Kilopond wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

It depends if they want to increase the wing or not? If they go down that path, while more expensive, would also allow for an A322 stretch, which might be just enough to cause Boeing some headaches with their MoM proposal. Think of the thing basically as a modern DC-8.

You are kidding, aren't you? (I'm sure you are). By today's standards they would be able to squeeze more than 320 seats into a DC-8 fuselage, including the necessary additional lavs and exits.

Here are some examples of lengths of single-aisle aircraft, in meters:

44.51 A321
46.61 B707-300
47.32 B752
52.32 VC-10
53.12 Il-62
54.47 B753
57.04 DC-8-63

For the imperialistic-minded gals and guys: a meter is slightly more than a yard plus 3⅓ inches.

The A321 is the shortest aircraft in this list, yet it has the widest fuselage. Give it a larger wing and we're good for an A322 and an A323 .

Successful Boeing 737 developments have encouraged Airbus to look again at A320NEO family enhancements, especially those that can 'share' the production line, together with locking in / growing the A321 margin premium consistently earned. If Boeing has to push the MOM pause button, that's an added bonus, and with continuing A350 growth versions, that allows already developed but unannounced A330NEO growth versions to be offered, without harming the A350.

Longer range / higher weight options, with just the section the wings are attached to modified, to incorporate larger, updated wings, and landing gear changes for further ground clearance and weight, an added cost option for existing NEO orders.

boxeebox wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

B6JFKH81 wrote:

Soooooo.....you took internal information and made it public? Someone didn't read the Blue Book or Social Media/Forum policy....

Soooooo, is this like your first time on an AvGeek forum or something? That happens all the time.

In all fairness, I gave this a lot of thought before posting but decided it was nothing detrimental towards Jetblue nor were plans leaked. It was more about Airbus possibly proposing a variant of the A321. I would never harm not jeopardize the company I love. Why do you have to be the negative nuisance no one likes? If I leaked real substantial information then sue me. Back to studying your Bluebook and being a Debbie Downer.

Well said! I am really sick and tired of enjoying reading a lot of these threads, only to find someone slamming the person who wrote it. Especially, when most of the threads like this are very interesting, and subjects not previously posted.

Anyway, I tend to agree with a lot of the posters on this topic. How much more can they possibly get out of this Airbus before they need to start redesigning the whole airplane or, indeed, designing a new model.

Newbiepilot wrote:

What makes you more credible than Tim Hepher from Reuters?

It is much better to doubt a journalist than doubting Boeings CEO when he talked about the unclosed MOM business case like you recently did.
It is simply laughable how you deny clear statements from Boeings CEO and twist them until they mean the opposite, while finding great insight about Airbus internals from some reporters...

Revelation wrote:

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

At least the project passed the "finding a business case for it"-stage...

imthedreamliner wrote:

Can this aircraft compete with MOM from Boeing ?

It'll have to be quite a lot bigger than the A321 to compete with the MOM, from what we've heard so far. The A321LR seats just 206 in a two-class config whereas the MOM can seat 220-270 apparently. I would have thought they'll make it the A322 with 230-240 seats and extend the fuselage somehow.

tealnz wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

tealnz wrote:

Airbus already increased the size of the ACTs for the LR - presumably to a more conformal shape. Hard to imagine there's scope to increase them further.

The ACTs both on the ceo and neo seem to have a similar size, around 2,950 l, or 790 US gallon, per ACT. They have to fit the same hold and have to be installed and removed through the same cargo doors on both types.

But the ACTs on the LR are bigger - 3,121 l vs 2,992 l for the standard NEO.

Interesting, where did you get this info?

Stitch wrote:

keesje wrote:

The big fish is the background demanding range might be United.

Honestly interested in why you believe they would want a frame with 18-22 hour endurance and what routes they would use it on.

18-22hrs ?

Back to United, they are a big user of 757 & 767s for longer flights transcon, TATL and to the south. The NMA probably will offer an excellent platform for those flights. But starting 2025-26 earliest and the 757/767 fleets are 20 yrs, on average, despite parking >25yr old aircraft.

IMO, this could be a boon for Australia, opening up a lot of thinner route possibilities to China and India.

Cheers,

C.

Re the increased ACT volume, I believe the A321NEO has the same aux tanks as designed for the ACJ. Still the same baseplate dimensions but an improved design.

A380MSN004 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The ACTs both on the ceo and neo seem to have a similar size, around 2,950 l, or 790 US gallon, per ACT. They have to fit the same hold and have to be installed and removed through the same cargo doors on both types.

But the ACTs on the LR are bigger - 3,121 l vs 2,992 l for the standard NEO.

Interesting, where did you get this info?

Easiest for more range would adding fuel in the belly. From what I understood just adding another ACT solves the range limitation, but creates an serious issue in terms of lugfage. The bags don't fit in. Something clever would have to be developed. Safe guarding maximum commonality with the NEO is means low risk for airlines. A major selling point.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Maybe "pushing out" would be a less upsetting expression?

At least the project passed the "finding a business case for it"-stage...

Actually the A320+/++ was "pushed out" before it reached the "showing concepts to customers" phase that the NMA has been in for at least a year now.

At least that's what the journalists who have largely earned their credibility have written.

AY104 wrote:

Anyway, I tend to agree with a lot of the posters on this topic. How much more can they possibly get out of this Airbus before they need to start redesigning the whole airplane or, indeed, designing a new model.

If you want to see an example, just look at the 737.

In any case, current A32x models can be improved on, but they already have more orders than they can fill in a reasonable time period. It seems pretty sensible to make investments that help you deliver that backlog more quickly and add more profit to each frame rather than making improvements that might cause customers to switch orders to the improved models. It makes sense to "push out" improvements until you're happy with production rate and profitability and you've driven down the backlog to the point where most of the backlog is locked down. Worst case scenario would be to invest in a bunch of improvements, make the announcement which would churn the backlog, and then we hit an economic rough spot. Seems sensible to minimize risk and maximize profits. Make hay while the sun is shining.

Is B6 eyeing Europe?

Revelation wrote:

Actually the A320+/++ was "pushed out" before it reached the "showing concepts to customers" phase that the NMA has been in for at least a year now.

Is "showing concepts to customers" not something that is permanently going on? As its costs nothing, it does come before closing a business case.

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. You never saw or will see the Airbus CEO say, "we hesitate (to upgrade the A320) because the business case is not sound". But regarding the MOM this is the most consistent message from Boeing to this day. A lot changed while the project changed its names (757RS, NMA, MOM...) but this message was always there. In this regard the MOM is different than any other recent aircraft project.

Revelation wrote:

Actually the A320+/++ was "pushed out" before it reached the "showing concepts to customers" phase that the NMA has been in for at least a year now.

At least that's what the journalists who have largely earned their credibility have written.

At least 4 years, time flies. And internet has a strong memory. Tracking what respected journalists have written over the last 15 years shows they no doubt have great sources. But they are sometimes apparently picking them for the story that gives most satisfaction with their target public. So they remain popular & succesful, securing their family income.

http://fortune.com/2015/06/17/new-boeing-jet/

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Actually the A320+/++ was "pushed out" before it reached the "showing concepts to customers" phase that the NMA has been in for at least a year now.

Is "showing concepts to customers" not something that is permanently going on? As its costs nothing, it does come before closing a business case.

As per the reporting of the time, the rumored A320+/++ concepts were about to be shown to customers, and then such showing was "pushed out". We don't have evidence we normally have that the concepts were shown, so I think the reporting was correct.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether this is a continuous process or a discrete process.

I guess we've seen evidence of the NMA pitch being given continuously for the last year or so, but the slides seem to be the same (ref: Paris Air Show) and the message also seems to be the same over that entire period.

rheinwaldner wrote:

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. You never saw or will see the Airbus CEO say, "we hesitate (to upgrade the A320) because the business case is not sound". But regarding the MOM this is the most consistent message from Boeing to this day. A lot changed while the project changed its names (757RS, NMA, MOM...) but this message was always there. In this regard the MOM is different than any other recent aircraft project.

I think they've never said the NMA business case is not sound, they've said things like:

Making a business case for Boeing’s potential new mid-market aircraft (NMA) remains the manufacturer’s biggest challenge, Boeing’s chief salesman said, even as more airlines are pushing for the aircraft sooner rather than later.

The difference is you are suggesting no such business case can be made whereas Boeing is saying one can be but finding it is a challenge.

And of course it is a challenge, that's been clear all along.

They're aiming for a gap between established and successful competing products and there's so many things they have to get right to make a market with good enough profit available to fund the effort and make money for the share holders. There's so many trade offs between time to market, investment in tools vs people, sustainable pricing, acceptable profit levels etc so it's not simple.

As for this being different from other recent aircraft projects, we can look at the gyrations it took for the A350 to find itself a niche in between 787 and 777 and perhaps conclude it wasn't a simple process. Or the 787 starting as Sonic Cruiser and evolving through 7E7 into 787.

I think we're going to find that in the presence of the doupoly it's going to be harder than ever for new models to close their business cases.

keesje wrote:

18-22hrs ?

Sorry, thought this was the A350-900ULR thread.

Revelation wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. You never saw or will see the Airbus CEO say, "we hesitate (to upgrade the A320) because the business case is not sound". But regarding the MOM this is the most consistent message from Boeing to this day. A lot changed while the project changed its names (757RS, NMA, MOM...) but this message was always there. In this regard the MOM is different than any other recent aircraft project.

I think they've never said the NMA business case is not sound, they've said things like:

Making a business case for Boeing’s potential new mid-market aircraft (NMA) remains the manufacturer’s biggest challenge, Boeing’s chief salesman said, even as more airlines are pushing for the aircraft sooner rather than later.

The difference is you are suggesting no such business case can be made whereas Boeing is saying one can be but finding it is a challenge.

And of course it is a challenge, that's been clear all along.

They're aiming for a gap between established and successful competing products and there's so many things they have to get right to make a market with good enough profit available to fund the effort and make money for the share holders. There's so many trade offs between time to market, investment in tools vs people, sustainable pricing, acceptable profit levels etc so it's not simple.

As for this being different from other recent aircraft projects, we can look at the gyrations it took for the A350 to find itself a niche in between 787 and 777 and perhaps conclude it wasn't a simple process. Or the 787 starting as Sonic Cruiser and evolving through 7E7 into 787.

I think we're going to find that in the presence of the doupoly it's going to be harder than ever for new models to close their business cases.

I see the "business case" argument more of a culture difference between Europe and the United States. It has been my experience the Europeans generally assume and believe (and talk) that certain kinds of business cases are obvious.... and in the US the assumption is the opposite and that you have to prove a business case...

A complicating factor is that it's just not enough for Boeing to have a business case... they want the right one. My information (I am not free to disclose the source) is that Boeing had a business case for a MOM several years ago - for a 600-1000 aircraft niche. They are shooting for much more as they believe they can get much more - and are talking 3000-4000 aircraft. Thus, they want the "RIGHT" business case and a true market changing aircraft. That is why they have spent all this extra time refining and tweaking the aircraft - and a very major focus on production cost reduction. I understand that all they are waiting on now is engine bids for essentially the final size/structure aircraft they have settled on as the final piece; otherwise my source indicates they could close the business case at any time. Boeing is being extremely methodical here, deliberately taking their time (and spending a lot of money up front for design and production modeling not done before)... and focusing on trying to get as close to perfection as possible for what should be a clearly profitable business case.

Not getting the business cases right up front has been very costly for both Airbus and Boeing in the past. You correctly cite the A350 messy process, and he long evolution behind the 787 design (not counting the lack of planning in regards to production - and the costly mess from that). It's obvious that the A380 was a total miss in regards to a business case.

Europeans generally just approach this and similar issues with a different assumption up front... and thus, they assume that any upgrade to an existing Airbus will have a successful business case. However, as you also point out... that when Airbus gets into the design process... things slow down. Hence, not much evidence of pitching concepts that people assume will have a successful business case. Most people in the US do not make that assumption up front.

In the end, both Airbus, Boeing, and several other companies successfully produce commercial aircraft with profitable business cases; even if the path they take to get there is different.

Have a great day,

Can this aircraft compete with MOM from Boeing ?

Probably more in terms of cost than performance. This looks like a very low risk chance for Airbus. If they can keep acquisition costs low and beat the MOM to market, then Airbus quite possibly can compete with the MOM.

737-MAX11

Wow, I'd not heard about this. Just how many more changes and stretches can the 737 take? Seriously, how much further can Boeing take the old girl?

Closing the business case for the MOM includes getting the factory right for making it, deciding part by part whether adopting an existing design, altering an existing, or going new design. Whether a single line will be sized for 6/MO capacity or 10/mo, what will be outsourced and what is to come back home. They are investing in a lot of planning, for how they build the MOM is probably their best guess on how to build the NSA, but want another prototype.

The biggest cost problems on the 787 was on the how to build it side. There they paid suppliers to design parts better designed in house, paid full price for the production facilities to the suppliers only to pay full price again to buy them out. A lot of the work between the -8 and -9 was on improving parts to be both better performing but also easier to produce. Look how long was spent getting the right fasteners and fastener install methods in sufficient quantity.

A380MSN004 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

But the ACTs on the LR are bigger - 3,121 l vs 2,992 l for the standard NEO.

Interesting, where did you get this info?

Check out the discussion in this thread: https://tinyurl.com/y8928w4k

JayinKitsap wrote:

Closing the business case for the MOM includes getting the factory right for making it, deciding part by part whether adopting an existing design, altering an existing, or going new design. Whether a single line will be sized for 6/MO capacity or 10/mo, what will be outsourced and what is to come back home. They are investing in a lot of planning, for how they build the MOM is probably their best guess on how to build the NSA, but want another prototype.

Yep, that's a good list of things they are thinking about. As you point out they seem to be on a march to do more vertical integration ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... tegration# ) so there's a moment of truth for them now: are they really ready to bring in some major systems work they've traditionally used suppliers for? It's hard to make up for mistakes so I'm sure they're spending the time and effort to make sure they are making the right choices.

Boeings problems are the engines, they could kick off the MOM now with todays engine generation (GTF / Leap derivates ore similar) and they would be on the market in time for the upcoming 767 & A330 replacement cycle. Or they wait just a few years for the next engine generation (UltraFan or similar) which is expected to be much more efficient.

If they act now, Airbus just need to 3 or 4 years until the new engine generation is available, and offer an own MOM with much better efficiency.

If they wait, they risk, that Airbus outsells them with todays engine aircrafts like a A321(X)LR. The longer they wait, the smaller the remaining MOM market will be.

With the A321XLR, Airbus can increase the segment of the MOM market which they can address before Boeings MOM is available, by covering the market for longer routes. Today the A321NEO has the lowest Cost per Available Seat Mile of all airliners, therefore other improvments than range make no sense now.

JoergAtADN wrote:

Boeings problems are the engines, they could kick off the MOM now with todays engine generation (GTF / Leap derivates ore similar) and they would be on the market in time for the upcoming 767 & A330 replacement cycle. Or they wait just a few years for the next engine generation (UltraFan or similar) which is expected to be much more efficient.

If they act now, Airbus just need to 3 or 4 years until the new engine generation is available, and offer an own MOM with much better efficiency.

If they wait, they risk, that Airbus outsells them with todays engine aircrafts like a A321(X)LR. The longer they wait, the smaller the remaining MOM market will be.

With the A321XLR, Airbus can increase the segment of the MOM market which they can address before Boeings MOM is available, by covering the market for longer routes. Today the A321NEO has the lowest Cost per Available Seat Mile of all airliners, therefore other improvments than range make no sense now.

I am very sure that the MOM will be designed up front to be retrofit-able with whatever the new engines will be released in 3-5 (or longer) time frame. The basics on size and weight are known. They just have to design the MOM wings sufficient to handle the change. The MOM is likely the first aircraft in decades that will have a major engine design change (not just PIPs) mid production.

Have a great day,

Revelation wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Actually the A320+/++ was "pushed out" before it reached the "showing concepts to customers" phase that the NMA has been in for at least a year now.

Is "showing concepts to customers" not something that is permanently going on? As its costs nothing, it does come before closing a business case.

As per the reporting of the time, the rumored A320+/++ concepts were about to be shown to customers, and then such showing was "pushed out". We don't have evidence we normally have that the concepts were shown, so I think the reporting was correct.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion as to whether this is a continuous process or a discrete process.

I guess we've seen evidence of the NMA pitch being given continuously for the last year or so, but the slides seem to be the same (ref: Paris Air Show) and the message also seems to be the same over that entire period.

rheinwaldner wrote:

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. You never saw or will see the Airbus CEO say, "we hesitate (to upgrade the A320) because the business case is not sound". But regarding the MOM this is the most consistent message from Boeing to this day. A lot changed while the project changed its names (757RS, NMA, MOM...) but this message was always there. In this regard the MOM is different than any other recent aircraft project.

I think they've never said the NMA business case is not sound, they've said things like:

Making a business case for Boeing’s potential new mid-market aircraft (NMA) remains the manufacturer’s biggest challenge, Boeing’s chief salesman said, even as more airlines are pushing for the aircraft sooner rather than later.

The difference is you are suggesting no such business case can be made whereas Boeing is saying one can be but finding it is a challenge.

And of course it is a challenge, that's been clear all along.

They're aiming for a gap between established and successful competing products and there's so many things they have to get right to make a market with good enough profit available to fund the effort and make money for the share holders. There's so many trade offs between time to market, investment in tools vs people, sustainable pricing, acceptable profit levels etc so it's not simple.

As for this being different from other recent aircraft projects, we can look at the gyrations it took for the A350 to find itself a niche in between 787 and 777 and perhaps conclude it wasn't a simple process. Or the 787 starting as Sonic Cruiser and evolving through 7E7 into 787.

I think we're going to find that in the presence of the doupoly it's going to be harder than ever for new models to close their business cases.

I think there must be a cultural difference around what A Business Case is.

Business Case:

A type of decision-making tool used to determine the effects a particular decision will have on profitability. A business case should show how the decision will alter cash flows over a period of time, and how costs and revenue will change. Specific attention is paid to internal rate of return (IRR), cash flow and payback period. Analyzing the financial outcomes stemming from choosing a different vendor to sell a company's product is an example of a business case.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/defin ... -case.html

rheinwaldner wrote:

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. .

That’s not possible according to the definition of a business case that I know. Some A320 upgrades would be profitable and others wouldn’t. For example adding the double slotted flaps from the A321 on the A320 would improve field performance and result in higher MTOW, but that is an upgrade that may only appeal to airlines like Avianca or Latam and therefore is not a fantastic business case.

Some A321 upgrades would be a profitable modification with low risk while others may not attract sufficient market interest to justify costs. Whether it is an avionics modification such as electronic Flight Bag integration or an engine thrust increase or MTOW change, there is usually a business case associated with deciding whether such a change is worthwhile. I don’t understand rheinwaldnwer’s logic.

It sounds to me like the A321 plus plus business case didn’t close so Airbus shelved that project for now to focus on production issues and go for a simpler small MTOW and fuel capacity increase in the form of an A321XLR. This doesn’t mean the A321plus plus will permanently be shelved.

The 787-10 business case took a long time to close. Boeing didn’t launch the airplane until 2013. Launching sooner when they were having significant productuon issues wasn’t a good use of resources. Also when the backlog was huge and there were not realistic product slots available, it was hard to justify or close the sale on additional planes.

Three opinions one one side...
1.

Revelation wrote:

I think they've never said the NMA business case is not sound, they've said things like:

Making a business case for Boeing’s potential new mid-market aircraft (NMA) remains the manufacturer’s biggest challenge, Boeing’s chief salesman said, even as more airlines are pushing for the aircraft sooner rather than later.

The difference is you are suggesting no such business case can be made whereas Boeing is saying one can be but finding it is a challenge.

2.

2175301 wrote:

see the "business case" argument more of a culture difference between Europe and the United States. It has been my experience the Europeans generally assume and believe (and talk) that certain kinds of business cases are obvious.... and in the US the assumption is the opposite and that you have to prove a business case...

3.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Closing the business case for the MOM includes getting the factory right for making it

And here what Boeings CEO said recently on the other side:

Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, because it will have to be an airplane that has widebody efficiencies in terms of moving people on and off the plane but has narrowbody economics (= a moonshot/miracle kind of aircraft, remark Rheinwaldner). That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."

So, no,...
... I am not suggesting that no business case can be made, I only listened to Boeings CEO who to some degree questioned the 797 business case
... if its a challenge to find the business case, it maybe is not sound (examples for a sound business case: 787, 777, 77X, A320NEO, e.g. it was never mentioned as topic)
... it is not a European misunderstanding of US culture, because there is no other aircraft, that Boeing has built, where top ranked Boeing executives emphasized the "not yet closed-business case" so notoriously as in case of the 797 (e.g. you wont find these quotes in case of the 777X, 787, 777, even MAX. But you might find such remarks about Sonic Liner).
... it is not about getting the factory right. Boeing CEO said, it is about getting "widebody efficiencies in terms of moving people on and off the plane but has narrowbody economics". Thats the challenge

rheinwaldner wrote:

Boeing CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, April 12, 2018:
"Now the question is whether we can make a business case close, because it will have to be an airplane that has widebody efficiencies in terms of moving people on and off the plane but has narrowbody economics (= a moonshot/miracle kind of aircraft, remark Rheinwaldner). That business case is what we are still working on. We are not up to a decision point yet, we haven't made a launch decision but I would say, over the next year we'll get to that (decision) point."

So, no,...
... I am not suggesting that no business case can be made, I only listened to Boeings CEO who to some degree questioned the 797 business case
... if its a challenge to find the business case, it maybe is not sound (examples for a sound business case: 787, 777, 77X, A320NEO, e.g. it was never mentioned as topic)
... it is not a European misunderstanding of US culture, because there is no other aircraft, that Boeing has built, where top ranked Boeing executives emphasized the "not yet closed-business case" so notoriously as in case of the 797 (e.g. you wont find these quotes in case of the 777X, 787, 777, even MAX. But you might find such remarks about Sonic Liner).
... it is not about getting the factory right. Boeing CEO said, it is about getting "widebody efficiencies in terms of moving people on and off the plane but has narrowbody economics". Thats the challenge

The talk about the NMA now is quite similar to what was being discussed in late 2012 and early 2013 months before the 787-10 was officially launched

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... t-shanahan

We've got a lot of support all the way through the company including our board of directors," Larry Loftis, vice president and general manager of the 787 program, said when speaking of the 787-10 during an investor call hosted by RBC Capital Markets on Monday.

"We still have some more work to do before we'd be ready to launch the program and/or be given authority to launch the program," Loftis added.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -of-787-10

The big question is affordability and the business case, making it affordable for us to build

Reading through the comments, it sounds like some people who don’t particularly like Boeing products are turning comments about trying to close a business case into a discussion on how the airplane is not viable. Meanwhile the same people completely disregard comments about Airbus shelving the A321 plus including quotes from the Airbus Chief Commercial Officer. Our a vs b partisanship can lead to interpreting quotes from executives in interesting ways. I can’t wait to see what happens next!

Hello 2175301,

2175301 wrote:

I am very sure that the MOM will be designed up front to be retrofit-able with whatever the new engines will be released in 3-5 (or longer) time frame. The basics on size and weight are known. They just have to design the MOM wings sufficient to handle the change. The MOM is likely the first aircraft in decades that will have a major engine design change (not just PIPs) mid production.

sure, Boeing will design the MOM retrofitable with any engine technology, which they expect for the next 20+ years. But they will not have the option to switch to another engine soon. The MOM needs engines with a new thrust range, therefore it's not a modification of an existing engine, it means a multi-billion investment for the engine manufacturer. No engine supplier would develop such an engine for Boeing, if they don't get exclusivity rights for at least 10 years.

Jörg

JoergAtADN wrote:

Hello 2175301,

2175301 wrote:

I am very sure that the MOM will be designed up front to be retrofit-able with whatever the new engines will be released in 3-5 (or longer) time frame. The basics on size and weight are known. They just have to design the MOM wings sufficient to handle the change. The MOM is likely the first aircraft in decades that will have a major engine design change (not just PIPs) mid production.

sure, Boeing will design the MOM retrofitable with any engine technology, which they expect for the next 20+ years. But they will not have the option to switch to another engine soon. The MOM needs engines with a new thrust range, therefore it's not a modification of an existing engine, it means a multi-billion investment for the engine manufacturer. No engine supplier would develop such an engine for Boeing, if they don't get exclusivity rights for at least 10 years.

Jörg

The same issue may be affecting the A321XLR or A321plus. The PW1100G and CFM LeapX are being pushed to the maximum already, so are further thrust increases compromising performance? If they are is either manufacturer going to invest in improvements now when neither CFM or PW have been able to achieve planned production rates.

Revelation wrote:

They're aiming for a gap between established and successful competing products and there's so many things they have to get right to make a market with good enough profit available to fund the effort and make money for the share holders. There's so many trade offs between time to market, investment in tools vs people, sustainable pricing, acceptable profit levels etc so it's not simple.

As for this being different from other recent aircraft projects, we can look at the gyrations it took for the A350 to find itself a niche in between 787 and 777 and perhaps conclude it wasn't a simple process. Or the 787 starting as Sonic Cruiser and evolving through 7E7 into 787.

Sot true the first paragraph, but contradict yourself in the second when you want to compare with A350 having to find a spot between 777 and 787, at a time when 787 was far, very far, from being a established project. Was more "between 767 and 777, with 7E7/787 positioning in mind".

I think the MoM project contradiction is that it's intrinsically ambitious, therefore risky, but aiming at just a modest ROI IF project develops as planned ! But with so many parameters for its conception it's already difficult task to get it right, you then have to make it happened right too ! At the same time there is the whole industry waiting for your move, being to be on board or to polish the response.
That's tough, no surprise at all they continue to progress without freezing anything yet.

There has been a sea change at Boeing and Airbus in respect to how projects are established, communicated, launched and managed.

There is absolutely no comparison with the hurdles to be overcome launching a completely new model range, versus an iteration of an existing model, within either company.

Both A & B have become more clandestine in respect to enhancements, derivatives and new model launches, hence more scope here to guess and dream. Both run black / skunk cross-functional teams at secure, remote locations parallel with mainstream, less secretive mainstream development teams.

Another change, in the past, engine OEM's have had development engines looking for applications. Now it's the reverse. A & B are looking for new (but very mature) engine technology.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think there must be a cultural difference around what A Business Case is.

Business Case:

[i]A type of decision-making tool used to determine the effects a particular decision will have on profitability. A business case should show how the decision will alter cash flows over a period of time, and how costs and revenue will change. Specific attention is paid to internal rate of return (IRR), cash flow and payback period. Analyzing the financial outcomes stemming from choosing a different vendor to sell a company's product is an example of a business case.

Agreed, and I can't see anything cultural in that definition.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Some A320 upgrades would be profitable and others wouldn’t. For example adding the double slotted flaps from the A321 on the A320 would improve field performance and result in higher MTOW, but that is an upgrade that may only appeal to airlines like Avianca or Latam and therefore is not a fantastic business case.

With "any A320 upgrade" I meant those that are discussed in this thread. Not any possible.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Some A321 upgrades would be a profitable modification with low risk while others may not attract sufficient market interest to justify costs.

You contradict yourself within a few words. Profitable = costs are covered (= reward / effort > 1)

Newbiepilot wrote:

I don’t understand rheinwaldnwer’s logic.

It is very simple:
count occasions, where leaders step up in public, and put a question mark behind the business case of a product.
A320-any-kind-of-discussed-upgrades -> 0
781 -> 1? (cant verify the link)
789 -> countless references

Newbiepilot wrote:

I don’t understand rheinwaldnwer’s logic.
It sounds to me like the A321 plus plus business case didn’t close so Airbus shelved that project for now to focus on production issues and go for a simpler small MTOW and fuel capacity increase in the form of an A321XLR. This doesn’t mean the A321plus plus will permanently be shelved.

You are aware, that a project can be delayed for other reasons than a negative business case? If the A320++ is launched later, it is not because the business case of that product is questionable.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 787-10 business case took a long time to close. Boeing didn’t launch the airplane until 2013. Launching sooner when they were having significant productuon issues wasn’t a good use of resources. Also when the backlog was huge and there were not realistic product slots available, it was hard to justify or close the sale on additional planes.

The 781 is one of the better examples you are presenting. And the quote about its business case would be an example for what I asked for (can't open the link).

And sure enough, with hindsight we can see why the business case required a sharp pencil: With more time since launch it has sold even less units than the A330NEO.

Simple opinion: Airbus knows the weak Points of the Business case. Also they know that the 2025 first delivery Point is in question and rather moving to 2027. LH CEO and Udzar have said so. In this Environment it makes no sense to Launch an A320 plus plus. So Airbus decided to take the lowest cost quickest Launch Option - the A320XLR. If it Comes with a range boost of 300-500 miles it is probably grabbing 10-15% of MOMS calculated market.

Flyglobal

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Closing the business case for the MOM includes getting the factory right for making it, deciding part by part whether adopting an existing design, altering an existing, or going new design. Whether a single line will be sized for 6/MO capacity or 10/mo, what will be outsourced and what is to come back home. They are investing in a lot of planning, for how they build the MOM is probably their best guess on how to build the NSA, but want another prototype.

Yep, that's a good list of things they are thinking about. As you point out they seem to be on a march to do more vertical integration ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... tegration# ) so there's a moment of truth for them now: are they really ready to bring in some major systems work they've traditionally used suppliers for? It's hard to make up for mistakes so I'm sure they're spending the time and effort to make sure they are making the right choices.

In the end it is not much different for Airbus, with the only difference being that they have FALs for the A320 series already. At the moment all FALs are running at maximum capacity to supply enough NEOs, the question is if the deliveries and orders will keep up after 2025. If Airbus believes they will have spare capacity after 2025, it makes sense to shelf the +/+ until 2020/21, because it would make no sense to add a FAL if you only need it for a few years. From what I have heard that is the big point for Airbus and fully in line with everything we have heard so far.
Imho it makes sense to hold back the +/+ until the demand for the NEO has normalized.

Would suit two markets very well
Australia-Asia
And USA-Europe.

JetBlue/Jetstar etc..

We are already seeing early moves on the Asia-Australia market with PR going 321Neo Manila-Sydney

at the same time as i'm not an engineer, i'd bet there is simplest a sure quantity you could do to an airframe earlier than a clean sheet design is needed.

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Closing the business case for the MOM includes getting the factory right for making it, deciding part by part whether adopting an existing design, altering an existing, or going new design. Whether a single line will be sized for 6/MO capacity or 10/mo, what will be outsourced and what is to come back home. They are investing in a lot of planning, for how they build the MOM is probably their best guess on how to build the NSA, but want another prototype.

Yep, that's a good list of things they are thinking about. As you point out they seem to be on a march to do more vertical integration ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... tegration# ) so there's a moment of truth for them now: are they really ready to bring in some major systems work they've traditionally used suppliers for? It's hard to make up for mistakes so I'm sure they're spending the time and effort to make sure they are making the right choices.

In the end it is not much different for Airbus, with the only difference being that they have FALs for the A320 series already. At the moment all FALs are running at maximum capacity to supply enough NEOs, the question is if the deliveries and orders will keep up after 2025. If Airbus believes they will have spare capacity after 2025, it makes sense to shelf the +/+ until 2020/21, because it would make no sense to add a FAL if you only need it for a few years. From what I have heard that is the big point for Airbus and fully in line with everything we have heard so far.
Imho it makes sense to hold back the +/+ until the demand for the NEO has normalized.

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the current A320 family FALs. The newest ones are already build with additional capabilities in mind, like for example a bigger wing. So it does not need to be the A321XLR because of the FAL. Also the plus and the plus plus should be OK in that regard. Building the next A320 family FAL should be a plain capacity issue.
I really believe, that the main problems that Airbus runs into are with the supply line. The suppliers, fighting the problems of the ramp up, have no time for new products.

mjoelnir wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yep, that's a good list of things they are thinking about. As you point out they seem to be on a march to do more vertical integration ( https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... tegration# ) so there's a moment of truth for them now: are they really ready to bring in some major systems work they've traditionally used suppliers for? It's hard to make up for mistakes so I'm sure they're spending the time and effort to make sure they are making the right choices.

In the end it is not much different for Airbus, with the only difference being that they have FALs for the A320 series already. At the moment all FALs are running at maximum capacity to supply enough NEOs, the question is if the deliveries and orders will keep up after 2025. If Airbus believes they will have spare capacity after 2025, it makes sense to shelf the +/+ until 2020/21, because it would make no sense to add a FAL if you only need it for a few years. From what I have heard that is the big point for Airbus and fully in line with everything we have heard so far.
Imho it makes sense to hold back the +/+ until the demand for the NEO has normalized.

There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the current A320 family FALs. The newest ones are already build with additional capabilities in mind, like for example a bigger wing. So it does not need to be the A321XLR because of the FAL. Also the plus and the plus plus should be OK in that regard. Building the next A320 family FAL should be a plain capacity issue.
I really believe, that the main problems that Airbus runs into are with the supply line. The suppliers, fighting the problems of the ramp up, have no time for new products.

I know that at least FAL4 in Hamburg should be ready for a +/+ but they need the capacity for the normal NEO. So yes it is mostly a capacity issue or more a question of how they predict the long term demand. Can they fill the existing FALs and an additional one in the long term, or would the existing ones have capacity for the +/+ after 2025.

A380MSN004 wrote:

tealnz wrote:

But the ACTs on the LR are bigger - 3,121 l vs 2,992 l for the standard NEO.

Interesting, where did you get this info?

you can compute it from the info given in the most recent A321(+NEO/NX) ACAPS
http://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corpo ... -Feb18.pdf section 2-1-1 page 3/4

Indeed those with the right knowledge can probably have quite a good stab at the numbers.I am assuming we roughly know the present fuel consumption of A321 NEO.If so -and one takes a sensible stab at what additional range an XLR has -say 250knm?
Then one can work out the additional fuel required,it's weight (ex the additional weight of containing it), the metric volume required,the new max weight of the aircaft and thus loading on the MLG.Too hard to work out what it all does to T/O length but must be something.

rheinwaldner wrote:

You are aware, that a project can be delayed for other reasons than a negative business case? If the A320++ is launched later, it is not because the business case of that product is questionable.

It also could be because of the business case. I don’t think we know. All we know is Airbus doesn’t discuss business cases in the public forum like Boeing does, which may be the cultural difference that I was referring to. Many people on this forum just assume that wing modifications and stretches have a guaranteed positive business case. It sounds like you think you know what is going on behind the scenes at Airbus. I certainly don’t. I am just reading articles from journalists since I have no inside information. What I have read is that the more extensive A321 plus was shelved in favor of a simpler modification to extend range.

It is a strange old world. Boeing floats many many ideas around judiciously leaking them and every one is taken up on here as world beaters, game changes or some such. Many are then quietly dropped for the next best thing (or a revamp of the 737) and off around the mulberry bush we go.

Airbus float some ideas and each is taken as a failing idea, just a copy, going to be trounced by whatever Boeing is touting.

Here if Airbus can squeeze (somehow and they haven't said how) another 3/400 usable nm out of the A321LR without a payload hit then surely it will make an already attractive plane even more attractive.

Newbiepilot wrote:

It also could be because of the business case. I don’t think we know.

Maybe my memory fools me, but I could bet that you at least wrote a dozen posts in which you seemed to know (why the A320++ was shelved). And that each time you mentioned other reasons than the business case.

Newbiepilot wrote:

All we know is Airbus doesn’t discuss business cases in the public forum like Boeing does, which may be the cultural difference that I was referring to.

If that is all you know, you need to look more carefully. You can find business case considerations about A320NEO prior launching (difference is that the statements were not questioning the business case like we can witness with the 797). You can find doubtful business case statements from Bregier but those were about the discussed-but-not-launched A350-8000 though, so no, some dubious cultural differences will not explain the fact away, that Boeings wording regarding the 797 business case sounds exceptionally cautious/unconvinced.

And the is proven by your fake power point slide?

Maybe Airbus should launch a stretched 4500NM A322 anyway.

It seems a good idea wathever Boeing deliberately investigates.

rheinwaldner wrote:

So, no,...
... I am not suggesting that no business case can be made, I only listened to Boeings CEO who to some degree questioned the 797 business case
... if its a challenge to find the business case, it maybe is not sound (examples for a sound business case: 787, 777, 77X, A320NEO, e.g. it was never mentioned as topic)
... it is not a European misunderstanding of US culture, because there is no other aircraft, that Boeing has built, where top ranked Boeing executives emphasized the "not yet closed-business case" so notoriously as in case of the 797 (e.g. you wont find these quotes in case of the 777X, 787, 777, even MAX. But you might find such remarks about Sonic Liner).
... it is not about getting the factory right. Boeing CEO said, it is about getting "widebody efficiencies in terms of moving people on and off the plane but has narrowbody economics". Thats the challenge

Again, you wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

look, nobody questions that any kind of A320 upgrade is always a fantastic business case. You never saw or will see the Airbus CEO say, "we hesitate (to upgrade the A320) because the business case is not sound". But regarding the MOM this is the most consistent message from Boeing to this day. A lot changed while the project changed its names (757RS, NMA, MOM...) but this message was always there. In this regard the MOM is different than any other recent aircraft project.

I don't know how that plays in your head, but it plays in my head as using "the business case is not sound" as the measuring bar.

And I really don't know why you find the actual suggestion, that closing the business case is a challenge, to be noteworthy when we all know that to be the truth.

Would it be better if we all put on the kind of rose colored glasses that Airbus had on when they came out with the A380?

StTim wrote:

It is a strange old world. Boeing floats many many ideas around judiciously leaking them and every one is taken up on here as world beaters, game changes or some such. Many are then quietly dropped for the next best thing (or a revamp of the 737) and off around the mulberry bush we go.

Airbus float some ideas and each is taken as a failing idea, just a copy, going to be trounced by whatever Boeing is touting.

Here if Airbus can squeeze (somehow and they haven't said how) another 3/400 usable nm out of the A321LR without a payload hit then surely it will make an already attractive plane even more attractive.

Show us where people are saying that "Airbus float some ideas and each is taken as a failing idea, just a copy, going to be trounced by whatever Boeing is touting" or admit you are engaging in hyperbole.

What we know about A321XLR is:

The A321XLR - with more fuel capacity but no extra seats or aerodynamic redesign - is a compromise bet that Airbus hopes will fend off Boeing for the smallest upfront investment.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... SKBN1JE0ZE

It'll be interesting to see how it hits your "another 3/400 usable nm out of the A321LR without a payload hit" goal.

Note that questioning how it might happen isn't the same thing as asserting it is impossible.

Unless Airbus already have some additional range 'in the bank' I doubt the 'xlr' will have an additional 10% range myself.Thats (400nm) a big increase and a big increase in weight (fuel carried etc).But according to Leeham we may hear nothing from either AorB at Farnbrough -which would be boring!

Revelation wrote:

And I really don't know why you find the actual suggestion, that closing the business case is a challenge, to be noteworthy when we all know that to be the truth.

Because it is not common to be mentioned so often. Projects, which were accompanied by this kind of PR talk, were more often not launched than launched at a later time.

parapente wrote:

Unless Airbus already have some additional range 'in the bank' I doubt the 'xlr' will have an additional 10% range myself.Thats (400nm) a big increase and a big increase in weight (fuel carried etc).But according to Leeham we may hear nothing from either AorB at Farnbrough -which would be boring!

Let's say that was 'in the bank' is the expected improved engines efficiency by 2020. But this would bring a couple of % of improvement at best. Both the MTOW increase and the extra volume required to store the extra fuel appear as real challenges, unless Airbus would be considering underwing fuel tanks. This would really be exotic though.

Just reading this thread, and there's some utterly mad extrapolations from the seeming fact that the program has been shelved. The reality is, it was always going to be the case:

• The long pole in the tent for this project will be engine availability - Airbus will not want to be a half generation behind in this respect
• If Airbus opts to respond to an MOM launch with an A321 revision, that project will have shorter lead times than the clean sheet
• The studies need to be done in advance - if an A321 derivative is not a viable competitor they may need to move with their own clean sheet

So say B. launches in 2019 with EIS in 2026 (arbitrary dates - but a now seemingly standard 7 year development period). A. will also be looking at a similar timeframe for EIS - dictated by engine availability - but may only require 3-5 years from launch to bring to market (depending what they do). So of course it will be shelved.

On the other hand, the outcome of the study may have been that no re-engined and rewinged A321 would be competitive in that space. But none of us know right now.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

It also could be because of the business case. I don’t think we know.

Maybe my memory fools me, but I could bet that you at least wrote a dozen posts in which you seemed to know (why the A320++ was shelved). And that each time you mentioned other reasons than the business case.

Here isn’t a quote from the A320plus being shelved

PARIS (Reuters) - Airbus has shelved advanced studies aimed at improving its A320neo jet family, designed in part to fend off a mid-market plane that Boeing hopes to build, two people familiar with the matter said.

The surprise decision to back away from the proposed "A320neo-plus" and "A321neo-plus," which would lengthen and modernize both models, comes as Airbus (AIR.PA) continues to face problems in increasing output for the current versions.

"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.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusiv ... 32015.html

Was it because production issues are so bad they didn’t have the resources to work in the A320plus? Was it because all the slots are full so a new derivative wouldn’t have any near term slots to sell? Was it because of lack of engines? Was it because the business case and profitability projects were weak? I don’t have a crystal ball or pretend to know why. I can only guess based on quotes and articles.