Boeing looking at stretching The 737-9

[keesje]

It seems Boeing is seriously considering stretching their 737-9 MAX to counter the market being flooded by A321s.

Boeing Co. is studying two designs for its so-called Max 10, a potential stretch of its largest 737 aimed at making up ground on Airbus Group SE’s longest single-aisle jet, according to people familiar with the plans.

One option Boeing has discussed with airlines and lessors in recent weeks is a simple lengthening of the 737 Max 9 that would offer much of the range and payload of Airbus’s A321neo, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.

The company is also vetting an alternative, more elaborate revamp that would feature the larger engines developed for the Airbus jet.

The more straightforward redesign, which would rely on upgrading engines developed for the Max family, would enter the market by early 2020, while the more complex one wouldn’t begin service until almost two years later.
Boeing Said to Mull Stretching 737 to Counter Airbus A321neo - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-08/boeing-said-to-mull-stretching-737-to-counter-airbus-a321neo-jet)


http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/commercial/customers/united-airlines/united-airlines-announces-historic-order-of-100-737-maxs-and-50-next-generation-737s/assets/images/gallery/gallery-large-02.jpg

[RAT 5]

It seems Boeing is seriously considering stretching their 737-9 MAX

It's called a B757.

[Miles Magister]

Looks like a 757 with new engines and shorter undercarraige. Put the NEO engines on it, lengthen the undercarraige it will look like a 757 with new engines!!

[DaveReidUK]

Do whatever you want to do to it, but it will never be a match for the capability of a 757.

[tdracer]

757 has a much larger wing. Personally I think a '737-10' would be a stretch to far.

[pax britanica]

A lot of professional comment on PPrune suggests the existing 739 is a stretch to far and can barely get airborne with a full load at some places and usually requires a longgggg runway for a short haul aircraft.

It is too narrow for the modern world and many parts of it must be same as the 50+ year old original . Yet another stretch is really going to make it a 'Triggers Broom' (for non Brits, thats a ten year old broom thats had five new heads and four new handles)

[keesje]

I think Boeing can make a 737-10 as capable as they want. It's a trade-off between costs and expected market success.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/United_737_Max9%20white_zpsyfqwm0y3.jpg

[TURIN]

Really? 777 type bogie pitch lock required perhaps? Proper doors not them dodgy overwing jobs. In fact forget it.

[Wizofoz]

777 type bogie pitch lock required perhaps?

Not a lot of use on a bogey with one row of tyres.......

[keesje]

I think if Boeing really choses to offer a PW1000/LEAP-A sized turbofan it is inevitable they will have to redesign much of the inner 737 wing and central wingbox to make this possible. Then we are likely talking about more than 5 billion investment.

Doing nothing and carrying on with just the -9 for the next 8 years can be just as damaging or worse though.

Airbus has been totally pushing Boeing around with the A321 for the last few years. A320 production will be half A321 in the near future, with margins that typically come with mass production and no competition.

http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/808139be-ebe7-11e5-bbd6-925978a04307-1020x528.jpg

(Airbus Alabama assembly line)

It seems Boeing feels doing nothing is no longer an real option.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/07/28/boeing-financial-airline-pressure-fix-737-max-family/

[Less Hair]

It would be more promising to build that famous "middle of the market" airplane from scratch and use it as a base layout for the upcoming next single aisle family. Not at Renton but at Charleston.

[RAT 5]

It seems Boeing feels doing nothing, i.e. not making a longer version, is no longer an real option.????

What kind of option is that?

[Less Hair]

Another MAX stretch is a new build airplane. New wing and old airframe? Didn't work well on the 747-8.

[keesje]

RAT 5,
basically that is saying to each other: all will be fine, no need to panic. Investment risk is high and 3000 737s in the backlog, what can happen? Boeing outproduced Airbus last year!

Lesshair,
old airframes with new wings worked for the 727, 737, 757, A310, A330, E2, CRJ, 777X hopefully.

It seems to me Boeing only should make the investment in a 737-10 when they best the A321LR on capacity & range.
Just matching isn't good enough, they're fighting an uphill battle.

A great new MoM would take at least 8 years, during which Airbus would have a sales / margin feast.

[Less Hair]

Boeing has missed to cover the MAX gap to the A321neo and there are reasons for it. Bigger engines plus longer gear needed, leading to some quite different wing, resulting in very high cost for low gain as the fuselage diameter is still a tad too small for lower deck cargo and Airbus is offering the A321neo now.
This chance has passed. No drama. Time to start the next big thing.

[underfire]

Keeje...love the big fly on the image!

Aside from that, the prospect of a re-design of the 737 to make room for large diameter motors is moot. The airlines that wanted that were already supplied by Airbus.

Boeing builds great aircraft, management decisions have left customers getting 'facials', while AB has been providing 'implants' that are attractive.

[TURIN]

Not a lot of use on a bogey with one row of tyres.......


Well, it needs a triple bogie to go with it...with diddy wheels. :\

[ZeBedie]

737-10 = Mad Max.

[tartare]

I know we're talking MoM and shorthaul.
But why don't they bite the bullet and just build a BWB.
Enough naffing around with the X-48 already - we all know Bob Liebeck has been right all these years.
Yes I know - problems of pressurising non-circular fuselages, customers wanting windows, tendency to pitch up-down, not enough space at the gate, 90 secs to get everyone out etc. etc.
I suspect the real reason that the Randy Tinseths of the world aren't fans of a passenger version is that by making one, they'd render most of their current inventory obsolete in one fell stroke.
Imagine it - a bleeding great civilian B-2 with a couple of stonking hi-bypass turbo-fans on the back.
Give me a few good movies, some nice food and space to stretch out and I'd be on that bad boy for thirteen hours up to LAX sharpish - window or no window.

[neville_nobody]

I have read that Boeing are lobbying the FAA to allow them to raise the height of the landing gear so they can put geared turbofans on the 737 frame and still keep the 1960s type certificate.

One has to wonder what the point of a type certificate is anymore when the regulator allows so many changes.

[tdracer]

Neville
What you read is nonsense. There is something called the "Changed Product Rule" or CPR. It short, it says that any system you change when doing a new ATC has to step up to the latest version of the regulations. Aside from some of the structure, there is very little on the 737 Max that's not certified to 21st century regulations.

[stilton]

Don't see the big deal, the landing gear on the 767-400 was raised by 18 inches, cockpit displays were all redone amongst other changes and it was still covered by the 767 type rating.

[tdracer]

Don't see the big deal, the landing gear on the 767-400 was raised by 18 inches, cockpit displays were all redone amongst other changes and it was still covered by the 767 type rating.
Not quite sure what you're saying here - yes the 767-400ER was included on the 767 type certificate (as an "Amended Type Certificate" or ATC). But, per the CPR that I described in the previous post, the systems that were updated for the -400 were certified at the then current amendment level - which is documented in that type certificate.
As for common type rating - that's always a major driver when designing a derivative aircraft.
BTW, if anyone is wondering, CPR is harmonized between EASA and the FAA - Airbus is also using CPR for their various NEO projects.

[neville_nobody]

What you read is nonsense. There is something called the "Changed Product Rule" or CPR. It short, it says that any system you change when doing a new ATC has to step up to the latest version of the regulations.

No it read like Boeing had to do some serious changes to the gear but wanted to keep the type and were sounding out the FAA on whether they were going to be allowed. This isn't the article but hints to the problems:

The news that Boeing is considering a further stretch of its largest 737 MAX variant reflects not only the seriousness of the threat posed by the better-selling Airbus A321neo but also the company’s belief in the growth potential of its seemingly ever-flexible 737 design.

Though Boeing is not commenting on the concept, reportedly dubbed the 737-10, there is little doubt the move is a response to the A321neo’s growing sales lead and to pressure from loyal customers to do something about it. Most recent numbers indicate Airbus now has more than 4,515 orders for the A320neo family, of which 1,117 are for the A321neo. Boeing, which lists orders for 3,090 MAXs on its website, does not detail the breakdown of variants, but is believed to have accrued less than 500 orders for the competing 737-9.

Impetus for the initiative has grown since 2015, when long-standing Boeing customers such as Korean Air were driven to split purchases to include both MAXs and A321neos. Korean ordered as many as 50 A321neos, along with 737-8s and 777-300ERs, in a $12 billion deal announced at last year’s Paris Air Show. American Airlines—which launched the MAX with its order for 100 737-8s—also selected the

A321neo, as did Lion Air with orders for both. All Nippon Airways, which bought the A321neo over the MAX, is another single-aisle defection to Airbus.
To make the stretch worthwhile, Boeing will need to develop the variant quickly, possibly with as little as four years from launch to service entry. Although engine development is generally the pacing item, Boeing can take advantage of the more powerful Leap-1A variant of CFM’s Leap-1 engine series, already certificated and in production for the A320neo family. The use of the Leap-1A engine, rated at over 32,000 lb. thrust for the A320neo family, would provide more than 3,000 lb. additional thrust per engine over the Leap-1B, additional margin for higher weight takeoffs and longer range. ut because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, Boeing must confront the design challenge of how to install the larger Leap-1A on a wing designed for the MAX aircraft’s standard Leap-1B engine. The Leap-1A has a 78-in.-dia. fan and a maximum nacelle height of 93 in. while the -1B, with a maximum thrust rating at takeoff of just over 29,000 lb, has a 69-in.-dia. fan and a nacelle just under 89 in. in height at its deepest point. The basic -1A also weighs considerably more than its smaller sibling, tipping the scales at almost 7,000 lb.; the -1B weighs about 6,130 lb.

Boeing managed to get the Leap-1B under the wing of the MAX by extending the nose leg 8 in., and cantilevering the engine forward and upward of the wing leading edge. The company faces a bigger challenge with the Leap-1A, particularly if it wants to keep development costs under control by avoiding major surgery around the main landing gear bay. The focus of engineering studies will almost certainly be on options to extend the main gear by a similar amount without changing the pivot point of the leg. The alternate option of a wing box redesign would entail significant investment and resources, at a time when Boeing is already heavily committed to other developments such as the remaining MAX family members, the 787-10 and 777X.

While Boeing remains silent about the concept, Airbus has been quick to discredit it. Airbus A320 program chief Klaus Roewe says “the other guys are under tremendous pressure.” Speaking at an Airbus event in Hamburg, Roewe added that Boeing has “to do much more than just the engine.” A decision to go for the Leap-1A would have “huge repercussions for the airframe,” he says, and “there is no easy way out of the corner.”

Not surprisingly, John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer-customers, was equally disparaging about the potential 737 stretch. “They will try to get close to a ‘me-too’ aircraft, but not quite get there. Boeing has not named the aircraft yet, but we have: We call it the Mad Max.” According to Airbus, the A320neo family has a market share of 59%. Leahy thinks the market split will stay at around 60/40 in Airbus’s favor. The A321neo has a market share of 79%, Airbus claims, far outselling the 737-9. Airbus has no plans to stretch the A321, he says. In his view, 240-250 seats is the upper limit for a narrowbody aircraft because of the need for reasonable turnaround times on the ground.

Airbus also says the adoption of the -1A engine will result in a “full loss of commonality” within the MAX family, although Boeing reportedly considers that a nonissue, particularly with some carriers already adopting both engine variants as part of mixed MAX/Neo fleets.

To at least one potential customer, leasing company AerCap, the issue is not so much lack of commonality but rather the potential strategic knock-on effect on Boeing’s amorphous New Midsize Airplane (NMA). AeroCap CEO Aengus Kelly says about the potential stretch, “Boeing will sell it. It will be fine. There is a big user base. The core of the market is the -8, but the -10 will bring the MAX family closer to the A320neo.”

However, he adds, “The new midsize aircraft is the real challenge. Is there room for another aircraft? In part, it depends on the [737]-10. There are a lot of discussions around that. To an extent, the -10 would take part of the NMA market.”

Aside from some of the structure, there is very little on the 737 Max that's not certified to 21st century regulations.

Yeah everything except the cockpit!

[tdracer]

Yeah everything except the cockpit! Given virtually all of the avionics are new (and certified to 21st century regulations), that should read "cockpit structure":rolleyes:


BTW, as I have "inside" information that I can't reveal, I can't go into details. But that article is pretty far off the mark...

[GlobalNav]

I have read that Boeing are lobbying the FAA to allow them to raise the height of the landing gear so they can put geared turbofans on the 737 frame and still keep the 1960s type certificate.

One has to wonder what the point of a type certificate is anymore when the regulator allows so many changes.

Boeing has taken this CPR business to an obscene level. The CPR should be simplified: no more than 25 years for an old cert basis. If that means a "new" type, meeting the latest safety requirements - all the better.

[tdracer]

Boeing has taken this CPR business to an obscene level. The CPR should be simplified: no more than 25 years for an old cert basis. If that means a "new" type, meeting the latest safety requirements - all the better.
Global, I have to respectfully disagree. I first became a DER in 1988, and I've watched the evolution of the regulations over the last 28 years.
The regulatory changes that materially contribute to safety are by far the exception. 90% of the changes do little or nothing to improve safety - but increase the aircraft costs and complexity immensely. SEVERAL CHANGES HAVE ACTUALLY HAD AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON SAFETY!
The Feds also have a bad habit of latching onto a relatively minor aspect of the design, forcing the airframers to expend enormous cost and effort to show compliance when the associated failure is fairly benign, while glossing over areas that have resulted in fatal accidents.
I'm glad I'm getting out of it (I'm retiring from Boeing next month).

[neville_nobody]

Out of interest TDracer why do Boeing keep kicking the 737 can down the road? Why not build a new aeroplane or resurrect the 757? It seems ridiculous to have a 200+ seats on a 737 airframe.

Obviously cost of construction and design is one easy answer as to why, but what else? Why haven't they just come out with a clean sheet narrow body design? The risk they run is that Embraer or Bombardier might come and eat their lunch in the narrow body market with a product that represents a 21st century design.

[peekay4]

It's called competition. Companies don't exist in a vacuum and must respond to market challenges.

A "clean sheet" 737 would be strategic but is at least 10 years away, maybe closer to 15 given investments in MAX. The A321neo pressure is now, today, immediate. So what will Boeing do about it?

[tdracer]

Out of interest TDracer why do Boeing keep kicking the 737 can down the road? Why not build a new aeroplane or resurrect the 757? It seems ridiculous to have a 200+ seats on a 737 airframe. That's what Boeing really wanted to do - once they had the 787 under control, the plan was to create a completely new aircraft to replace the 737. But then Airbus launched the A320 NEO and it sold like the proverbial hotcakes. A completely new 737 replacement wouldn't have been ready until nearly 2020, then take several more years to get up to the ~50-60/month production rates currently envisioned for both the MAX and the NEO. Conceding a several thousand aircraft market to Airbus while developing a 737 replacement simply wasn't an acceptable option.
Resurrecting the 757 isn't an option - the tooling is long gone, plus it would still need a new engine to be competitive.
A 737-10 - if it happens - would be a stopgap until the new midmarket aircraft would be available sometime in the mid 2020's.
What that MMA will look like is still pretty fluid, but expect something with capabilities along the line of the early 767s. In fact, my personal idea for the MMA is basically a 767X - 767 cross section with new engines and a composite wing. When you're talking 200+ passengers you really need a twin aisle to keep turn times reasonable (sit near the back of a 757-300 some time and time how long it takes to get off the aircraft after you're at the gate :ugh:).

[Check Airman]

Resurrecting the 757 isn't an option - the tooling is long gone, plus it would still need a new engine to be competitive.


Firstly, congratulations on your retirement. We all appreciate your unique perspective.

Secondly, I've heard before that "they can't just start building the ___ again, because the tools have been destroyed". I've long wondered, why get rid of them in the first place, and more importantly, what's stopping them from building the tools again? Surely it's easier to invent the wheel the 2nd time around...what am I missing here?

[megan]

Aviation Week article on the 10X

Simpler 737-10X, New Midsize Airplane Both ?Doable? | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/simpler-737-10x-new-midsize-airplane-both-doable?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160930_AW-05_277&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000180327&utm_campaign=7197&utm_medium=email&elq2=afe66d0da24f445c835605be17588a5c)

[RAT 5]

If B737 uses the fuselage and switches from B707, why could B757 have not been the embryo for a new generation of downsized a/c in similar vein?
How short can a B787 go?

[galaxy flyer]

Everybody goes on about the "narrow" B737 fuselage--it is the widened version if you recall the B707 history.

Regarding storage of tooling, it's real expensive to do and with the advances in technology becomes obsolete pretty quickly. The USAF paid Lockheed to store the C-5 tooling and in the run-up to the C-17 chopped the money and Lockheed got rid of the tooling unnecessary for the C-5M model conversion line.

GF

[Turbine D]

tdracer,
I'm glad I'm getting out of it (I'm retiring from Boeing next month).
I have always enjoyed reading your informed postings and I wish you the best in retirement.

TD

[anson harris]

The phrase "flogging a dead horse" comes to mind. Maybe if they do persist with it, they could have a look at the ergonomic disaster zone that is the Flight Deck?

[kjmorris2023]

My opinion is the -9 or 900 was a stretch to far. The problem is the engineering of the main wheels. Cannot make them longer. Already fly fast approaches to keep from striking the tail. 1.3 VSO, no way.

I agree the 757 Max would be a big success. Great capable airplane. Just build it with 2 jumpseats for Christ sake.

Ken
B-787

[Check Airman]

I agree the 757 Max would be a big success. Great capable airplane. Just build it with 2 jumpseats for Christ sake.

Ken
B-787
You can get the 757 with 2 jumpseats. I've had to take that second jumpseat once. You're not in the lap of luxury, but it's got to be better than that 2nd jumpseat I've heard is installed in some 737's. 😳

May be better to walk in that case...

[triploss]

As SLF please give up on that narrow 737 fuselage already...

Question for the pilots: what are your opinions on the viability of the Comac C919 and Irkut MC-21? Both of those have even wider fuselages than the A32X. I'm fully aware that they're a while away from launch, never mind that there's no public news about longer versions yet - but to me at least it looks like there could possibly be some competition for the existing duopoly at some point in the distant future?

[rubymurray]

I briefly flew the 737-9ER, it was sold to our airline as a 757 replacement but was no where near. It didn't have the range or load capacity, often bags or passengers had to be left behind.

I was in Seattle a few days ago and visited the plant for the factory tour. I asked the guide about the 757 and she said that Boeing were seriously considering putting it back into production, such was the demand from the airlines.

[Less Hair]

I highly doubt they MAX the 757. If they do something it will be 737-based.

[GlobalNav]

"Question for the pilots: what are your opinions on the viability of the Comac C919 and Irkut MC-21? Both of those have even wider fuselages than the A32X. I'm fully aware that they're a while away from launch, never mind that there's no public news about longer versions yet - but to me at least it looks like there could possibly be some competition for the existing duopoly at some point in the distant future?"

Easy - nil.

[DaveReidUK]

I was in Seattle a few days ago and visited the plant for the factory tour. I asked the guide about the 757 and she said that Boeing were seriously considering putting it back into production, such was the demand from the airlines.

Those tour guides have such a great sense of humour. :O

[ZeBedie]

"Can't build 757 because the jigs are gone"

Well if Boeing were able to make 757 jigs back in the day, they can make 757 jigs now.

If you're trying to create a fuel efficient 757, do you start with a 757, or do you start with a 737?

[DaveReidUK]

Wrong way round. The jigs are gone because nobody wanted to buy 757s any more.

And if nobody wanted to buy them when the line was still open, there's no way that re-establising one to build a warmed-over 35-year-old design is going to be remotely cost-effective.

[tdracer]

It's probably worth remember what killed the 757 in the first place: The 737NG got too close to it's capabilities and cost a LOT less. The 737-800 had close to the range, and the -900 close to the passenger count of the 757, burned less fuel, and cost less to buy. While some operators needed that extra margin of range and/or passenger capabilities, it wasn't enough to keep the line cost effective - near the end the 757 was down to one/month - which drove the per aircraft overhead costs of keeping the line open through the roof (plus, the 757 was always a relatively expensive aircraft to build).

15 years ago, not many operators used 737s and A320s for long haul operations. But as point to point has grown, so have the number of relatively long haul 737/A320 operations. That extra margin of range and passenger count is now more desirable, and the 737 (and to a lesser extent the A320 series) can't provide it. Further, as others have pointed out, 6+ hour flights crammed into the back of a narrow body aircraft sucks - especially to those who've become accustomed to relative roominess of a wide-body.

A 'new' 757 would require a new wing, new engines, and new flight deck to be even remotely marketable, and you'd still be stuck with that (relatively) narrow 707 sized fuselage. If Boeing is going to dump that much money into a "757X", why not just bite the bullet and do a new, state of the air, Mid-Market Airplane (which, as I've noted before, I expect to be twin aisle)? A family of MMA, with seat counts from ~180-280, 5-6,000 mile range, and seat mile costs better than either the MAX or the NEO would relegate the narrow bodies back to short haul and dirt cheap charters where they belong. The biggest hurtle to a new MMA is the lack of a suitable engine - currently there is nothing in the 40k-50k thrust class...

[Una Due Tfc]

So they can spend 5 billion on something that will be flying 4 years after and outsold by the Airbus anyway.

I'm sure there's profit for them in it, but God wouldn't it be great to see them start with a blank sheet of paper and show us what they can really do again? 707, 727, 737 classic, 747, 777....blew the competition into the middle of the next decade. Hell Airbus only managed to beat the 777 last year!

We're starting to see ceilings being hit. The VLAs are dead in a pax role, the 777x might be too big too...so 77W/A35K might be the limit for profitable widebody production and looks like A321Neo is about the largest size for profitable narrowbody production. Boeing isn't ideally placed for either based purely on sales.

Good thing the 787 sold so well.

Come on Boeing, the whole industry knew you had the best engineers in the business 20 odd years ago, cut them loose and let them show us what they can do again!

[RAT 5]

Mid-Market Airplane (which, as I've noted before, I expect to be twin aisle)?

So how small can they make a 787? Is it shrinkable?

[DaveReidUK]

There doesn't seem to be any technical reason why it shouldn't be shrinkable (think A300 -> A310), but it certainly wouldn't be optimal at that size.

I think it's more likely that a clean-sheet MoM design would end up roughly B762-sized (7-abreast Y).

[RAT 5]

MoM design would end up roughly B762-sized

In all econ that was 260 pax. If you added a business class, which would have a fixed bulk-head, what would that create? It would depend where the bulk-head was, of course, and depend on the routes; but that would be quite a bit larger than B757/B737-900 stretch.

Problem is the economics of routes change very fast and the time frame from concept to first line flight is many years. Every day the future is getting more difficult to predict e.g. A380 in a world where perhaps the B747 is a dying breed and A340 is gasping for breath already. B787 A350 B777, perhaps A330 derivatives seem to be changing the world. Was that foreseen at concept time for A380? That does have a role to play, but can it achieve what B747 achieved?

[DaveReidUK]

OK - I was thinking more of the cross-section than necessarily the length. Maybe a "767-100" size, then. :O

My point re the OP was that shrinking the much wider 787 fuselage down to a 200-250 seater would produce a seriously compromised aircraft.

[NWSRG]

Maybe the 787-3 wasn't so far away in the first place...

Would a shorter 787 not solve the problem? Perhaps 767-200 length? Then add the clipped wing from the 787-3; with a much reduced range, and hence fuel load, weights would fall dramatically.

Given the carbon structure of the 787, I guess it would be 'relatively' easy to reduce the weight through less tape, so lightening the whole structure.

The downside is the high construction effort...autoclaving the fuselage would be costly. But it might be the right airplane?

[RAT 5]

But it might be the right airplane?

At least it would be today's (well recent) technology and common type rating. It might give airlines the option to mix & match season changes in route demand. A high capacity route demand in summer might shrink in winter, leading to a smaller model, but the larger model might be used on other routes. I'm thinking of the east-west N.Hemisphere routes in summer & north- south in winters.

[DaveReidUK]

Downsizing an airliner rarely results in a competitive aircraft.

As pointed out above, even an aircraft with the capacity of the B762 is a bit bigger than Boeing's MoM target market, so we'd have to be talking about a pretty drastic reduction in size for the 787 compared to the current/proposed variants of that aircraft.

Yes, it worked (up to a point) for the A300 -> A310, but that involved a completely new wing.

The 737-500 was pretty uncompetitive and sold mostly to airlines operating other 737 variants, where at least it had the advantage of fleet commonality.

But Boeing can't just target its MoM offering at existing 787 operators as that would severely restrict the market.

My money is still on a 2-3-2 twin aisle, for which the 787 fuselage would make no sense at all.

[RVF750]

It would basically need to be a 200 seater in short model and 250 in long. 787 Flight Deck achitecture is a given and a common wing and engine ideal. The key is the fuselage diameter.... Get it right and they can build a winner. Get it wrong and they'll just not sell.

I'll have retired before I see one anyway.....

[keesje]

Airbus & Boeing interviewed on this topic.


https://leehamnews.com/2016/10/12/airbus-boeing-agree-nma-now/

[DaveReidUK]

Hard to disagree with Leeham's conclusion that "the NMA seems to be evolving into a 4000-5000nm, 2-3-2 airplane".

[Cool Guys]

Boeing should just launch the NSA (New Small Aeroplane). That's what they were about to do before the NEO/Max came along. Make it about the same size and range as the 757. This makes it slightly larger than the existing single isles, where the trend is going. It takes it away from the C Series, A320, 919 territory where the competition is building up. The operating economics will be a lot better than the 757 and perhaps better than the 737/A320 so its sales wont be eaten away by the 737 like what occurred with the 757. Yes, it will kill the 737, this was always going to happen with the NSA and sadly by the time the NSA is flying the 737s time will almost be up. It will put it closer into the NMA territory and maybe the NMA plane is not so attractive. If Boeing launch the NMA they still have the quandary of the A321 decimating the Max9. Of course Airbus agrees with Boeing's NMA idea. It keeps their A321 monopoly secure.

[pax britanica]

I understand why the 738 and 9 to a degree pushed the lovely 75 out of the way but I often ehar comments about 75 being too heavy. Its much younger surely thatna 737 structure some of which goes back to the 60s -is things like a longer broader wing and of course the dual bogie gear that theycannot do weight reduction on

[peekay4]

Update from AWST:

As Boeing closes in on completion of final assembly of the first 737-9, the longest variant of the MAX family it originally announced in 2011, the company has defined the size of the proposed additional -10X stretch variant to compete more aggressively against the Airbus A321neo.

Boeing, which first revealed design studies of an extra stretched variant of the MAX in mid-2016, has finalized a design based on a 66-in. fuselage stretch. While significantly less than the 132-in. extension it outlined at last year’s Farnborough Airshow, the additional cabin length enables two-class capacity to be increased to 189 passengers, compared to 193 for a similarly configured A321neo. In a single class, the -10X could seat up to 230.

The minimal change in design is expected to be both cheaper and faster to develop than more extensive stretch options evaluated earlier in 2016. The modest stretch enables Boeing to retain the existing wing and CFM Leap 1B engine, rather than having to adopt a more extensively reinforced wing structure and larger Leap 1A/C variant considered under earlier studies. The reduced scope of the design changes also means the company will be able to offer the -10X for entry into service as soon as 2020, giving the aircraft longer to compete against the A321neo and dovetailing into the current new product introduction sequence that starts with the debut of the 737-8 later this year.

Full article: Boeing Defines Final 737 MAX Stretch Offering | Technology content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/technology/boeing-defines-final-737-max-stretch-offering)

[underfire]

there was the 320 NEO plus at 200 pax,
a 321 NEO XR, (new wing)with 220 pax..
and a 322 NEO (244 pax?)

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA322NEOconcept_zps13d00dcd.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

Those will be news to Airbus, more amateur(ish) Photoshoppery.

[underfire]

I suppose the photoshop job is by others, but Airbus did mention the A322 back in May. At that point, A320neo program manager Klaus Roewe stated they could do a stretch A321 (with a new wing)to an A322, but at that point, it was not necessary...

Will be interesting to see what Boeing does with the engine size on the Mad Max -10 stretch as the 737 platform is about maxed out on engine size...

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, only a couple of days ago Flight quoted John Leahy as saying there was no need for an "A322".

Interestingly, he also predicts that more than 50% of Neo sales will be for the A321.

https://twitter.com/Flighteditor/status/819122465226027009

[SeenItAll]

You can put 240 seats into a one-aisle aircraft, but it will only work for the long flight market. The loading and unloading times are too long for efficient short to medium hop usage. This is why the 757-300 turned out to be a niche plane -- efficient for 2000 to 3000 mile stage lengths, only. Thus, Boeing's MMA being two-aisle.

[peekay4]

Interestingly, he also predicts that more than 50% of Neo sales will be for the A321.
What Leahy actually said is that over 50% of the production (not sales) will be for A321s.

Essentially, Airbus will be prioritizing A321 deliveries over the rest of the A320 family. And why not -- when you have a clear market advantage, it's in your best interest to move as quickly as possible to fill it -- before your competitor across the pond can respond (e.g. with a MAX 10).

From a sales perspective, the A320neo accounts for roughly 70% of the orders vs. 30% for the A321, plus a few A319s. I don't see this split changing significantly considering where we are in the industry's order cycle.

[keesje]

You can put 240 seats into a one-aisle aircraft, but it will only work for the long flight market. The loading and unloading times are too long for efficient short to medium hop usage. This is why the 757-300 turned out to be a niche plane -- efficient for 2000 to 3000 mile stage lengths, only. Thus, Boeing's MMA being two-aisle.

On another forum I looked at a way out of this 1 or 2 aisle barrier. Maybe a fat one aisle plane handling some of the disadvantages you mention, is a better (cheaper, more efficient) solution than a small two-aisle. It's a kind of 1.5 aisle concept.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A370-800%20Airbus%20MoM%20NMA%202%20keesje_zpsvcelguaj.jpg