Quoting travelhound (Reply 99): This is an interesting link.

I skimmed over it; but what is clear is that it is talking about "feeder" aircraft, and this has to mean short routes. This is exactly what I have been maintaining-for airlines where routes are short and quick turn-around is paramount this makes sense. But for 1000+ mile flights I do not see where it does. And as this article points out, the A320 series can easily be adapted to 1-3-1 configuration for airlines that want it, and obviously the NSA will be able to as well. But a 2-3-2 layout makes no sense to me, and I think Boeing will decide this as well.

Quoting kanban (Reply 98): The key here is Boeing feels there is enough market for the MAX that they needn't rush the replacement and end up with a fiasco.. and as I said in a different thread (but not very clearly) what ever Boeing is designing will make the NEO and MAX look like Vespas and Mopeds. (OK 247's and DC3's)

I think your assumption here is a bit overoptimistic. We heard the same about the 787 and that turned out to be more like incremental improvements vs a big leap. Same for the C-Series: a big step technically, but I do not see a big step in business case for the airlines which will drive big sales.

The reason for the 737-MAX is simple: it is much more profitable than the NSA.

And going back to motor cycles: the best selling motor cycles todays are still Vespa's and other small motorbikes below 150cc.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 100): A320 series can easily be adapted to 1-3-1 configuration for airlines that want it, and obviously the NSA will be able to as well. But a 2-3-2 layout makes no sense to me, and I think Boeing will decide this as well.

Why not make narrow body 3+3 aircraft with wide aisle? If the aisle on a narrow body is made 1.5 its normal width it is possible to keep the weight and the frontal area down and still not having problems with brooding times. We can call it semi narrow boy aircraft

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): A difference of 860 - i.e. 200 larger than when the MAX was launched....

If one includes commitments the difference grow even larger (by another 216 frames).
And the same story again with option included (176 frames).

Net orders, commitments and options equals almost 600 frames.

This clearly shows that the MAX is not gaining on the, quite the opposite.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 102): Why not make narrow body 3+3 aircraft with wide aisle? If the aisle on a narrow body is made 1.5 its normal width it is possible to keep the weight and the frontal area down and still not having problems with brooding times. We can call it semi narrow boy aircraft

That is probably what will happen in the future. It is the most efficient solution.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 101): The reason for the 737-MAX is simple: it is much more profitable than the NSA.

Sure, because the NSA would've cost a fortune to introduce but wouldn't have been good enough to command either a sales price or order backlog that would have trumped going MAX.

-Dave

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): A difference of 860 - i.e. 200 larger than when the MAX was launched....

And that doesn't even include the 400 MoU's yet to be firmed.

Quoting kanban (Reply 98): I'm sorry but this argument over who sold the most gets old.. the A320neo series is ahead of the MAX.. but that has little to do with what ever Boeing is designing

Indeed it does.
Unfortunately the correct status of the two programmes IS relevant to any plans that the OEM's might have for developments in this area.
I'm pretty sure that if the MAX was indeed beginning to blow the A320NEO away in sales, and filling its production slots so much faster than the NEO, both of which seem to have been claimed, there's no way that Boeing would be the ones who are being discussed as first movers in the field of the NSA

Quoting kanban (Reply 98): The key here is Boeing feels there is enough market for the MAX that they needn't rush the replacement and end up with a fiasco

Agree completely.
However, despite the protestations to the contrary, the ISTAT comments and poll clearly show that the industry thinks it is them that are the more vulnerable in this particular market and will need to move first.
That perception wouldn't exist if the MAX were indeed rapidly catching the NEO and outperforming it in filling production slots.
I agree that given both sales and backlog there's absolutely no need to rush into anything.

Quoting kanban (Reply 98): and as I said in a different thread (but not very clearly) what ever Boeing is designing will make the NEO and MAX look like Vespas and Mopeds. (OK 247's and DC3's)

Not a bad analogy.
It would be interesting to see what sells in bigger quantities around the world - GSX 750's or Vespas and Mopeds
It really doesn't matter how much we are Carl Fogarty fans - mopeds will still sell in the millions  

gds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 81): I don't see it as all that hard for Airbus to put a new wing similar to that on an NSA, and the same engine. There's no reason they can't stretch the A32X fuselage slightly either. I can see the advantage of a light twin above c. 240 seats, but from 180 seats to 240 I'm not convinced.

In this case, we can even consider that the A32X fuselage could maintain its advantage all the way to 480 seats. Airbus has already sketched the solution: it's the twin-single-aisle-fuselages. It brings all the advantages of the single-aisle fuselage, with the capacity of a large twin. One of the derived benefit is that you get more seats per gallon of fuel capacity, which is more optimized than with the current single-tube designs, the growth of the fuselage usually coming together with more fuel capacity and more range, which is not a must. This is especially interesting to take the full benefit of the lower specific fuel consumption of the future engines. Why carrying tank capacity that you don't need?

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/airbus-unveils-double-fuselage-design

Quoting astuteman (Reply 107):

I've been wondering if the bubble of massive orders is over for awhile.. there some MOU's to be firmed, but can airlines with relatively new pre NEO and MAX fleets afford to toss them for the flavor of the day the way some people shed cell phones? And where do all those replaced units go? yes some will replace older versions, and there will be replacement orders for new. Could part of Boeing's delay also be market driven? Internally they may be forecasting slower growth for the next 10 years, and a fresh surge of replacements in the 2024 time period..

I find both OEM's published future year sales projections a little on the high side.. there seems to be a belief that millions of people would be flying somewhere today except there are not enough planes/airports.. how about not enough income? How about either no desire or no reason? A few years ago a comment in an A380 thread alluded too if every airline had A380s, the world would rush to fill them even for short hauls.. like (rhetorically) London to Birmingham .. I still don't think so and available capacity doesn't always equate to profitable flights...

The 737Max has won 50% of the order competitions since it has been offered.    We can go on and on about numbers all day long. Overall, I would love for Boeing to feel some heat and have the 737 Max not be the answer. Getting a brand new design to market sooner means I have more of my life to enjoy a new design and not two aircraft that I've been watching since I was young. Boeing's design is old and Airbus's design is old. If Boeing had moved faster with the NSA, then we would have TWO new offerings to watch rather than two reheats of things we have already done.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 94): The MAX has been consistently gaining on the neo

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): It has?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): According to PDXlite

Yes, the A320neo still has a large advantage overall, but the "average sales / day (firm)" numbers have been getting closer and closer over time (so the A320neo number has been shrinking as the 737 MAX number has been rising) and the trend lines for the "NEO vs. MAX - firm order marketshare" have been trending closer together over time.

If the MAX was not consistently gaining, then the A320neo's "average sales / day (firm)" number would continue to grow larger and the sales trends would be drifting apart (as the A320neo continued to pull away).

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 105): Sure, because the NSA would've cost a fortune to introduce but wouldn't have been good enough to command either a sales price or order backlog that would have trumped going MAX.

If I remember correctly one of the reasons Boeing baulked at the NSA was the industrialisation of new technologies. The question was could Boeing build a NSA fast enough to fill demand.

Even though we talk about the 737 as being an old design, which it is, its production plant is probably the most efficient (in the world) and capable of supplying projected demand well into the future. It is a known quantity!

Regardless of new technologies I still see the price / availability / economics ratio being favourable for the 737 well into the future.

As such I am not sure why rumours of a NSA has to become an either/or type discussion. It just might be the case the two planes can be complimentary. In other words a NSA targeting sales in the +200 passengers / long haul segment and the 737 targeting -200 passengers / short haul segment could be a scenario where both planes exist together.

I think it is fair to say, what ever a NSA might be it will take at least five years of learning before its production systems are at a stage of maturity where they can supplying project demand of 60 aircraft per month.

In other words, even with entry into service in 2025 it would be at least 2030 before a NSA would have the production to supply projected demand for the aircraft.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 110): The 737Max has won 50% of the order competitions since it has been offered.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 111): so the A320neo number has been shrinking as the 737 MAX number has been rising

No it has not, though it's awefully close.
Like astuteman showed you ...

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): A difference of 860 - i.e. 200 larger than when the MAX was launched....

the MAX has takes 48% vs NEO 52 of the orders since launch of the MAX.

And if you include commitments, and even options, the NEO comes out even better.

It's close, but I'm just saying .... you're wrong!

[Edited 2014-11-29 13:30:44]

Quoting chiad (Reply 113): the MAX has takes 48% vs NEO 52 of the orders since launch of the MAX.

Quoting chiad (Reply 113): It's close, but I'm just saying .... you're wrong!

So we're back to effectively 50/50 market parity. *shrug*

The sole reason for this thread is not what is happening now.The 800MAX is just as good at the 320NEO.Neither is it because of the 700 becoming a 'stiff' - so is the 319.It's what the market dynamic will be in 10-15 years time.They can see whats happening with the 321NEO and they have no answer.It's not a huge deal now - but painful yes.But they (I believe) can see that this may well be the heart of the market by then and they will need an answer.

Whilst they are about it, the same frame will eventually replace the 800 (it has to be replaced sometime) but that's not driving their primary thinking, but it has to be considered as part of the total package.

Quoting chiad (Reply 113): the MAX has takes 48% vs NEO 52 of the orders since launch of the MAX.

If you include the Chinese Government orders that have been booked for the NEO and not the MAX because of the latter Authority to Offer the percentage changes quite dramatically in favour of the MAX.

If we exclude the over ordering of NEO's by the South East Asian LCC's, which JL himself conceded have double ordered, sales for the NEO reduces.

If we consider the financial means of airlines like IndiGo to actually fund their purchase of 180 NEO's, we just might have to re-consider the real "deliveries potential" value of the order they placed.

At the end of the day it is a horse race.

On the flip side, if we look at historical trends for deliveries of NB's over the last ten years we will note that not only has Airbus lead the sales race, actual production of aircraft has closely followed demand trends. In other words they have been better than Boeing in actually filling production from their customer base. Boeing's deliveries of NB's had quite a few peaks and troughs.

Also remember, because of the sales lead Airbus has enjoyed over the last ten years they have a larger installed customer base. In other words, for Boeing to gain 50% of the market their sales campaigns will need to include customers defecting from the A320 family to the 737 family. They have scored Air Canada and SilAir thus far.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 112): I think it is fair to say, what ever a NSA might be it will take at least five years of learning before its production systems are at a stage of maturity where they can supplying project demand of 60 aircraft per month. In other words, even with entry into service in 2025 it would be at least 2030 before a NSA would have the production to supply projected demand for the aircraft.

Excellent point, and you may well be right. And with the consensus being that the NSA will start at the 757/739 size, your contention that the 738MAX continues in production alongside the NSA makes a lot of sense. It is one thing to replace a mass-produced aircraft with one of similar construction; it is quite another to replace one with one of totally different and new construction, and expect to meet demand. That has certainly been an issue with the 787, and doubtless will be for the A350 as well. Boeing can not afford a similar production bottleneck with its single aisle line.

Thinking about it more, I still think market entry for the NSA will be after 2025. Oh, maybe as early as 2027, but not too early. There is plenty of money to be to be made on the MAX for now. Let me be clear, I am not debating the need for a replacement, but rather the time frame.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 97): today, the FIRM orders stand at A320NEO - 3 272 737MAX - 2412

   Anyone else impressed with how much backlog and delay airlines have been willing to tolerate?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 114): So we're back to effectively 50/50 market parity. *shrug*

Only shrug if you're GE.   

We still have quite an engine competition ahead.

Lightsaber

Quoting travelhound (Reply 116):

Yes and if we were to exclude every NEO order from airlines with a vowel in their name, the percentage changes even more dramatically for the MAX. Your ifs and bits sound like excuses and shifting of posts to suit your points.

[Edited 2014-11-29 16:54:10]

Quoting CrimsonChin (Reply 119):

If you look at all of my posts regarding the sales order race between the two OEM's, I think I have been very fair in making my points.

You will note in other threads I have stated in the not to distant future Airbus will have a higher number of NB aircraft in service and that it would probably take Boeing twenty years to reverse this trend.

Considering Airbus have a larger installed customer base for the A320 (they have been delivering more A320's for the last ten years) with all other things being equal it will be harder for Boeing to maintain 50% market share. To my surprise they are currently tracking close to 50% when we consider the A320NEO has a two year entry into service advantage.

As such rumours of a NSA or the success of the A321NEO, which really is going to be a nice little niche aircraft do not spell the demise of the MAX program. If we consider the above the MAX is doing just fine and if we really want to delve into the numbers the 737-8 might actually be out selling the A320NEO.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 116): If you include the Chinese Government orders that have been booked for the NEO and not the MAX because of the latter Authority to Offer the percentage changes quite dramatically in favour of the MAX.

As a point of order the 100 frame A320NEO MOU from CALC is still just that. It's not in the firm orders. Yet

Quoting travelhound (Reply 120): As such rumours of a NSA or the success of the A321NEO, which really is going to be a nice little niche aircraft do not spell the demise of the MAX program.

The A321NEO is going to be a niche aircraft?
I suspect fears that the heart of the narrowbody market is slowly moving into A321 space is the reason for the existence of this thread.
The link in the OP has a very nice chart which shows that A321 sales have grown from 10% of all A32X sales in 2006 to 31% of all A32X sales this year.
At that rate, it could be half the market in 2022 ....
It's absolutely not a "niche"

Quoting travelhound (Reply 120): if we really want to delve into the numbers the 737-8 might actually be out selling the A320NEO.

It almost certainly is.
Just to spread a little happiness here for all the MAX fans..
Since the launch of the MAX, the 737-8MAX has sold 2140 to the A320NEO's 1877.
That assumes all Lionair's 207 are 737-8 MAX

Quoting parapente (Reply 115): They can see whats happening with the 321NEO and they have no answer.It's not a huge deal now - but painful yes.But they (I believe) can see that this may well be the heart of the market by then and they will need an answer.

I think you have it nailed here. And no. It's not a huge deal now.
But next decade?...

rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 121): The A321NEO is going to be a niche aircraft? I suspect fears that the heart of the narrowbody market is slowly moving into A321 space is the reason for the existence of this thread.

I suspect with the A320 and 737 airframes and their subsequent cross sections being the dominant narrow bodies, the heart of the market will ultimately be dictated by turn times and not passenger carrying capability.

We can refer to the heart of the market in a number of ways. I suspect the more meaningful heart of the market metric would be for average stage lengths. With 600nm stage lengths representing 80% of routes flown and turn times for the A32X and 737 being optimal around the A320 and 737-8 sizes, the heart of the market, regardless of demand could be artificially limited to these aircraft sizes. I can't see this changing any time soon!

The A321NEO is in a class of its own. If we consider it's engines are better optimised for longer stage lengths, the geometry of the airframe allows for adequate take-off performance with a full payload and the fuselage is full frame bigger than the competing 737-9, it should be no surprises this aircraft is being ordered over the 737-9 for medium range thin routes.

Conversely, the 737-8 still represents a competitive airframe when compared with the A320. It's selling very well, but as another poster posted, for airlines that have a combination of shorter and longer narrow body routes the A32X series of aircraft could represent the overall more economical package.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 122): We can refer to the heart of the market in a number of ways. I suspect the more meaningful heart of the market metric would be for average stage lengths

Whichever way you want to describe the "heart" of the market, it will manifest itself in which aircraft get purchased.
And to reiterate, 8 years ago the A321 was 10% of A32X sales, and now it's 30%.
*shrug*

Whatever the stage lengths, there is clearly a shift to bigger seating capacities.
In addition to the considerable growth in A321 sales, there is the further evidence of 200 seat 737-8's and 190 seat A320's.
The bulk of the industry appears to be in accord on this.
And, again, why the discussion focusses around NSA being a larger aircraft, maybe even large enough to sell alongside the 737-8 MAX ...

You're a braver man than me to dismiss this body of evidence as "a niche" ..

To me this is just an extension of the general trend that average aircraft sizes are getting larger in every segment of the market.

Rgds

In reading this article i found the claims credible, VERY Credible!! A CFRP fuselage is already being built with the B787,
Boeing has been working on new wing planforms at NASA Ames for Years and they're always tweaking something. To say itmight be a long time in coming more than likely isn't correct, Snce the CFRP airframe will be lighter than the present Aluminum Lithium it stands to reason that the range wil be increased to 4,000 Nmi without that much fanfare and poddibly without lengthing the wing. As a matter of fact they could increase the inner section depth and gain efficiency becaue the airport gates are NOT going to get any larger any time soon. GE, Pratt and Rolls have been working on Crystal formed fan and Turbine Blades for a darn long tome on the military side and it might just be a Transfer of technology to the Civil side of the fence. the REAL questions Are? #1) will the airplane be bleed or Bleed LESS? #2) will there be a new modular Hydraulic system where the reservoirs are part of the actuators and hydraulic motors? #3) will there be electric Brakes? #4) will there be new hi lift flaps
without the complexity of the present Triple slotted Fowlers and all that monkey motion. #5) will they install a Central Maintenance computer and fault monitorng, As GOOD as or better than tje A320. Something where the faults are downloaded like the 777 or the 747-400,

Quoting astuteman (Reply 123): Whichever way you want to describe the "heart" of the market, it will manifest itself in which aircraft get purchased. And to reiterate, 8 years ago the A321 was 10% of A32X sales, and now it's 30%. *shrug*

That is for the A321. The 737-9 still represents 9% of MAX sales.

The question is why did the A321 represent 30% of A32X sales last year?

I'd suggest one reason could be that this aircraft has found a market niche (i.e. - medium range thin routes) that is quite different to the traditional narrow body market.

Just have a look at the airlines who have ordered the A321. They are carriers who generally fly longer routes (Where would Hawaiian fly an A321 and why haven't they got any 737's and A320's in their fleet now?).

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): I'd suggest one reason could be that this aircraft has found a market niche (i.e. - medium range thin routes) that is quite different to the traditional narrow body market.

Or the narrowbody market is simply moving towards larger aircraft, and without real competitor the A321 takes most sales in this segment.

For what it's worth, Airbus believes the A321 will represent 50% of the A320 family production in the nearby future.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ons-stress-shift-to-larger-402387/

"Executive vice-president for programmes Tom Williams reiterated in June that “up to 50% of future production” would comprise A321 and A321neo variants."

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-aisle-output-to-be-a321s-386947/

"We see that we'll be producing at least half of our production, going forward, on the A321."

Hardly a niche market IMO.

[Edited 2014-11-30 05:10:58]

Surely because the 8MAx is beating the A320.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 127): Surely because the 8MAx is beating the A320.

nah. Airbus sales team can upsell, Boeings can't.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): I'd suggest one reason could be that this aircraft has found a market niche (i.e. - medium range thin routes) that is quite different to the traditional narrow body market.

But isn't the market focussed around 600Nm sectors?
It seems pretty clear (not just to me, but most of the rest of the industry) that seat counts are going up, and so is the sweet spot.
There are 540 A321 CEO's and 710 A321 NEO's in backlog - that's 1 250 planes not yet delivered to this "niche" and around 27% of the total backlog.
The percentage of A321 orders has topped 30% this year and looks set to continue to grow - Airbus say to 50%.

30% growing to 50% of all Airbus narrowbody sales is a huge "niche" - that's a vast amount of "long-and-thin" that's just appeared.
That percentage has been growing since 2006, by the way, which massively pre-dates the NEO.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): The 737-9 still represents 9% of MAX sales.

This hits the point of this thread squarely on the head IMO.
The 737-9MAX should enjoy lower trip costs than the A321NEO on short sectors. The average sector, you say, is 600Nm
Being smaller, it should also be easier to board and vacate
It should be out-selling the A321NEO on every count. But it isn't.

Firstly, the field performance of the 737-9 MAX is severely hampered by it's length vs it's ground clearance.
Increasing the TOW to enhance range only makes this worse.
It's a problem the A321 doesn't suffer from.

Secondly, the size difference between the 737-8MAX and 737-9MAX is small enough that Boeing can find a way to fit 200 seats in the former.
Between that and the field performance issue, the business case for the 737-9MAX struggles IMO.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): The question is why did the A321 represent 30% of A32X sales last year?

The 737-9MAX is being crippled by it's field performance, swinging the market for larger narrowbodys in Airbus's favour.

Also, it's inescapable that the A320NEO is actually smaller than the 737-8MAX, and considerably smaller than the A321NEO.
Hence it doesn't threaten the A321 in the same way the 737-8MAX threatens the 737-9MAX

I do wonder why Airbus haven't seen fit to stretch the A320 by 6ft or so with the advent of the NEO, so as to match the 737-8's capacity.
The 737-9 is only 2.5m or 8ft 6" longer than the 737-8
The A321 is a full 7m or 23ft longer than the A320. A 2m, 6ft stretch would still leave the A321 5m, or 17ft bigger than the A320, and plenty of space to thrive.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): Just have a look at the airlines who have ordered the A321

An enormous number of airlines have ordered the A321.
My question would be "how many of those A321's are being deployed on the ultra-long sectors?"
The article in the OP tells us that only 2% of narrowbody sectors exceed 2000Nm.
The A321 accounts for a lot more than 2% of all narrowbodys. More like 10% and rising rapidly (c.2200 orders out of c.23000 for all 737's and A32X)

For those that do fly long sectors, I would ask "why not a 737-8MAX or an A320NEO" both of which can either match or beat the A321 NEO's range.
I would have thought the answer was pretty clear.
Size  

I'll leave you with this.
Out of the 2 240 A321's ordered, not even 1000 have flown yet.

Rgds

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): The 737-9 still represents 9% of MAX sales.

A dog is a dog. Too close in size to the 8MAX, not capable enough, and outclassed by the A321 if you need something larger than the 738/320.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 125): The question is why did the A321 represent 30% of A32X sales last year?

Because it isn't any of the things that I listed before, plus it's a money machine if you can fill it.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 129): I do wonder why Airbus haven't seen fit to stretch the A320 by 6ft or so with the advent of the NEO, so as to match the 737-8's capacity.

If it aiin't broke, don't fix it.  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 129): Out of the 2 240 A321's ordered, not even 1000 have flown yet.

Amazing.

-Dave

Quoting parapente (Reply 115): It's what the market dynamic will be in 10-15 years time.

Will be interesting in 10-15 years!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 118): Anyone else impressed with how much backlog and delay airlines have been willing to tolerate?

I would love to see a chart that showed when the airlines actually wanted and could realistically take delivery of their ordered NB's unconstrained by OEM production rates.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 130): If it aiin't broke, don't fix it.

That's a fair comment I guess.

In the context of the thread (at least what I think is the context) I wonder how long will the A320 remain "unbroke" in terms of size..

It is the smallest of the high-selling narrowbodys now.

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 132): In the context of the thread (at least what I think is the context) I wonder how long will the A320 remain "unbroke" in terms of size..

Probably until Boeing launches NSA at the 757-200 capacity segment.

Also, has not consensus been that if Airbus increases the length and OEW of the A321 without also increasing the wing area, the plane will start to suffer from the same field performance issues the 737-900 family does?

[Edited 2014-11-30 14:17:41]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133): Probably until Boeing launches NSA at the 757-200 capacity segment

That makes sense

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133): Also, has not consensus been that if Airbus increases the length and OEW of the A321 without also increasing the wing area, the plane will start to suffer from the same field performance issues the 737-900 family does?

FWIW I was talking explicitly about the A320, not the A321.

I don't know if it has.
I've certainly seen issues about the wing loading expressed, rather than the rotation angle itself.
I'm open to being educated.

In my eyes, a 2nd generation GTF with SFC 8%-10% better than todays should allow the A321 to be stretched to 752 length on today's MTOW with the same range as the NEO, I would have thought.

Whilst I'm unconvinced of the timings in the article, the prospect of an NSA and all of the questions around its form and target mission is pretty exciting.
Without having anything concrete, it's difficult to predict what Airbus's response might actually be.
We should be in for an interesting contest whatever  

Rgds

Quoting planemaker (Reply 84): Supersonic is not in the same league as subsonic.

No one's claiming it to be... but the concept is however, the same: technology isn't the mitigating force, lack of market demand is.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 127): Surely because the 8MAx is beating the A320.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 127): nah. Airbus sales team can upsell, Boeings can't.

Please turn this into an A vs. B thread, I beg you   

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 130): Too close in size to the 8MAX, not capable enough, and outclassed by the A321 if you need something larger than the 738/320.

I think you might be right, certainly if the A321neo has a higher payload capacity and hot/high performance.

And ESPECIALLY if they launch the LR.

To be fair, the MAX 9 would make a good high density, East Coast, domestic, and (maybe) a Transcon jet, but certainly nothing like the A321neo would be an International, TranAn jet.

I still don't see why UA shouldn't convert all their MAX 9s to 8s and order the A321neo(LR?), considering how many 737-900ERs they will end up having.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 133): Probably until Boeing launches NSA at the 757-200 capacity segment.

Agreed.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 124): #1) will the airplane be bleed or Bleed LESS?

Is that really important ?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 124): #2) will there be a new modular Hydraulic system where the reservoirs are part of the actuators and hydraulic motors?

Architecture à la Airbus A380 and A350 ?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 124): #3) will there be electric Brakes?

A la B787 ?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 124): 4) will there be new hi lift flaps without the complexity of the present Triple slotted Fowlers and all that monkey motion.

That has disappeared a long time ago... We're now well in the single-slotted flap era.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 124): #5) will they install a Central Maintenance computer and fault monitorng, As GOOD as or better than the A320.

Wow ! We've made a lot of progress since the late eighties !

All the above are probably *old* technology.
We'll probably see in new designs some drastic progress on adaptative wings... maybe even *intelligent* wings.
I also expect some form of wing-to-fuselage blending.

The problem of the 2025 time-scale is that I really do not see economically meaningful engine progress ( which, btw, could be adapted to existing airframes)... so the advance should come from some drastic aerodynamic solutions ( rhomboidal wing comes to mind, for instance).
That are the reasons I personally do not believe we'll ,see a new design in 2025.
2030 is IMHO a much better bet.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 128): nah. Airbus sales team can upsell, Boeings can't.

No, if you see that since the MAX is offered bot sell roughly equally. And while the A321 is beating the 9MAX clearly, it must be the case that the 8MAX must be selling better than the A320, otherwise the total would not match.

So obviously it seems like airlines not wanting A321 size prefer the 8MAX over the A320.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 135): No one's claiming it to be... but the concept is however, the same: technology isn't the mitigating force, lack of market demand is.

Technology was the mitigating force... no way to get around a sonic boom and overland supersonic flight was restricted.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 118): Thinking about it more, I still think market entry for the NSA will be after 2025. Oh, maybe as early as 2027, but not too early. There is plenty of money to be to be made on the MAX for now. Let me be clear, I am not debating the need for a replacement, but rather the time frame.

Without having looked closely at MAX orders, I agree that 2025 seems unnecessarily early for NSA intoduction based on existing MAX orders and future orders.

I just think of these factors: current (2014) MAX backlog in the order of 2500. In 2018 orders should be in the region of 4000. With that sort of backlog and orders exceeding deliveries during production ramp up, my guess is that in 2020 the backlog will still be around 4000. Short of Boeing increasing MAX production rate massively, the MAX should still have a substantial backlog in 2025. Why would Boeing want to replace the MAX with he NSA at this point when they could continue getting returns on their investment in MAX and every year that passed would allow Boeing to harness better and better technology to incorporate into NSA?

I don't see the reason to hurry NSA unless Airbus embarks upon an A32XNEO replacement program.

Quoting art (Reply 140): I don't see the reason to hurry NSA unless Airbus embarks upon an A32XNEO replacement program.

As I posted earlier, I can see a very sound reason for the early introduction of the NSA; and that is the fact that it will be completely new technology, and hence will have a considerable learning curve. The dynamics of the narrowbody market makes this extremely problematic when Boeing is trying to push upwards of 50 per month out the door. If the NSA replaces the 739MAX first, and the 738MAX continues in production until the bugs are worked out of the production line it would make a lot of sense. For the NSA to replace the 738MAX first will have a devastating effect on both Boeing and the airlines unless it is done at a time of a slump, which is impossible to predict this far in advance.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 83): Different speeds of travel have different fineness ratio optimums. Average stage lengths (route lengths) and flight stages (take off/route/arrival/landing) and varying payloads all affect the fineness ratio optimum. It just might be the case that a small twin aisle would be more structurally efficient and as a consequence lighter than a traditional narrow body. If this is the case there would be an efficiency gain at the take-off stage where induced drag is reduced because the lighter airframe requires less lift.

One might think, but in effect a fitness ratio of 10-12 (that is fuselage length divided by fuselage diameter) is optimal. A 240-seat 7-abreast twin aisle has about 10. The wider a fuselage gets, the worse it becomes in terms of weight per seat.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 87): as far as single vs twin aisle, the minimum size required to use LD3-45 containers is just a few inches short of what you would need to make a legal 2-2-2 with 17.2" seats and minimal width aisles. Which would appeal to short haul high density operations. Most I think would stick to conventional 2-2 domestic "first" and 3-3 Y/Y+. So IMO it would come down to is it worth the millions to spend on a different interior configuration for the cheapest of your customers.

That's right, but a minimum width twin aisle doesn't help much. Overhead bins are half the size of current single aisles (on a per seat basis), and boarding would seriously hampered by that. The first twin aisle that works is a 7-abreast. If you use a 17.2inch seat base, or an 18inch seat base, no big deal. Also see Boeing 7X7 concept, that used a 188inch fuselage.

Who would buy a 8MAX when a superior new design will be coming out of the factories in 3-5 years?

And there lies the huge problem. A new design needs to be clearly superior to the old design (15% to 20%) to warrant the effort but it also makes the old design obsolescent.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 132): In the context of the thread (at least what I think is the context) I wonder how long will the A320 remain "unbroke" in terms of size.. It is the smallest of the high-selling narrowbodys now.

If it's slightly undersized A320+enormously popular A321

VS

Ideally-sized 738+under-sized AND under-performing 739

Then I think Airbus can rest on their laurels for quite some time as at worst airlines will split their fleets and, in the majority of cases I'd guess, airlines needing more than one size will opt for the "neo" over the "MAX".

-Dave

Quoting seahawk (Reply 143): Who would buy a 8MAX when a superior new design will be coming out of the factories in 3-5 years?

The same people who are buying A32xCEO's, 77W's, and 737NG's; in other words, the airlines that need planes NOW and cannot wait for the new ones.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 139): Technology was the mitigating force

Completely disagree.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 139): no way to get around a sonic boom

Not true at all, there's several ways to "get around" the sonic boom. Were they economically-feasible to incorporate into post-production Concordes in that part of their design cycle? No. But again, technology wasn't the problem, justifying the cost of such for a market with little justification vis-a-vis the advancement of the communications age.... is.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 134): In my eyes, a 2nd generation GTF with SFC 8%-10% better than todays should allow the A321 to be stretched to 752 length on today's MTOW with the same range as the NEO, I would have thought.

Why wait? Lots of back of napkin following:

Airbus could stretch the A321 by 5 frames (409cm) for an OEW increase of about 2.5 tonnes (1.8 for the stretch, rest strengthening) over the LR, MZFW increase of about 6 tonnes and make it into a 270 seat LCC/Tour operator, 250 seat all-Y airline, 210 seat 3 class Airline frame (J, Y+, Y). LCC could use 3 stairs for short boarding time and at a gate 72 pax would be sitting left from L2 door, 198 to the right, keeping boarding times reasonable. Or use L1/L2 boarding for further improvements.

This would yield about 2200-2300nm range in high density at 93.5 tonnes MTOW with still desent field performance, covering about 98% of of todays NB route network at ~200Kg/Pax OEW. For a max range mission that plane would burn about 14 tonnes of JP. This compares to about 21 tonnes of JP for the next best frame to use, the 788. So, unless you can fill the 788s belly reliably with cargo up to the brim, it will have unbeatable economics.
A 97 ton MTOW option would enable about 400nm more range, even increasing the delta in fuel burn/pax, but trade in some field performance. It could take off with 210 pax, full internal tankage and about 2 tons of revenue cargo for mission range compareable to a A321ceo.

This would not just make a valuable addittion to the family, but also stop any NSA attempt dead in its tracks as with todays technologie there is no concieveable way to make an NSA with economic good enough to recover 10-12 billion US$ development costs via a higher price for the frame itself. Boeing, and of course Airbus for that matter, would have to wait well beyond 2025 to make a business case for that, while Airbus would effectively have a monopoly in the 200+ seat narrow body market, which is always good for margins.

Considering the structural work being done for the 97 ton A321NLR, development costs should be peanuts. And once it is flying, they can recover the lost range via engine improvements.

best regards
Thomas

[Edited 2014-12-01 03:19:58]

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 145): The same people who are buying A32xCEO's, 77W's, and 737NG's; in other words, the airlines that need planes NOW and cannot wait for the new ones.

And those production slots are said the be filled with high discounts. And the 777Ws aside the replacement today is a very modest re-engined version. NSA would be a completely new design. We are probably talking 10% difference between the last NG and the first MAX, for the NSA we would need to be talking around 18% difference.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 126): "We see that we'll be producing at least half of our production, going forward, on the A321." Hardly a niche market IMO.

Only because it is not a 757 replacement, as we know that niche is dead. 

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 118): Thinking about it more, I still think market entry for the NSA will be after 2025. Oh, maybe as early as 2027, but not too early. There is plenty of money to be to be made on the MAX for now.

Quoting art (Reply 140): Without having looked closely at MAX orders, I agree that 2025 seems unnecessarily early for NSA intoduction based on existing MAX orders and future orders.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 143): Who would buy a 8MAX when a superior new design will be coming out of the factories in 3-5 years?

As some have suggested, the NSA may be introduced with the largest variant first allowing the MAX8 to continue production while they perfect the new technologies.
If we look at the various models of the MAX while in discussions about which version is a poor seller could we also look at it from the production side?
It may be a first but if the production methods are different, why can the NSA largest variant not be produced at the same time as the best selling MAX version?