jetblueguy22 wrote:

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.

Sadly true.

CFM is also not meeting production ramp targets, but since the technical side is good, I'd be shocked if they are not on the 797. Perhaps they get an exclusive? (I hope not, but it is possible.)

Lightsaber

jetblueguy22 wrote:

scouseflyer wrote:

"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.

And GE has the better PR department.

keesje wrote:

imthedreamliner wrote:

Fingers crossed for 797 By the way, I think it is the perfect time to launch the program. Airbus is not at a position to counter this program due to the recent changes at the management level. Do they need to respond to 797 is another topic. Time will tell.

Airbus is in a very good position to counter & even pre emp this program. They have lots of resources, available technology and 2 existing maturing engines. If they want they do a small, light, cheap NMA, 3 years before Boeing NMA they will. And forget game changing, technological magic from either side. Airbus never has been shy, waiting for Boeing.

You really think Airbus can go from concept to full scale production in 3 years? MOM EIS is apparently 2025, so how on Earth could Airbus do a clean sheet by 2022?

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

For the 787 it was less than 3 weeks from engine proposal to unveiling

acjbbj wrote:

Didn't GE say that they were calling it quits if they didn't get exclusivity?

No.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ne-446993/ says:

But Joyce remains open to calls by some airline customers for Boeing to offer the NMA with a choice of two engines.

A dual-engine programme, however, “needs a market large enough to offset expenses”, Joyce says. “We have to sharpen our pencils on the size of the market before we would or wouldn’t” commit to a programme with two engine options.

But GE firmly rejects any proposal to offer the NMA with a choice of three engines. “Three is out of the question,” Joyce says, citing the engine industry’s lessons from the Airbus A330 programme, which was introduced with thee engine options.

So it seems they grudgingly accept two engine options.

texl1649 wrote:

Oh, I realize, Revelation, that GE/SNECMA are expanding their contractual relationship with this new family, To 50or 55k, I should clarify my suspicion is it is, in fact, a new family. Sure, lots of LEAP stuff, but in reality a new core engine, with GE9x tech, and, curiously, not a GTF. so, same stage numbers and architecture as LEAP basically.

It's all semantics. It's clear that ti's going to be a scaled version of LEAP, with "technology insertion". I presume that means more use of CMCs so they can boost the core temps without increasing cooling flows to create higher efficiency.

So, is a scaled up core with different materials a "new core"? Depends on your point of view. To my point of view, no, because you're re-using the architecture with little/no change. To someone who has to stock the spare parts, yes, since very few parts are re-used due to different sizes and/or materials. To the person maintaining it, kinda, because the procedures will largely be the same but the parts will be different.

GoSharks wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

You don't pick winner(s) of an RFP the day they are due..

I think there's a big misunderstanding on timelines.

https://leehamnews.com/2018/03/22/ge-cf ... ng-on-nma/ said three months ago:

“We’re in lockstep with Boeing in terms of the evaluation of their product,” (GE Aviation CEO David) 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.”

So, even three months ago GE had been given a sequence in milestones and were "in lockstep" with Boeing on NMA.

Just because Jon learned the date of (presumably) the last milestone and that date is very soon doesn't mean Boeing hasn't been working with all three for many months now.

Each vendor understands the timelines, and it's up to them to decide exactly what they'll put on offer given the program timelines.

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

I suspect due to the above set of milestones Boeing has a very good idea about what to expect already and it won't take them very long to evaluate the final proposals.

WPvsMW wrote:

But wouldn't a scaled down and lighter (and reliable) Trent, or a new smaller core (compared to Trent) be technological magic, Ultrafan or not?

The GE fanboys can`t see anything beyond what GE are doing. Fortunately Boeing will weigh-up all the available
options of which there are many & that they are privvy to. Sure RR/PW have had problems, but to discount either
would be ridiculous. You could argue that GE might well be in the driving seat for the 797 as they`ve probably had
the least problems of late, & we all know Boeing seem to favour dealing with them, but in the business of keeping
this plane future-proof & therefore fuel efficient, they may decide to go for a geared-fan, they may even have to,
particularly when you consider a supremely economical 787 with geared fan may not be too far away. Your insight
could be valid too, although isn`t "a new smaller core" Advance? Either way you are open to all possibilities which
some on here sadly discount for no good reason. IMHO all 3 players here have a chance, as they all have some
fantastic tech to offer.

musman9853 wrote:

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

For the 787 it was less than 3 weeks from engine proposal to unveiling

Where there more than the two proposals from GE and RR?

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

I think it would take more than week or so to evaluate a complex decision after the submissions have been finalised.

RickNRoll wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

I think it would take more than week or so to evaluate a complex decision after the submissions have been finalised.

You are going to have gotten information along the way on the technical approach each will take. The final submission is going to be mostly about what performance and timetables each builder will guarantee. I agree it won’t be a quick decision but I suspect it was already well understood before these numbers come in. No one is going to pop up with something all new and different Boeing didn’t know about until they opened the packet.

mjoelnir wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

For the 787 it was less than 3 weeks from engine proposal to unveiling

Where there more than the two proposals from GE and RR?

Very interesting thread from 2005, featuring our own Lightsaber and PM... About the same time I was just joining a.net...

viewtopic.php?t=335357

Much more insight on that thread, but in short, PW made a detailed proposal but never made the short list because they weren't willing to become a risk sharing partner of the entire program. Back then it might have made sense, but right about now they might be regretting that decision.

I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

I would have expected planes in the size of 767-200 and -300. Maybe a widebody that short is just too heavy compared to seatnumber.

DLHAM wrote:

I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

Yes, NMA-6 will not be an A321LR competitor since it will have more pax in its two-class layout and more range, and -7 will be bigger still. Hopefully we'll soon get a good idea of how it does on CASM vs A321LR.

texl1649 wrote:

So it’s ultrafan vs LEAP/9x. I’m shocked rolls has the resources available short term to do this.

Agreed, they're hustling to fix the Trent issues on the 787, developing a new business jet engine and debugging the Trent 7000's icing issues while preparing for production ramp-up.

Good luck to them (and their bankers)...


Faro

mjoelnir wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

scouseflyer wrote:

"OTOH, what is Pratt going to do?"

After the recent SNAFUs by Pratt will an OEM trust them to provide launch engines in the near future?

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.

And GE has the better PR department.

And GE is selling off whole industry lines...paring down the spread of industries in which it operates...getting slimmer and with more cash...they will be more formidable than ever...

But it's curious how quiet their PR department is on developments with GE9X testing...any potential problems in the offing?...


Faro

bigjku wrote:

RickNRoll wrote:

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

I think it would take more than week or so to evaluate a complex decision after the submissions have been finalised.

You are going to have gotten information along the way on the technical approach each will take. The final submission is going to be mostly about what performance and timetables each builder will guarantee. I agree it won’t be a quick decision but I suspect it was already well understood before these numbers come in. No one is going to pop up with something all new and different Boeing didn’t know about until they opened the packet.

Oh I agree they will know a lot about each proposal but the RFP is the legal offer and I have seen mistakes creep in at this last step (on both sides). I still do not believe they can go from final proposal to contract in two weeks and allow airlines to likewise sign up.

Great article with some interesting quotes

Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.

Boeing must be considering the challenges with the Trent 1000/7000 and PW GTF. 787s and A320s are grounded around the world due to engine issues. The A330neo is in limbo waiting for engines. It makes me think they will go dual source or very low risk.

The first, the NMA-6X, is a 228-passenger medium-ranger with a 5,000 nautical mile endurance. Its larger sibling, the NMA-7X, weighs in with seating in two classes for 267, touting a range 800 nautical miles shorter. The target for the three manufacturers is an engine that burns 25% less fuel for every pound of thrust it produces compared with the decades-old turbines on the 757, according to another person briefed on the RFP.

Sounds like capacity and configuration are getting solidified. 25% less fuel per pound of thrust than a 757. That should be doable without a huge leap forward in technology.

Good image!


Looks like lots of technology re-use from 737MAX, 777X and 787. I guess that is part of how they are keeping costs down

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

It takes months to go through the proposals and negotiate. A decision likely would take over 6 months.

RJMAZ wrote:

QXAS wrote:

So with a 45K engine, what sort of fuselage does that indicate? Is the thrust required a clue for that or is it mostly inconsequential?

As engine technology improves aircraft can get lighter while doing the same mission. Less fuel burn means less weight and a smaller wing. The A321LR is the perfect example it can carry roughly the same payload the same distance as the 757-200 with three quarters of the thrust.

Based on this 45,000lb of thrust definitely means a 767 cabin sized aircraft. That means 7ab minimum but that is enough thrust for a short 8ab aircraft as well.

So the 797 will be a light weight, smaller winged version of the 767. Just like the A321LR is a light weight smaller version of the 757.

Cross section is still open for debate but I think it will be very similar to the 767. Most likely a foot wider to allow tight 8ab while keeping the 767's LD2 containers. Potentially a slightly reduced height cross section to use a brand new full width container.

It definitely wont use LD3 containers so that rules out the A310, A300 cross section.

I'll keep saying this - my guess is 7AB with 17.5" seats, Cargo Container is a wider LD3-45 - that is maybe a few inches higher - the Fuselage would be something like 190"Wx 168"H. Then you can reuse the Cross section on NSA.

228 seats in a 2 class config is only 22 more than a 206 Seat A321 2 Class - probably about the same length as a 6w A321 - that does not kill the economics of a 7W tube.

While 8W might be slightly more structurally efficient it would be terrible as a 737 replacement.

Boeing will be looking at amortizing the costs of development of the new Fuselage over the NMA and NSA programs - if they go 8W on NMA they will never be able to reuse it on NSA.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Great article with some interesting quotes

Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.

Boeing must be considering the challenges with the Trent 1000/7000 and PW GTF. 787s and A320s are grounded around the world due to engine issues. The A330neo is in limbo waiting for engines. It makes me think they will go dual source or very low risk.

The first, the NMA-6X, is a 228-passenger medium-ranger with a 5,000 nautical mile endurance. Its larger sibling, the NMA-7X, weighs in with seating in two classes for 267, touting a range 800 nautical miles shorter. The target for the three manufacturers is an engine that burns 25% less fuel for every pound of thrust it produces compared with the decades-old turbines on the 757, according to another person briefed on the RFP.

Sounds like capacity and configuration are getting solidified. 25% less fuel per pound of thrust than a 757. That should be doable without a huge leap forward in technology.

Good image!


Looks like lots of technology re-use from 737MAX, 777X and 787. I guess that is part of how they are keeping costs down

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

It takes months to go through the proposals and negotiate. A decision likely would take over 6 months.

With the 3.5:1 ratio gearbox, doable in a GTF. Possibly with the variable fan nozzle. Pratt wouldn't be trusted with CMCs today.

With a LEAP derived engine and CMCs, it is possible. The GE9x has a lot of technology ready to be moved over.

I think we might see LOIs at Farnborough, but I agree too early for contracts.

Lightsaber

Res the 321: Airbus will have seven years to update and improve it, should they choose that route. The moderately larger Boeing will be a competitor, but not a direct one.

The two models will have a paper range of 5300 and 4500 miles. In another thread I noticed that the 787 flies the majority of its routes at about 4500 miles, with a number going close to the paper range. By analogy the two models may efficiently go 3000 and 2500 mile routes. Has anyone worked out the various effective ranges of this plane?

Interesting that it will have 4500 pounds of thrust, general opinion was that it would be 5000. What are the implications of this? And what are the implications of a later upgrade to 5000?

lightsaber wrote:

I think we might see LOIs at Farnborough, but I agree too early for contracts.

That would be great, but is there already AtO? This could happen at Farnborough, but Loi's within days after AtO?

lightsaber wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Great article with some interesting quotes

Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said recently that the company is seeking “existing engine technology packaged in a new way” to reduce development risk, upfront investment and increase the likelihood its propulsion suppliers will deliver on time.

Boeing must be considering the challenges with the Trent 1000/7000 and PW GTF. 787s and A320s are grounded around the world due to engine issues. The A330neo is in limbo waiting for engines. It makes me think they will go dual source or very low risk.

The first, the NMA-6X, is a 228-passenger medium-ranger with a 5,000 nautical mile endurance. Its larger sibling, the NMA-7X, weighs in with seating in two classes for 267, touting a range 800 nautical miles shorter. The target for the three manufacturers is an engine that burns 25% less fuel for every pound of thrust it produces compared with the decades-old turbines on the 757, according to another person briefed on the RFP.

Sounds like capacity and configuration are getting solidified. 25% less fuel per pound of thrust than a 757. That should be doable without a huge leap forward in technology.

Good image!


Looks like lots of technology re-use from 737MAX, 777X and 787. I guess that is part of how they are keeping costs down

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

StTim wrote:

If the RFP's are due back this week then the question is how long does Boeing take to do a final appraisal of the responses before picking a winner (or winners)?

I suspect that is not a two week turn around.

It takes months to go through the proposals and negotiate. A decision likely would take over 6 months.

With the 3.5:1 ratio gearbox, doable in a GTF. Possibly with the variable fan nozzle. Pratt wouldn't be trusted with CMCs today.

With a LEAP derived engine and CMCs, it is possible. The GE9x has a lot of technology ready to be moved over.

I think we might see LOIs at Farnborough, but I agree too early for contracts.

Lightsaber

It seems like a strategy of waiting for future PIPs or an engine upgrade a few years after entry into service seems plausible. This is how engine development use to work. The initial airplanes were low MTOW versions and higher thrust versions came a long after a few years. That is how the 747, 767, and 777 went. Nowadays we wait for efficiency improvements I stead of thrust Increases since unlike the 80s and 90s these engines aren’t more powerful than their predecessors.

The tender screams CFM LEAP all the way.

My guess is we'll see a CFM LEAP for launch. I suspect they've told B that they want exclusivity but B surely slapped them down and pointed to current delivery delays as a reason why they won't allow it. They'll acquiesce because B will promise to launch with them. B will select RR as second option that will probably be certified a year after EIS giving RR more time to mature the product. That gives B and suppliers time to focus on the compressed schedule they've boxed themselves into as well. Sadly P&W get stuck on the sideline again.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Res the 321: Airbus will have seven years to update and improve it, should they choose that route. The moderately larger Boeing will be a competitor, but not a direct one.

The two models will have a paper range of 5300 and 4500 miles. In another thread I noticed that the 787 flies the majority of its routes at about 4500 miles, with a number going close to the paper range. By analogy the two models may efficiently go 3000 and 2500 mile routes. Has anyone worked out the various effective ranges of this plane?

Interesting that it will have 4500 pounds of thrust, general opinion was that it would be 5000. What are the implications of this? And what are the implications of a later upgrade to 5000?

It means it's lighter than people suspect. Probably an entirely composite airplane.

Well all I have to say is how EXCITED I am! I remember the journey from Sonic Cruiser to Dreamliner well, and as forever as it seemed, the day did arrive! (same general for the hypersonic thread, but I'm not sure if I will live to fly it)

I do have a question that a know nothing tech like me has: how does this 45,000 lbs of thrust engine to be compare to the current 757 and 767 engines? I know that the 757 is very powerful and good for hot and high airports, short runways (If I'm correct) so I am curious about the capabilities of the 797 in that regard.

If this was covered in an earlier post, apologies.

Thanks

VC10er wrote:

Well all I have to say is how EXCITED I am! I remember the journey from Sonic Cruiser to Dreamliner well, and as forever as it seemed, the day did arrive! (same general for the hypersonic thread, but I'm not sure if I will live to fly it)

I do have a question that a know nothing tech like me has: how does this 45,000 lbs of thrust engine to be compare to the current 757 and 767 engines? I know that the 757 is very powerful and good for hot and high airports, short runways (If I'm correct) so I am curious about the capabilities of the 797 in that regard.

If this was covered in an earlier post, apologies.

Thanks

45000 is more than the 757-200 by a little but less then the 767-300 by a bit more.

Right in the middle.

I am thinking the guess about much lighter than the 767 is on target.

And it will not be a “hot rod” like the 757-200

seahawk wrote:

The tender screams CFM LEAP all the way.

I think that the Boeing 797 will rather have two engine options: A version of the CFM LEAP and the Rolls-Royce UltraFan, with a likelihood of the UltraFan being the second option and the LEAP the first one. Sadly, Pratt & Whitney won't have a chance to power the 797, much because of the issues with the GTF engine.

Revelation wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

Yes, NMA-6 will not be an A321LR competitor since it will have more pax in its two-class layout and more range, and -7 will be bigger still. Hopefully we'll soon get a good idea of how it does on CASM vs A321LR.

I think the CASM will be at least as good as the A321LR, if not better. But if a route simply doesnt have a demand for 230 passengers per flight (this is what the A321LR is for) a slightly better CASM wont help. I am pretty sure that a 797-6 with 160 passengers on board will have higher cost per passenger than an A321LR fully booked with 160 Pax. So with other words Boeing completely leaves this market ""niche"" to Airbus.

How much could Boeing push the range of the 737MAX9 or a comfortable configured MAX10 with aux tanks? I mean, Central Europe to US eastcoast/Chicago area range would be enough, its not nessacary to fly 11 hours IMO.

Should RR/GE or RR/PW not join forces to spread the risk? They could then come with a suitable engine for both A & B.

For these initial models the stretch in the niche will be how efficient at shorter ranges. Maybe in the 2030s increases in range.

Continental767 wrote:

Looks like the 797 is coming soon. Very soon. Maybe even within a month, if it follows the 787 timeline. Exciting!

John said that launch could happen soon after the choice of engine supplier is made. We don't know when that choice will be made since Boeing is just receiving the RFP responses today.

OA940 wrote:

So Boeing gave them 24 hours. Nice one. But anyway I'm so looking forward to the 797. Mayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybe they'll launch it at Farnborough but I doubt it.

I doubt Boeing gave them 24 hours. It's entirely likely that John just now got wind of this because the engine manufactures are turning in their RFP response today.

Faro wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

jetblueguy22 wrote:

RR and Pratt are about on par in the SNAFU department.

And GE has the better PR department.

And GE is selling off whole industry lines...paring down the spread of industries in which it operates...getting slimmer and with more cash...they will be more formidable than ever...

But it's curious how quiet their PR department is on developments with GE9X testing...any potential problems in the offing?...


Faro

They are doing that because they were going over the cliff. By the way, they are selling of well performing areas, because there they get cash.

The GEnx has icing problems, the solutions were work arounds, that are not always helpful regarding fuel burn especially in climb.

The LEAP is not free from problems. They are, at least at Airbus, late with deliveries. They have or had a mismatch between fan and low pressure compressor, or between low and high pressure compressor (I can not be bothered to look it up now). They have some life time problems regarding some of the new ceramic parts, that will lead to some early replacement and shop visits.

They did not manage to emulate the severity of the P&W GTF problems, but it seems to me that the CFM problems are severe enough by themselves.

I still think GE has the better PR department.

If you follow general timelines on their past announcements it is quite possible that they could announce "authorization to proceed" from the board of directors on their Q2 earnings call which is July 25th at 10:30 ET.

You better believe anybody who is interested in the 797 will be listening to that call.

Or the other option would be Farnborough which happens to be 3 weeks from now. July 16-22

Well actually, the 797 doesn’t have to compete with the A321LR. Boeing predicted the market spot on with the Dreamliner. Point-to-point, high frequency, focus in economy.

This is just a continuation of that strategy, a notch smaller but the same idea, with new bells and whistles. Ideally opening again new routes instead of being used as a replacement for 75/67.

Anything below this, the 737MAX can cover for now.

VC10er wrote:

Well all I have to say is how EXCITED I am! I remember the journey from Sonic Cruiser to Dreamliner well, and as forever as it seemed, the day did arrive! (same general for the hypersonic thread, but I'm not sure if I will live to fly it)

I do have a question that a know nothing tech like me has: how does this 45,000 lbs of thrust engine to be compare to the current 757 and 767 engines? I know that the 757 is very powerful and good for hot and high airports, short runways (If I'm correct) so I am curious about the capabilities of the 797 in that regard.

If this was covered in an earlier post, apologies.

Thanks

It is indeed exciting.

Hearing about the launch of the 777 was one thing that got me interested in aviation.

As for the engines, Jon's article says:

The target for the three manufacturers is an engine that burns 25% less fuel for every pound of thrust it produces compared with the decades-old turbines on the 757, according to another person briefed on the RFP.

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757#Specifications says:

40,200–43,500 lbf (179–193 kN) Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4(B)
36,600–42,600 lbf (163–189 kN) Pratt & Whitney PW2000-37/40/43

So they're bigger than the biggest 757 engines in terms of thrust, but since they consume sooooo much less fuel (less to be carried) and since the wings will provide a lot more lift (carbon-fiber reinforced plastic allows a precise shape and modern computational fluid dynamics can specify such shapes) it will be able to lift the broader fuselage.

DLHAM wrote:

How much could Boeing push the range of the 737MAX9 or a comfortable configured MAX10 with aux tanks? I mean, Central Europe to US eastcoast/Chicago area range would be enough, its not nessacary to fly 11 hours IMO.

If that's your metric, A321LR can't do it either (at least to the satisfaction of LH's CEO), and LH is talking to Boeing about the NMA:

“No decision has been taken. They (A321LR) can cross the Atlantic but they don’t manage to go from Germany all the way to the east coast,” Carsten Spohr told journalists on the sidelines of an airlines event in Brussels.

He also said Lufthansa was in talks with Boeing over a possible new middle of the market plane. “It’s too early, but we are in talks. They are talking to all major airlines,” he said.

However, Lufthansa is not interested in any more A380 superjumbos even though they are available cheaply, Spohr said.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-euro ... SKCN1GI1O3

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who wants to sit in a single aisle for 10+ hours. I know I'm not one of them.

trpmb6 wrote:

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who wants to sit in a single aisle for 10+ hours. I know I'm not one of them.

Says who? I'd rather sit any amount of time in an A320 with 18" seats compared to 777 at 10-abreast.

Revelation wrote:

[
However, Lufthansa is not interested in any more A380 superjumbos even though they are available cheaply, Spohr said.

so i guess airbus is done losing money on the 380 even if it means losing face cancelling it

DLHAM wrote:

Revelation wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

I am still surprised they want to do the 797 with ~230/~270 Passengers (I assume in a two class layout). That means 767-300 and 767-400 size. So there will be no direct replacement for the 757, capacity wise and the A321LR remains without any competition. The only way to compete is to make sure that the smaller 797 has the same operating cost as the A321LR or just slightly above.

Yes, NMA-6 will not be an A321LR competitor since it will have more pax in its two-class layout and more range, and -7 will be bigger still. Hopefully we'll soon get a good idea of how it does on CASM vs A321LR.

I think the CASM will be at least as good as the A321LR, if not better. But if a route simply doesnt have a demand for 230 passengers per flight (this is what the A321LR is for) a slightly better CASM wont help. I am pretty sure that a 797-6 with 160 passengers on board will have higher cost per passenger than an A321LR fully booked with 160 Pax. So with other words Boeing completely leaves this market ""niche"" to Airbus.

How much could Boeing push the range of the 737MAX9 or a comfortable configured MAX10 with aux tanks? I mean, Central Europe to US eastcoast/Chicago area range would be enough, its not nessacary to fly 11 hours IMO.

Is that long/thin market profitable for airlines to operate? It doesn't fit the model of ULCCs going long haul. The legacy airlines aggregate demand from hubs and now partner hubs with JV. I think your comment about ceding this space (if in fact they are) to Airbus and the A321LR is not that large in the scheme of things. Airbus can offer that to customers who want it, probably just with top off orders as they likely will have A321s in fleet already.

I still believe there won't be any MOM. There is no business case. In addition to thinking about possible MOM sales Boeing needs to think what kind of response it will trigger from Airbus. From what has been floated so far there doesn't seem to be a design that wouldn't be severely hurt by a re-winged/stretched A321/A322. Putting a new wing on the A321 would hurt also the 737-9/10 and could leave 737 as a one trick pony (737-8).

musman9853 wrote:

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

This is Jon Ostrower's new gig.

Oh wow. That's a *lot* of new information.

I am a bit disappointed to see them using the 757/767/777 cockpit windows. I would have thought that by using a more 787-style nose they could have shaved a few percent off the overall drag.

I'm really curious as to whether Boeing will go all-electric in this new model, too. And I wouldn't be shocked if folding wingtips worked into it.

Carlos01 wrote:

Well actually, the 797 doesn’t have to compete with the A321LR. Boeing predicted the market spot on with the Dreamliner. Point-to-point, high frequency, focus in economy.

This is just a continuation of that strategy, a notch smaller but the same idea, with new bells and whistles. Ideally opening again new routes instead of being used as a replacement for 75/67.

Anything below this, the 737MAX can cover for now.

I dunno, A is having a rather good run with the A321, why would B not want to compete with it since now we know the 797 will be bigger? Is there a card up B's sleeve that they're holding or did they just determine the 321 sized field is not big enough for two? Is the strategy that they'll sell enough 797s that it won't matter if A321s keep selling well?

duplicate - delete

Newbiepilot wrote:

The target for the three manufacturers is an engine that burns 25% less fuel for every pound of thrust it produces compared with the decades-old turbines on the 757, according to another person briefed on the RFP.

Does this seem a little low to anyone? Per RR, Ultrafan's SFC delta vs. original Trent engine is around -25%. The original Trent EIS'd in 1994 on A330, 757's engines are over a decade older - though pip'd and improved some over that time.

In my own past approximations of NMA performance, I was expecting ~30% SFC delta vs. 757. Leeham's ~2015 analysis was projecting 15% SFC delta over LEAP/PW1000, though their more recent analysis implies a lower SFC delta.

Does it seem to anyone else that Boeing and the engine OEM's are being more conservative than we might have thought a few years ago? Maybe due to recent problems with new engine platforms?

IMO a more conservative engine choice for NMA throws the business case into serious doubt. This plane needs to beat A321NEO and MAX-10 on short routes and that might not be possible with a "LEAP 1.5." I hope Boeing hasn't made an error by deciding - internally - to launch and then adhering to that decision even after performance projections got worse. The demand for this plane will be directly related to its efficiency; the launch decision should revolve around what kind of engines it can have.

Card up their sleeve?Mmmmmm hard to tell.Perhaps the tight 7ab ovoid fuse is exactly what they will use when they get round to replacing the 737.After all the marketplace starts at 200 pax these days.Would get round all the debording issues that are increasingly cropping up.
Just a thought.

DocLightning wrote:

musman9853 wrote:

https://preview.theaircurrent.com/

This is Jon Ostrower's new gig.

Oh wow. That's a *lot* of new information.

I am a bit disappointed to see them using the 757/767/777 cockpit windows. I would have thought that by using a more 787-style nose they could have shaved a few percent off the overall drag.

I'm really curious as to whether Boeing will go all-electric in this new model, too. And I wouldn't be shocked if folding wingtips worked into it.

I have a feeling that rendering was deliberate in not accurately reflecting what the 797 will really look like. I think Boeing is being very careful about not tipping their hand to early.

parapente wrote:

Card up their sleeve?Mmmmmm hard to tell.Perhaps the tight 7ab ovoid fuse is exactly what they will use when they get round to replacing the 737.After all the marketplace starts at 200 pax these days.Would get round all the debording issues that are increasingly cropping up.
Just a thought.

You crimp down on the narrowbody market from the NMA space and eat up a lot of what the A320/321 and their 737 counterparts do. Then your new narrow is something optimized for shorter range and to be highly efficient on 2-4 hour sectors. 737 and A320neo have grown a bit with lower SFC where if they were optimized for these sectors they would be noticeably lighter.

Maybe to can use same fuselage and maybe not. But that is what I think Boeing is doing here. If they reuse the fuselage from this in the new smallest plane I expect it to launch by 2028 as basically part of a family with NMA.

bigjku wrote:

parapente wrote:

Card up their sleeve?Mmmmmm hard to tell.Perhaps the tight 7ab ovoid fuse is exactly what they will use when they get round to replacing the 737.After all the marketplace starts at 200 pax these days.Would get round all the debording issues that are increasingly cropping up.
Just a thought.

You crimp down on the narrowbody market from the NMA space and eat up a lot of what the A320/321 and their 737 counterparts do. Then your new narrow is something optimized for shorter range and to be highly efficient on 2-4 hour sectors. 737 and A320neo have grown a bit with lower SFC where if they were optimized for these sectors they would be noticeably lighter.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain that Boeing's ultimate goal is to completely replace narrowbodies on the longer transcontinental/short intercontinental sectors with the 797. It'd do a number on 737MAX sales, but that's ok, the MAX has had a good run and it's better that Boeing steals sales from itself rather than give Airbus a chance to do it, and the MAX 200 and MAX 10 will still be CASM beasts on shorter routes.

monomojo wrote:

bigjku wrote:

parapente wrote:

Card up their sleeve?Mmmmmm hard to tell.Perhaps the tight 7ab ovoid fuse is exactly what they will use when they get round to replacing the 737.After all the marketplace starts at 200 pax these days.Would get round all the debording issues that are increasingly cropping up.
Just a thought.

You crimp down on the narrowbody market from the NMA space and eat up a lot of what the A320/321 and their 737 counterparts do. Then your new narrow is something optimized for shorter range and to be highly efficient on 2-4 hour sectors. 737 and A320neo have grown a bit with lower SFC where if they were optimized for these sectors they would be noticeably lighter.

Yeah, I'm pretty certain that Boeing's ultimate goal is to completely replace narrowbodies on the longer transcontinental/short intercontinental sectors with the 797. It'd do a number on 737MAX sales, but that's ok, the MAX has had a good run and it's better that Boeing steals sales from itself rather than give Airbus a chance to do it, and the MAX 200 and MAX 10 will still be CASM beasts on shorter routes.

Yup. And any 737 replacement that is lighter and initially less capable will have the same growth path as engines are improved. You want to start from the low end of the range scale. At least as low as you can get away with.