some things), the Boeing 797 may not happen as it was expected (as a 757 replacement). It could be a lightweight derivative of the 787-8 with a lower MTOW and slightly less range which can be produced in the same tooling of the current 787 products.

I'm sure that Airbus has a secret room full of paper planes already available to counter any design of 797 (as well boeing has the same room with plenty of paper 797 models, but still don't tell which one will be launched).

william wrote:

jeffrey0032j wrote:

Probably cold feet from the A330neo experience. Better off designing a new plane and at the same time spam selling the current neos while times are good.

Ding, ding,ding. Expect Airbus to debut a new platform to fill in the same space of the 797. This tells me that Airbus is seeing a lot of A321 customers talking to Boeing and realizes, despite the "experts" here
on Anet spending Airbus's money, that a stretched A321 is not going to cut it.

Wasn't the A320NEO the A320 upgrade experience. Ditto for the 737NG.

A320 NEO production rate will be increased to 63/ Month as agreed between Airbus and suppliers.

Flyglobal

O530CarrisPT wrote:

However, for what I've read in this thread (sorry for repeating some things), the Boeing 797 may not happen as it was expected (as a 757 replacement). It could be a lightweight derivative of the 787-8 with a lower MTOW and slightly less range which can be produced in the same tooling of the current 787 products.

Well, yes, that's what you read on a.net, but keep in mind it's just what some a.net members speculate, not what Boeing is telling potential customers.

For instance if you read https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-438512/ you read:

Boeing partially unveiled a New Midsize Airplane (NMA) concept with a 787-like composite wing and fuselage, a likely narrower wingspan than the Dreamliner and, for the first time, what the company calls a "hybrid cross-section".

Since 787 has a traditional cross section and the NMA will have a hybrid cross-section, Boeing is telling us that the NMA will not be a 787 shrink.

Who know, perhaps their thinking has or will change with time, but as of Paris 2017 NMA was NOT a 787 shrink and they've not said anything different since then.

Flyglobal wrote:

A320 NEO production rate will be increased to 63/ Month as agreed between Airbus and suppliers.

Yes, see #58 above for a link. It does support the notion that Airbus is focusing on production, so either
a) Airbus leaked the 'suspending the A320+/++' narrative knowing the rate change would occur and thus support the disinformation campaign, -- or --
b) Airbus really is suspending the A320+/++ program and shifting its resources towards improving production rate

I don't know which option I favor at this point in time.

Both seem equally plausible to me.

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

Personally, I think the MOM will be built. The key players (airlines) seem very happy to wait until 2025 for delivery from Boeing. Boeing is in a very difficult position with requirement on the MOM. You have one camp which wants passengers and range while another demand passengers, cargo and range. And ultimately, Airbus will be in the same position as the 321 can take passengers and range (limited) but that will be a wait and see problem depending on how the MOM is designed.

mikejepp wrote:

I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?

THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....

AFAIK the plus was never about lengthening the current aircraft, contrary to the OP statement. It was about incremental improvements.
And nothing is being cancelled, it is simply being put on stand-by.
There is too much being read into this IMO.

InsideMan wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?

THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....

I don’t think the A330neo is a factor at all. It isn’t cheap enough and frankly looks like an already wounded program as it is.

mmo wrote:

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

The most interesting stuff to me was the direct quotes.

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

And later in the article:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

Total difference in tone from Leahy et al, IMHO.

I can't picture the same words coming from Leahy's mouth.

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

The most interesting stuff to me was the direct quotes.

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

And later in the article:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

Total difference in tone from Leahy et al, IMHO.

I can't picture the same words coming from Leahy's mouth.

Thanks for sharing those quotes. They sound very humbling.

InsideMan wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?

THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....

Well all I can say is we have executives from Delta, United, Qantas, Singapore, Thomas Cook saying they are interested in the new proposed plane by Boeing. That sounds like a market that is bigger than 200-300 planes. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that the A321LR and A330neo are taking Boeing’s cake. It sounds like Airbus is focusing on production now instead of enhancing the A320neo.

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

Here are some statements from relatively objective sources about the market Boeing is going after

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

Delta Air Lines Inc. and United Continental Holdings Inc. are among the operators that have signaled their interest in the 797, which is known within Boeing as the NMA -- for new middle-of-market aircraft.

“You’re going to see us participate in Boeing’s middle-of-the-market campaign,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian in a message to employees on the company’s internal website. “I hope that we’re going to be a launch customer on that program as well.”

http://compositesmanufacturingmagazine. ... craft-797/

Joyce sees the Boeing 797 as an ideal candidate for transcontinental flights as well as some nearby Asian routes, making it a potential replacement for the Airbus A330s.

Speaking at today's briefing for the airline's half-yearly financial results, which saw Qantas turn in a bumper six months with a pre-tax profit of $976 million – a 15% boost over the same period last year – Joyce talked up the Boeing 797 as "a lighter aircraft than some of the widebody, twin-aisles that we have today."

“It has a range that’s designed to fly transcontinental and maybe into South-East Asia so it’s not over-spec'd for the domestic operation

https://www.ausbt.com.au/qantas-ceo-inc ... boeing-797

Thomas Cook Group is a potential buyer of Boeing's tentative middle-of-the-market airliner, Chief Airlines Officer Christoph Debus said. Boeing has proposed to design and build a new mid-sized airplane, informally dubbed the 797. It would be larger than the 737 Max single-aisle family of jets but smaller than the widebody 787 Dreamliner. "It's definitely attractive for us," said Debus, who is also CEO of subsidiary Thomas Cook Airlines. "It's definitely on our radar and we are definitely interested in such an aircraft.”

https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... ected.html

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think Qantas, Delta, United, Singapore, Thomas Cook, etc are telling us more about a potential 797 than Airbus’ A321plus strategy.

You forgot Ryanair. Or do you filter the messages as they suit?

rheinwaldner wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think Qantas, Delta, United, Singapore, Thomas Cook, etc are telling us more about a potential 797 than Airbus’ A321plus strategy.

You forgot Ryanair. Or do you filter the messages as they suit?

I think Ryanair said they are not interested in the proposed 797. Ryanair also hasn’t talked about an A320plus either as far as I know, so what is your point?

lightsaber wrote:

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797....Airbus inside sources have confirmed that Boeing cannot make a business case so it is pointless for Airbus to continue the study, the A321 will reign supreme for another 10 years or so while the MAX10 brings up the rear.
Cool.....

Huh? Boeing is slow rolling the 797 to ensure a better business case. They have a surplus of cash flow, so they will offer to buy machine tools to reduce unit costs.

Airbus is obviously diverting engineers to production. It is a classy problem to be at high production and being unable to meet demand.

Lightsaber

Boeing is waiting for the Next break-thru in Engine Technology. like a "reliable" Geared Turbo Fan in the 50-80,000 Lb thrust rnge.
The present engines are OK, but they're not ready to go much later into the century and most of them are already at their performance limits....
Not much new under the sun as of yet, so Boeing is probably waiting for the "Next new mousetrap"...

strfyr51 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

par13del wrote:

So now we know that Boeing will not be doing the 797....Airbus inside sources have confirmed that Boeing cannot make a business case so it is pointless for Airbus to continue the study, the A321 will reign supreme for another 10 years or so while the MAX10 brings up the rear.
Cool.....

Huh? Boeing is slow rolling the 797 to ensure a better business case. They have a surplus of cash flow, so they will offer to buy machine tools to reduce unit costs.

Airbus is obviously diverting engineers to production. It is a classy problem to be at high production and being unable to meet demand.

Lightsaber

Boeing is waiting for the Next break-thru in Engine Technology. like a "reliable" Geared Turbo Fan in the 50-80,000 Lb thrust rnge.
The present engines are OK, but they're not ready to go much later into the century and most of them are already at their performance limits....
Not much new under the sun as of yet, so Boeing is probably waiting for the "Next new mousetrap"...

There's no evidence that Boeing will wait for next generation engines.

For instance, this interview with GE Aviation's CEO is less than a month old:

“We’re in lockstep with Boeing in terms of the evaluation of their product,” Joyce told the JP Morgan conference. “They’ve given us a series of milestones they want us to hit in terms of choosing engines for their airplane and we’re complying with every one of their requests.”

And:

I see no reason at all why we wouldn’t make LEAP the baseline,” he said. “It will be bigger, but it will be something advancing not a full generation, but a half generation in technology from what LEAP is today.”

It will be “kind of” a clean-sheet engine, Joyce said. “We’ll be able to put as much technology as we feel is mature enough, advanced technology, brand new stuff.”

Ref: https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/

You're free to believe they're going to wait, but there's no evidence that is correct.

In fact most of the things we read suggest the NMA program will have a program launch some time this year and that CFM "LEAP 1.5" engine is choice that seems to have the highest visibility.

r2rho wrote:

AFAIK the plus was never about lengthening the current aircraft, contrary to the OP statement. It was about incremental improvements.
And nothing is being cancelled, it is simply being put on stand-by.
There is too much being read into this IMO.

There quite a few projects to improve the A320 family in works. as there are for example:
- Replacing parts produced conventionally, with parts produced by additive manufacturing to reduce mainly weight but also cost. Is vigorously persued.
- The electric wing. Replacing hydraulic operated actuators with electric hydraulic ones, is either in the testing or already in the soon to implement phase.

Than there is the A320 plus or plus plus project, that is supposed to be shelved, but the words the journalists use, like shelved or put on hold, is note a quote but an interpretation of the words of the Airbus management. I would use delayed or other things like ramp up have a higher priority. I would be very astonished if Airbus has stopped looking and working at possible improvements to the A320 family, including stretching and new wings.

Regarding moving engineering assets to the A320 family ramp up problems. The main problem seems to be engines. That are things that have to be done at the engine manufacturers. How would one use Airbus engineering assets to speed up the work at the engine manufacturers?

mjoelnir wrote:

Regarding moving engineering assets to the A320 family ramp up problems. The main problem seems to be engines. That are things that have to be done at the engine manufacturers. How would one use Airbus engineering assets to speed up the work at the engine manufacturers?

Correction: the main problem at the current production rate seems to be engines. Airbus wants higher production rates. Rates higher than they have ever produced before. Just because Airbus can build A320s smoothly at the current rate (we will ignore engines) doesn’t mean there are not challenges in increasing the rate that need engineering resources to solve. An increased production rate can introduce an entirely brand new rate limiting step.

I imagine the present A320 NEO backlog is the largest there has ever been in peacetime aviation?Clearly there are serious issues with engine productivity.But recently Airbus has also had serious issues with internal fitments ,primarily seat manufacturers.There may well be issues here as well.Its an insanely high production rate they are aiming for.
I hope they can pull it off as they clearly need to.
In that environment it is of no surprise (to me at least) that they are shelving new A320 products at the moment- that would have to use exactly the same production facilities!What/ when could they offer anything new right now?
Can't see that this has anything at all to do with Boeing issues really.In any case the 797 (if it happens) would be an entirely new production line so they would not have this issue at all.Their question is entirely different.Its called $10 billion.Do they invest it or not.A far bigger call and clearly one that no one would rush into unless they are insane (Boeing are not).
I have little doubt that Airbus will return to looking at improving the A320 family offerings when they are more comfortable with production issues.Why wouldn't they.Thats not to say it would be a 'plus' or a 'plus plus' but sure as hell they will want to capitalise on their present success.Only logical.
Btw none of this will be news to Boeing.They are more than capable of working out Airbus' production schedules and backlogs as Airbus can do with Boeing's.

Amiga500 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

On a 20 year purchase operating cost as are if not more important than your purchase price. If I can get significantly better performance in 2-4 years why not wait?

NB: I thought I'd posted this yesterday, I see it sitting in my browser now. So might be a bit out of place in the thread...





No doubt the numbers would adjust somewhat, but it'll do for approximations.

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Into that $10m, Boeing must fit in (i) the R&D costs of the program and (ii) the additional manufacturing costs of the larger airframe.

This is an incredibly high bar in the context of what the average stage length will be. Despite lethargic sales, the re-engined A330 is within spitting distance of the 787, being expected to lose out significantly only on long range cruise.

It is a good chart. I appreciate it as it gives us something to work with. Looking around there are tons of different and similar ones for the cost breakdown but using the one you provided some interesting numbers turn out.

I used $75 million for a cost for the 797 as I think it’s more realistic. If I simply scale all cost directly and maintain the same percentages in every cost sector except crew since we are adding 2-3 flight attendants rather than much more expensive flight crew we end up with interesting numbers in terms of per seat cost.

Obviously the question is if you can fill the plane and how other factors of cost change with a bigger plane which I am not messing with right now. I think a huge key to the business case will be that it badly needs to fit into existing narrowbody gates. If you can do that and just replace the vast majority of hub to hub flying in the US and other similar high density routes you can drive a lot of volume.

Take American as an example. They run 13 flights daily basically on the hour from ORD to DFW and back. Delta runs 17 from LGA to Atlanta. Each of these flights is around 2.5 to 3 hours or so, figuring a 30 minute turn and 10 hours of daily use a plane can make 3 or maybe 4 trips.

Delta has a total of 34 flights running nonstop each way between ATL and LGA so they need 9-12 planes doing this to make it work. Delta uses various planes but they seat 180-190 people generally from a quick browse. So I am moving like 6,300 people a day either way. If I can do 275 per plane I can do it in 23 flights rather than 34. Instead of an hourly shuttle it’s now every hour and a half which doesn’t make much difference from where I sit. I need 6 to 8 planes to do it. Presumably I also open up slots and gates on either end of this thing as well allowing me to offer more connections on the same infrastructure and hopefully driving more traffic.

Delta alone runs 160 some flights just between its hubs and Atlanta (haven’t looked at other hubs to other hubs). You could cut that to around 110 flights if the 797 is competitive on a cost per seat mile basis. Or if you run the same schedule you could up your capacity. Or some combination.

Anyway, that is where I think the business case is.

mjoelnir wrote:

Than there is the A320 plus or plus plus project, that is supposed to be shelved, but the words the journalists use, like shelved or put on hold, is note a quote but an interpretation of the words of the Airbus management. I would use delayed or other things like ramp up have a higher priority. I would be very astonished if Airbus has stopped looking and working at possible improvements to the A320 family, including stretching and new wings.

Interestingly enough, I also think shelved is probably too strong a term for what is going on. I'd think that delayed, deferred or deprioritized are probably more accurate.

On the other hand we now have Schulz himself choosing to say “we are in a difficult situation today” which sounds pretty dire.

I think what we can take away from the lead article is:

“The ramp-up is not going as well as hoped,” a person with knowledge of the supply chain said. Another said Airbus had declared industrial matters top priority amid engine shortages, calling off plans to show the A320neo-plus design to airlines.

So, if nothing else, the milestone of showing A320+ to airlines is on hold.

The quote from the 2nd article:

Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

suggests to me at least that resources are being shifted away from A320+ and toward production of the current models.

Not trying to make this A vs B at all, but here on a.net we had a lot of people saying Boeing should have skipped the -9 and gone right for the -10. The main reason the -9 was kept was to be able to have something to sell to customers who wanted something bigger than -8 without making the production rate ramp up more difficult than it needs to be by adding the stretched fuselage to the mix. It'll be interesting to see if Boeing can manage the production rate increase and adding in the stretch at the same time.

Personally I would not be surprised if Team B does find the ramp up to be a bigger challenge than anticipated especially as -10 is added to the mix.

Polot wrote:

Correction: the main problem at the current production rate seems to be engines. Airbus wants higher production rates. Rates higher than they have ever produced before. Just because Airbus can build A320s smoothly at the current rate (we will ignore engines) doesn’t mean there are not challenges in increasing the rate that need engineering resources to solve. An increased production rate can introduce an entirely brand new rate limiting step.

Very good point. Presumably this applies to both A and B as both are heading toward uncharted territory.

bigjku wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

bigjku wrote:

On a 20 year purchase operating cost as are if not more important than your purchase price. If I can get significantly better performance in 2-4 years why not wait?

NB: I thought I'd posted this yesterday, I see it sitting in my browser now. So might be a bit out of place in the thread...





No doubt the numbers would adjust somewhat, but it'll do for approximations.

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Into that $10m, Boeing must fit in (i) the R&D costs of the program and (ii) the additional manufacturing costs of the larger airframe.

This is an incredibly high bar in the context of what the average stage length will be. Despite lethargic sales, the re-engined A330 is within spitting distance of the 787, being expected to lose out significantly only on long range cruise.

It is a good chart. I appreciate it as it gives us something to work with. Looking around there are tons of different and similar ones for the cost breakdown but using the one you provided some interesting numbers turn out.

I used $75 million for a cost for the 797 as I think it’s more realistic. If I simply scale all cost directly and maintain the same percentages in every cost sector except crew since we are adding 2-3 flight attendants rather than much more expensive flight crew we end up with interesting numbers in terms of per seat cost.

Obviously the question is if you can fill the plane and how other factors of cost change with a bigger plane which I am not messing with right now. I think a huge key to the business case will be that it badly needs to fit into existing narrowbody gates. If you can do that and just replace the vast majority of hub to hub flying in the US and other similar high density routes you can drive a lot of volume.

Take American as an example. They run 13 flights daily basically on the hour from ORD to DFW and back. Delta runs 17 from LGA to Atlanta. Each of these flights is around 2.5 to 3 hours or so, figuring a 30 minute turn and 10 hours of daily use a plane can make 3 or maybe 4 trips.

Delta has a total of 34 flights running nonstop each way between ATL and LGA so they need 9-12 planes doing this to make it work. Delta uses various planes but they seat 180-190 people generally from a quick browse. So I am moving like 6,300 people a day either way. If I can do 275 per plane I can do it in 23 flights rather than 34. Instead of an hourly shuttle it’s now every hour and a half which doesn’t make much difference from where I sit. I need 6 to 8 planes to do it. Presumably I also open up slots and gates on either end of this thing as well allowing me to offer more connections on the same infrastructure and hopefully driving more traffic.

Delta alone runs 160 some flights just between its hubs and Atlanta (haven’t looked at other hubs to other hubs). You could cut that to around 110 flights if the 797 is competitive on a cost per seat mile basis. Or if you run the same schedule you could up your capacity. Or some combination.

Anyway, that is where I think the business case is.

I disagree completely. I don't think this plane is going to be for segments as short as ATL-LGA or ORD-DFW (although you could see it there occasionally). I think the narrowbodies are going to be awfully had to beat there. I think this plane is going to have to make it's hay in the 2,500-5,000 mn segment.

Revelation wrote:

mmo wrote:

Here is a much better synopsis of what is going at Airbus with respect to the 32X production and the Plus and Plus Plus programs.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-avia ... pgrade-now

The most interesting stuff to me was the direct quotes.

“We cannot fix everything at the same time,” Airbus chief commercial officer Eric Schulz said, referring to the in-service issues, the possible production rate increases and potential product development. Airbus’ management has come to the conclusion that “we need to deliver what we committed to first” before moving on to an A320neo family upgrade.

And later in the article:

Schulz conceded that “we are in a difficult situation today” and decisions have to be made “step-by-step” rather than all at once.

Total difference in tone from Leahy et al, IMHO.

I can't picture the same words coming from Leahy's mouth.

Is it me or are many of the challenges described are very much linked to the GTF? (in service issues, production delays...) It would make sense, if Boeing has decided on CFM as the sole supplier for the MoM, that Airbus might have decided on P&W as the sole supplier for A321+. And in that case it would not make sense to launch the A321+ before the GTF is mature,

Revelation wrote:

O530CarrisPT wrote:

However, for what I've read in this thread (sorry for repeating some things), the Boeing 797 may not happen as it was expected (as a 757 replacement). It could be a lightweight derivative of the 787-8 with a lower MTOW and slightly less range which can be produced in the same tooling of the current 787 products.

Well, yes, that's what you read on a.net, but keep in mind it's just what some a.net members speculate, not what Boeing is telling potential customers.

For instance if you read https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... an-438512/ you read:

Boeing partially unveiled a New Midsize Airplane (NMA) concept with a 787-like composite wing and fuselage, a likely narrower wingspan than the Dreamliner and, for the first time, what the company calls a "hybrid cross-section".

Since 787 has a traditional cross section and the NMA will have a hybrid cross-section, Boeing is telling us that the NMA will not be a 787 shrink.

Who know, perhaps their thinking has or will change with time, but as of Paris 2017 NMA was NOT a 787 shrink and they've not said anything different since then.

Thank you, Revelation. We still do not know what the Boeing 797 will officially be, as a matter of fact. We have only some concepts which could evolve into the finished product, which could be a fully new airplane instead of a derivative - the hybrid cross-section may already hint that will be a clean sheet design, thus potentially rulling out the possibility of a "787-7X". But again, that is subject to considerable changes.

Kikko19 wrote:

O530CarrisPT wrote:

jaehaerys48 wrote:

Uh, we really don't know that.

Well, never say never. There's market and interest on the potential Boeing 797. Airbus, by suspending the A320neo-plus study is likely waiting to see what Boeing will do with the 797, to launch a competitor (which could be a clean sheet "A360" or a derivative of the A321neo).

I'm sure that Airbus has a secret room full of paper planes already available to counter any design of 797 (as well boeing has the same room with plenty of paper 797 models, but still don't tell which one will be launched).

As I've said, Airbus is waiting and see what will be the best way to react to the launch of the Boeing 797/NMA. And while that not happens, I think they have begun to design some potential designs in order to do so.

cledaybuck wrote:

bigjku wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

NB: I thought I'd posted this yesterday, I see it sitting in my browser now. So might be a bit out of place in the thread...





No doubt the numbers would adjust somewhat, but it'll do for approximations.

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Into that $10m, Boeing must fit in (i) the R&D costs of the program and (ii) the additional manufacturing costs of the larger airframe.

This is an incredibly high bar in the context of what the average stage length will be. Despite lethargic sales, the re-engined A330 is within spitting distance of the 787, being expected to lose out significantly only on long range cruise.

It is a good chart. I appreciate it as it gives us something to work with. Looking around there are tons of different and similar ones for the cost breakdown but using the one you provided some interesting numbers turn out.

I used $75 million for a cost for the 797 as I think it’s more realistic. If I simply scale all cost directly and maintain the same percentages in every cost sector except crew since we are adding 2-3 flight attendants rather than much more expensive flight crew we end up with interesting numbers in terms of per seat cost.

Obviously the question is if you can fill the plane and how other factors of cost change with a bigger plane which I am not messing with right now. I think a huge key to the business case will be that it badly needs to fit into existing narrowbody gates. If you can do that and just replace the vast majority of hub to hub flying in the US and other similar high density routes you can drive a lot of volume.

Take American as an example. They run 13 flights daily basically on the hour from ORD to DFW and back. Delta runs 17 from LGA to Atlanta. Each of these flights is around 2.5 to 3 hours or so, figuring a 30 minute turn and 10 hours of daily use a plane can make 3 or maybe 4 trips.

Delta has a total of 34 flights running nonstop each way between ATL and LGA so they need 9-12 planes doing this to make it work. Delta uses various planes but they seat 180-190 people generally from a quick browse. So I am moving like 6,300 people a day either way. If I can do 275 per plane I can do it in 23 flights rather than 34. Instead of an hourly shuttle it’s now every hour and a half which doesn’t make much difference from where I sit. I need 6 to 8 planes to do it. Presumably I also open up slots and gates on either end of this thing as well allowing me to offer more connections on the same infrastructure and hopefully driving more traffic.

Delta alone runs 160 some flights just between its hubs and Atlanta (haven’t looked at other hubs to other hubs). You could cut that to around 110 flights if the 797 is competitive on a cost per seat mile basis. Or if you run the same schedule you could up your capacity. Or some combination.

Anyway, that is where I think the business case is.

I disagree completely. I don't think this plane is going to be for segments as short as ATL-LGA or ORD-DFW (although you could see it there occasionally). I think the narrowbodies are going to be awfully had to beat there. I think this plane is going to have to make it's hay in the 2,500-5,000 mn segment.

Qantas is pretty clear on where they would want to run the thing and it’s on routes exactly like that. We will have to see how it plays out. To me that market is what can drive volume and lower per unit cost. That you can have a smaller one with less passengers do longer routes is a nice bonus in my eyes.

bigjku wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

bigjku wrote:

It is a good chart. I appreciate it as it gives us something to work with. Looking around there are tons of different and similar ones for the cost breakdown but using the one you provided some interesting numbers turn out.

I used $75 million for a cost for the 797 as I think it’s more realistic. If I simply scale all cost directly and maintain the same percentages in every cost sector except crew since we are adding 2-3 flight attendants rather than much more expensive flight crew we end up with interesting numbers in terms of per seat cost.

Obviously the question is if you can fill the plane and how other factors of cost change with a bigger plane which I am not messing with right now. I think a huge key to the business case will be that it badly needs to fit into existing narrowbody gates. If you can do that and just replace the vast majority of hub to hub flying in the US and other similar high density routes you can drive a lot of volume.

Take American as an example. They run 13 flights daily basically on the hour from ORD to DFW and back. Delta runs 17 from LGA to Atlanta. Each of these flights is around 2.5 to 3 hours or so, figuring a 30 minute turn and 10 hours of daily use a plane can make 3 or maybe 4 trips.

Delta has a total of 34 flights running nonstop each way between ATL and LGA so they need 9-12 planes doing this to make it work. Delta uses various planes but they seat 180-190 people generally from a quick browse. So I am moving like 6,300 people a day either way. If I can do 275 per plane I can do it in 23 flights rather than 34. Instead of an hourly shuttle it’s now every hour and a half which doesn’t make much difference from where I sit. I need 6 to 8 planes to do it. Presumably I also open up slots and gates on either end of this thing as well allowing me to offer more connections on the same infrastructure and hopefully driving more traffic.

Delta alone runs 160 some flights just between its hubs and Atlanta (haven’t looked at other hubs to other hubs). You could cut that to around 110 flights if the 797 is competitive on a cost per seat mile basis. Or if you run the same schedule you could up your capacity. Or some combination.

Anyway, that is where I think the business case is.

I disagree completely. I don't think this plane is going to be for segments as short as ATL-LGA or ORD-DFW (although you could see it there occasionally). I think the narrowbodies are going to be awfully had to beat there. I think this plane is going to have to make it's hay in the 2,500-5,000 mn segment.

Qantas is pretty clear on where they would want to run the thing and it’s on routes exactly like that. We will have to see how it plays out. To me that market is what can drive volume and lower per unit cost. That you can have a smaller one with less passengers do longer routes is a nice bonus in my eyes.

Alan Joyce is quotes as saying “a fantastic transcontinental and maybe [to] Asia aircraft”. I think QF wants a plane that can do some of the shorter international while not killing them domestically. I guess you are right, and we will have to see how it all plays out.

Amiga500 wrote:

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Wouldn't that depend on a number of variables such as price of fuel, cycles and miles flown?

I find this revelatory and interesting: That Airbus had a "NEO+" (same wing) as well as a "NEO++" (new wing). Seems like both involved stretches of A320 and 321 fuselage.

I read this as NEO+ being a "continuous improvement" project that would trade range against capacity and efficiency.
The NEO++ would be the longer-range NMA response/preemption.
It makes sense for Airbus to pump the breaks on a project aimed at the core shorthaul market given its already dominant position in that market and the centrality of production ramp to exploiting that dominance.
The NEO++ would have a longer timeline, need not be shown to airlines until Boeing shows its cards, and therefore likely takes minimal impact from this resources shift.

Matt6461 wrote:

(...)
The NEO++ would have a longer timeline, need not be shown to airlines until Boeing shows its cards, and therefore likely takes minimal impact from this resources shift.

It would be kind of complicated to keep in the shadows the necessarily long developement of a new wing plane (>5 years). But yeah... they could launch the A321++ in 2021-2022 and not come too far behind the 797...

mham001 wrote:

Amiga500 wrote:

Fuel costs are approx twice the cost of purchase.


So, if the A321 costs ~20% less to buy than the 797 (so, say $55m as opposed to $66m), then the 797 must be ~10% more fuel efficient than the A321 averaged across the use spectrum to pay its way. [Assuming that mx, crew costs etc are a wash]

Wouldn't that depend on a number of variables such as price of fuel, cycles and miles flown?

Yes, the exact percentages do vary on cycles and miles flown, but no airline should buy new unless they plan high utilization. Once an aircraft is in the fleet (new), it pays to fly the airframe intensely the first 7 to 12 years.

Yes, the fraction it costs to fuel is also a function of fuel prices. But the trend is up.

As the poster noted, fuel costs are approximately twice that of the cost to purchase. That will change if interest rates go up too. Airlines must decide which risk they prefer to take (interest rate risk or fuel price risk). There isn't much other choice.

Lightsaber

Boeing over the last two years has apparently succeeded in reducing its manufacturing costs, and may be a few steps ahead of Airbus. I would not be surprised if Airbus has decided to work at catching up, and maybe get a step or two head of Boeing. It is a brutal business.

mikejepp wrote:

I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?

757 and 767 sales represent ~2400 frames. Sold during a much different time in aviation. I'd say the demand for some type of replacement in this market is quite sizeable. Boeing believes it is 4000 frames. I do not doubt them. Especially with markets like China and India coming online over the next 3 decades.

InsideMan wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

I think what it comes down to is..... if you have a market that

1) Is out of the range of an A321LR
2) Cannot support a B787-8

.... Its probably not worth serving. Theres long and thin and then theres too long and too thin. All the markets that are 4000nm+ apart with less than a 200 pax demand every day don't really need nonstop service. And if they're a special, highly profitable case, fly it with a 788 or 332 and have some empty seats.

Airbus and Boeing want to build airplanes that will sell thousands of copies. The market between A321LR and B788 is... what... 200-300 airplanes?

THIS!
Was sceptical of the 797 business case from the beginning. Airbus can always attack by price from above (330neo) or Efficiency from below (A321LR).
They would still make more money than Boeing on their sales (no or little development cost to cover) and at the same time take Boeings cake too....

The A330 is the same size as the 787. How would a plane that large attack from above? It serves a completely different role than a proposed MOM plane.