What they actually said is that in order to Keep 2025 in Service date they (theoretically) must have done the Launch by by End of 2019 latest. Finally it was buying more time into 2019, but the most realistic date now is Paris Airshow in mid 2019. Personally I think this is already late and the in Service will be rather the end of 2025 (30.Dec.2025?) than somehow earlier in 2025. Actually we will see it in 2026 in very small numbers I believe, but it will come.

Flyglobal

neomax wrote:

It’s absolutely ridiculous if Boeing is still trying to figure out if there's a business case for an NMA. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that a clean sheet NMA is badly needed and there is clear evidence for it. They will have years after the build the pax variant to sort out the logistics of a freighter variant, but they haven't even gotten to that point yet. They just pushed back the NMA to 2019, and it is this same kind of backwards thinking that allows Airbus to keep swallowing the market with the A321 for as long as Boeing can't get their stuff together.

Perhaps this is actually indicative of the opposite ? Reading the title of the thread and skimming a few posts it almost seems as though Boeing is not conceived enough airlines are interested or at least willing to order substantial enough numbers to justify the NMA to date. Hence them reaching out to FX to garner interest in a freighter version. From what I’ve gathered, the NMA is envisioned to replace the 752/3 on the low end and the 763/4 on the high end. Even before the 32N and 73M series left the drawing board the global 757/767 fleet was shrinking. Sure old tech and old age were likely the leading factors but it’s not far fetched to conclude that very few airlines globally use the 75/6 family in the way the US3 does.

Many argue the 75/6 family fill a niche role even in the US3 fleet and network. Could be argued that outside of those airlines that niche is even smaller or nonexistent.

What other airlines around the world need the additional range or hot/high capabilities the 75 offers over the 32N/73M series? What other airlines need the capacity profile, lower weight and range of the 76 over the 787/33N ? I can’t think of any other airlines who operate routes comparable to DEN-Hawaii, ORD-Western Europe, EWR/IAD-Interior Europe where the 75/76 are the only planes that can pull it off?

Happy to be proven wrong regarding my above statements and happy to be educated on whether or not there are a plethora of non-US3 airlines who are finding the 73M/32N series is just not cutting it. Sounds to me Boeing is trying to avoid having a modern day 764 on their hands where only a few airlines order just enough to replace order aircraft that fill a unique roll.

77H

neomax wrote:

It’s absolutely ridiculous if Boeing is still trying to figure out if there's a business case for an NMA. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that a clean sheet NMA is badly needed and there is clear evidence for it. They will have years after the build the pax variant to sort out the logistics of a freighter variant, but they haven't even gotten to that point yet. They just pushed back the NMA to 2019, and it is this same kind of backwards thinking that allows Airbus to keep swallowing the market with the A321 for as long as Boeing can't get their stuff together.

I find this an amazing statement. A commercial airplane program has a 40-50 year product life cycle. The decisions Boeing takes now will impact their business a half-century from now. They need to get it right. Patience is a virtue, not a vice.

Another thought, let’s say B doesn’t feel they have enough demand to build a clean sheet aircraft. What is the feasibility of giving the 767 the MAX treatment? We know the 75 is dead but B is still pumping out 767 models for the military and cargo carriers.

While suppliers for the current 76 have likely stopped making pax model specific parts, with the right amount of lead time I don’t see why B couldn’t re-establish those supply chains as well take time to develop a new wing, incorporate the newest engine tech and covert what hull components they can to carbon fiber instead of aluminum.

I have to imagine all this considered, developing an improved 76 has to be cheaper than a clean sheet and would be available sooner than the NMA.

77H

77H wrote:

Another thought, let’s say B doesn’t feel they have enough demand to build a clean sheet aircraft. What is the feasibility of giving the 767 the MAX treatment? We know the 75 is dead but B is still pumping out 767 models for the military and cargo carriers.

While suppliers for the current 76 have likely stopped making pax model specific parts, with the right amount of lead time I don’t see why B couldn’t re-establish those supply chains as well take time to develop a new wing, incorporate the newest engine tech and covert what hull components they can to carbon fiber instead of aluminum.

I have to imagine all this considered, developing an improved 76 has to be cheaper than a clean sheet and would be available sooner than the NMA.

77H

There are MULTIPLE threads discussing a 767 "MAX" - I think most people would prefer that not to be rehashed here since this topic is about the NMA and FedEx.

JustSomeDood wrote:

I am not buying FX as a key driver for initial NMA sales, their 757s were all pax conversions and the new-build 767Fs/777Fs will be around for a while. No doubt an NMA freighter would be better than a 757 for freight, but enough for FedEx to justify billions in Capex for more new-builds?

I agree. We're not discussing freight as a key driver for initial NMA sales, though. We're talking about freight as a way for Boeing to "broaden its business case for its New Middle-Market Airplane (NMA)" (to quote the article).

What isn't clear is whether that means the business case is currently too weak to justify the program as it stands now, or whether it further improves an already good business case.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

So let's get this straight - an unlaunched passenger jet needs a freight company to help launch it when there's no cargo version even being mooted?

Yes, let's get it straight. At least in the free preview portion of the article, that assertion was not made.

DfwRevolution wrote:

A commercial airplane program has a 40-50 year product life cycle. The decisions Boeing takes now will impact their business a half-century from now. They need to get it right. Patience is a virtue, not a vice.

Precisely. The goal is not simply a plane "good enough" to justify the program, but a plane that maximizes the forecast revenue for Boeing. That means looking at ways to both broaden the market, and lengthen its viability.

Frankly, if Boeing were just approaching cargo operators for the first time, I'd say they've been remiss. I suspect it's more likely we're hearing for the first time about discussions that have been ongoing for a while.

Boeing has to have a business case to launch the passenger version

While WN and Ryan are not interested in buying now, it also needs to fit into their business plans

Likewise this plane needs to be able to replace the 767 freighter, which while have upwards to 9 lives, is not immortal. Not only by being convertable, but also as a new freighter.

Duplicate.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Boeing has to have a business case to launch the passenger version

While WN and Ryan are not interested in buying now, it also needs to fit into their business plans

Likewise this plane needs to be able to replace the 767 freighter, which while have upwards to 9 lives, is not immortal. Not only by being convertable, but also as a new freighter.

Does it need to replace the 767? I anticipate its probably closer to a 757 replacement (as the 757F converted aircraft are older). While maybe it does some replacement, I see it as supplemental to freighter fleets with 767s.

Also, Boeing isn't going to design a new aircraft around potential expansion by airlines that are built on single-type aircraft fleets.

The freight issue is not limited to FedEx. It has been said that some Asian airlines want 10t of cargo capability for a MoM aircraft. If those airlines can be convinced that 10t and 5000 nm range is not a good idea, then perhaps Boeing relents on the limited underfloor space, ups the max structural payload at a cost of a slight increase in OEW, and the interested Asians get their pax and 10t of cargo knowing that they aren't flying much more than 3000nm with the "heavy" cargo load. If Boeing thinks there is more than 300 sales hanging on that decision, I could see them taking some more time to get it right. And hopefully get the orders and options out the gate.

I think the 777 and 748 (and any 787 version) are going to be too long ranged to be economic for transcontinental. But the 767 likely will sell for almost another 10 years. Amazing.

jagraham wrote:

The freight issue is not limited to FedEx. It has been said that some Asian airlines want 10t of cargo capability for a MoM aircraft. If those airlines can be convinced that 10t and 5000 nm range is not a good idea, then perhaps Boeing relents on the limited underfloor space, ups the max structural payload at a cost of a slight increase in OEW, and the interested Asians get their pax and 10t of cargo knowing that they aren't flying much more than 3000nm with the "heavy" cargo load. If Boeing thinks there is more than 300 sales hanging on that decision, I could see them taking some more time to get it right. And hopefully get the orders and options out the gate.

This is exactly right. NMA won't work for the Americans or Europeans if it can fly PVG-SYD or PVG-DXB with full cargo, but maybe it can be just enough better than the A321 to work for everyone and still carry smartphones to DEL or CGK.

jbs2886 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Fascinating.

But I'm not paying 200 dollars for a subscription. He really needs to drop that down or find another pay model.

So he notes the emissions of the 767's engines as being the reason right? But did he consider the 767-2c with its updated PW engines? There was a rumor for a long time that FedEx was interested in 50 767-2C freighters. Nothing came of it but I imagine such an order would not be hard to fulfill on Boeing's side. Especially if UPS jumped on board.

Yeah his price point is just way too high, I can get NYT for half the price. But interesting development.

I think his price point (just like Leeham's) is not aimed at the enthusiast, but at professionals in the aviation industry.
Personally, I like how Leeham still has free pieces for the enthusiast (like myself), while the more in-depth stuff requires a subscription.

anfromme wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

Fascinating.

But I'm not paying 200 dollars for a subscription. He really needs to drop that down or find another pay model.

So he notes the emissions of the 767's engines as being the reason right? But did he consider the 767-2c with its updated PW engines? There was a rumor for a long time that FedEx was interested in 50 767-2C freighters. Nothing came of it but I imagine such an order would not be hard to fulfill on Boeing's side. Especially if UPS jumped on board.

Yeah his price point is just way too high, I can get NYT for half the price. But interesting development.

I think his price point (just like Leeham's) is not aimed at the enthusiast, but at professionals in the aviation industry.
Personally, I like how Leeham still has free pieces for the enthusiast (like myself), while the more in-depth stuff requires a subscription.

They are also designed to get as much money from the enthusiast who subscribes for only one month, reads as many of the articles as they can/are interested in, then unsubscribes before they are charged a second month. Leeham, being more established with more content, can obviously charge more and still get bites.

That’s honestly who the monthly rates are targetted towards (and professionals wanting a quick look at quality of content before deciding to commit). They are hoping you will do that a few months of the year. Actual professionals will go for the annual rate if they are actually interested in reading all the articles as soon as they come out (it’s cheaper).

jagraham wrote:

The freight issue is not limited to FedEx. It has been said that some Asian airlines want 10t of cargo capability for a MoM aircraft. If those airlines can be convinced that 10t and 5000 nm range is not a good idea, then perhaps Boeing relents on the limited underfloor space, ups the max structural payload at a cost of a slight increase in OEW, and the interested Asians get their pax and 10t of cargo knowing that they aren't flying much more than 3000nm with the "heavy" cargo load. If Boeing thinks there is more than 300 sales hanging on that decision, I could see them taking some more time to get it right. And hopefully get the orders and options out the gate.

I don't think demand from a freight only airlines is to be same as demand from airlines looking at underbelly freight here?

jbs2886 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Boeing has to have a business case to launch the passenger version

While WN and Ryan are not interested in buying now, it also needs to fit into their business plans

Likewise this plane needs to be able to replace the 767 freighter, which while have upwards to 9 lives, is not immortal. Not only by being convertable, but also as a new freighter.

Does it need to replace the 767? I anticipate its probably closer to a 757 replacement (as the 757F converted aircraft are older). While maybe it does some replacement, I see it as supplemental to freighter fleets with 767s.

Also, Boeing isn't going to design a new aircraft around potential expansion by airlines that are built on single-type aircraft fleets.

Its capability would be closer to 767 than 757

c933103 wrote:

Its capability would be closer to 767 than 757

Wouldn't it make their life so much easier if only Boeing was still making an aircraft with the capability of the 767?

neomax wrote:

It’s absolutely ridiculous if Boeing is still trying to figure out if there's a business case for an NMA. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that a clean sheet NMA is badly needed and there is clear evidence for it. They will have years after the build the pax variant to sort out the logistics of a freighter variant, but they haven't even gotten to that point yet. They just pushed back the NMA to 2019, and it is this same kind of backwards thinking that allows Airbus to keep swallowing the market with the A321 for as long as Boeing can't get their stuff together.

Just random baseless speculation but a possibility could be that dozens of airlines will order dozens of NMA each for missions optimal for NMA but that only translate to hundreds not thousands of order which would better match engine makers predictions than Boeing's own prediction, and they might need to make the aircraft also good for missions not optimized to the NMA in order to make airlines order more of them and thus to achieve the possible scenario of able to get back their investment from the project and also extra profit that could outweigh the potential risk from the project in order to launch it.

Jon Ostrower. I remember when he was a simple blogger back around 2000. He posted news and photos right here on this site. Oh time has flown by.

JoeCanuck wrote:

Wouldn't it make their life so much easier if only Boeing was still making an aircraft with the capability of the 767?

Totally, if that aircraft had 30% lower trip cost than a 767.

c933103 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

The freight issue is not limited to FedEx. It has been said that some Asian airlines want 10t of cargo capability for a MoM aircraft. If those airlines can be convinced that 10t and 5000 nm range is not a good idea, then perhaps Boeing relents on the limited underfloor space, ups the max structural payload at a cost of a slight increase in OEW, and the interested Asians get their pax and 10t of cargo knowing that they aren't flying much more than 3000nm with the "heavy" cargo load. If Boeing thinks there is more than 300 sales hanging on that decision, I could see them taking some more time to get it right. And hopefully get the orders and options out the gate.

I don't think demand from a freight only airlines is to be same as demand from airlines looking at underbelly freight here?

The issue is that a 797 which satisfies FedEx and the Asian airlines in question will have a higher MSP than what it seems Boeing is going for. Adding 5t to the MSP - without making a significant increase in MTOW - could satisfy FedEx and Asian carriers while keeping the big American and European carriers happy. If Boeing does it right.

I see this discussion as Boeing wishes to make the 797 to be easiest to convert to a future highly successful freighter... Boeing seems to have a history of designing passenger aircraft to be converted into freighters (or to have a freight version) that Airbus generally does not have... and I believe is the reason that Boeing essentially owns the airfreight market (Airbus has very few sales).


Boeing has long consided freight to be a part of many aircraft famililes lifespans.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

I see this discussion as Boeing wishes to make the 797 to be easiest to convert to a future highly successful freighter... Boeing seems to have a history of designing passenger aircraft to be converted into freighters (or to have a freight version) that Airbus generally does not have... and I believe is the reason that Boeing essentially owns the airfreight market (Airbus has very few sales).


Boeing has long consided freight to be a part of many aircraft famililes lifespans.

Have a great day,

I see it as Boeing grasping at ways to close the business case on the NMA/MoM/797.

jbs2886 wrote:

Lpbri wrote:

There is no such thing as international law.

Lol. Yes, there is.

When a law isn't really enforceable then it isn't really a law. The only way to enforce it is by going to war.

neomax wrote:

It’s absolutely ridiculous if Boeing is still trying to figure out if there's a business case for an NMA. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that a clean sheet NMA is badly needed and there is clear evidence for it.

I am sure Boeing's shareholders are more than happy to shell out billions of dollars for the development of a new aircraft based on it being 'obvious' that it is 'badly needed'. Why check if airlines would actually buy it in numbers, and what they need exactly? Let's just start to build anything, really!!

jbs2886 wrote:

77H wrote:

Another thought, let’s say B doesn’t feel they have enough demand to build a clean sheet aircraft. What is the feasibility of giving the 767 the MAX treatment? We know the 75 is dead but B is still pumping out 767 models for the military and cargo carriers.

While suppliers for the current 76 have likely stopped making pax model specific parts, with the right amount of lead time I don’t see why B couldn’t re-establish those supply chains as well take time to develop a new wing, incorporate the newest engine tech and covert what hull components they can to carbon fiber instead of aluminum.

I have to imagine all this considered, developing an improved 76 has to be cheaper than a clean sheet and would be available sooner than the NMA.

77H

There are MULTIPLE threads discussing a 767 "MAX" - I think most people would prefer that not to be rehashed here since this topic is about the NMA and FedEx.

Apologies... I don’t read every thread on forum.

2175301 wrote:

I see this discussion as Boeing wishes to make the 797 to be easiest to convert to a future highly successful freighter... Boeing seems to have a history of designing passenger aircraft to be converted into freighters (or to have a freight version) that Airbus generally does not have... and I believe is the reason that Boeing essentially owns the airfreight market (Airbus has very few sales).


Boeing has long consided freight to be a part of many aircraft famililes lifespans.

Have a great day,

Numbers for A300/A310F are there. A320 P2F was considered but demand for second hand frame was too strong for that to launch. Too few A340 around (in additional to their extra weight) and A330 P2F program have just started

planecane wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Lpbri wrote:

There is no such thing as international law.

Lol. Yes, there is.

When a law isn't really enforceable then it isn't really a law. The only way to enforce it is by going to war.

It would also cost a war to force other countries into ignoring international regulations

c933103 wrote:

planecane wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Lol. Yes, there is.

When a law isn't really enforceable then it isn't really a law. The only way to enforce it is by going to war.

It would also cost a war to force other countries into ignoring international treaties

Fixed it for you.

Polot wrote:

The NMA freighter will be marketed as a 757F replacement, not a 767F replacement. FedEx won’t be replacing 767s for decades, their oldest one is only 5 years old. Boeing is trying to get as many new 767Fs as they can sold right now that will be sticking around for years. Remember FX has almost 120 757Fs that will be getting very old (40+ years) by the late 2020s. UPS has 75. DHL has around 50. A330s, even cheap converted ones, are way too big to replace those (would love to see an A330F in markets like TLH though lol).

I’m not saying Fedex or whoever will order a new freighter to replace them, but those talking about the A330 are looking at the wrong plane. It will be A321P2Fs that would be the 797F’s competition. 797F would likely lift more further (probably better than 757P2F, with A321P2F probably slightly worse than 757P2F), obviously more fuel efficient, but of course would be much more expensive.

As a Stitch said by the late 2020s if the A330F is making inroads Boeing will probably be looking at a 787F by then.

A majority of the 757’s purchased were low cycle aircraft. And they are. Utilized like passenger planes. DHL just parked the last of the Eastern 757’s and those were some of the first one built. Fed Ex has no issues flying 40 years old planes they have MD-10’s from United Built in 1971 that’s almost 50 years. It’s all about cycles not age

Can we like stick to the actual main topic of this thread instead of discussing about the international laws, some subscription cost or whatsoever??
I feel that theres like like 33% everything in here.

I think Boeing was willing to launch 797 at Farnborough. But engine manufactures simply weren't ready to meet the new conservative requirements for engine performance. They're still stuck in old model of making promises on performance that they may not be able to meet at entry into service. Boeing has made it clear that engines will be expected to meet their performance goal at launch. But they have also said that the suppliers of engines will limited to two. That creates pressure on engine how much engine suppliers will invest before they have signed contacts that they will be chosen as a supplier.

WPvsMW wrote:

Every treaty and international convention is "international law". The post doesn't read "There is no such thing as international AIR law."

Nope. A treaty is not the same as a law. A citizen bound by a law cannot simply decide he or she no longer wants to be bound by that law. Whereas any country that signed a treaty can withdraw from or abrogate the treaty at any time (regardless of whether the treaty "allows" for such a withdrawal). History is littered with treaties that weren't worth the ink they were written with. You may want to look up the Treaty of Versailles and Germany in 1935, or maybe the Paris Peace Accords and North Vietnam in 1975.

junlinwong94 wrote:

Can we like stick to the actual main topic of this thread instead of discussing about the international laws, some subscription cost or whatsoever?? I feel that theres like like 33% everything in here.

Apologies. You are of course correct. I'm done.

I may have missed a post, but why is no one mentioning that the NMA is supposed to enter service in 2025 (could be the last day of), and yet, FX will supposedly be taking new-build 797Fs in 2028? Never going to happen. Boeing would be damned lucky to have the second version (795/796...) in service then. Maybe Ostrower could name one aircraft program since the 747 (whose design origin was as a freighter) that produced an F model within 3 years... or even 10 years. I think this whole article is quite a stretch, or at least the premise, because I would never cough up that kind of cash to find out, if he's just going for click-bait headlines.

Obviously, Boeing needs to research the business case, just due diligence. All the power to them. And the middle of the market plane is an interesting development.

That being said, I can't help feel that these rumors, if true, reek of desperation.

Boeing postpones decision.

Boeing looking at freighters as part of the business case,

Recent Aviation Week study that airlines prefer smaller planes in this segment than Boeing is proposing.

Many of us not being able to figure out how to profitably build a new, small widebody when all previous attempts have fizzled or failed.

What if this never gets launched? It has to be a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't keep wondering...