A321 NEO cert to 7400 km by EASA and FAA
Boeing studies may conclude that at the moment an ideal m.o.m aircraft is something with say, 20 more seats and 200 nm greater range than the A321LR. However developing this aircraft would cost $X billion dollars and would have to sell for $Y million, airlines are unlikely to want to pay a huge premium for a small increase in capability.
A massive investment can only be justified if the aircraft sells in sufficient numbers, so it would only make sense if Boeing’s new m.o.m aircraft was common to a B737 replacement family where the development costs could be spread out over the entire range. A single isle 180-190 seater from Airbus or Boeing is going to sell in huge numbers so substantial investment is justified and having a small improvement in fuel burn or an extra 200nm range could be the determining factor in a 200 aircraft order.
The B737 MAX is a stop gap until a clean sheet replacement can be developed. Pumped up, blinged out and sold cheap, to hold the line against Airbus while new designs take shape.
A similar approach could be taken with the B757 airframe. Winglets, 787 flight deck and current generation smaller engines would give an aircraft that would cost very little to develop as it uses currently available technology and could easily be made slightly more capable than the A321LR giving Boeing the lead.
The B757 was overpowered and not all operators needed or used its full capabilities. Smaller modern engines could power a new version, which whilst not giving it the payload/range of the old one, could still do the job and offer a greatly reduced fuel burn. The opportunity is there to tailor the aircraft to specific requirements in terms of take off weight, payload/range and fit appropriate, currently available engines.
This becomes Boeing’s m.o.m aircraft until the new range of narrow bodies becomes available in 10 years time. It slots neatly into the gap between the B737 MAX and the B787-8, costs little to develop and can therefore be sold cheap. As it uses a 1980s rather than a 1950s airframe it can incorporate modern technology. I find it unusual that Boeing have already retired the relatively modern B757 fuselage but continue with the antique B737 version to this day.
It would plug a big hole in Boeing’s range and could retain customers who were considering moving to Airbus.
A massive investment can only be justified if the aircraft sells in sufficient numbers, so it would only make sense if Boeing’s new m.o.m aircraft was common to a B737 replacement family where the development costs could be spread out over the entire range. A single isle 180-190 seater from Airbus or Boeing is going to sell in huge numbers so substantial investment is justified and having a small improvement in fuel burn or an extra 200nm range could be the determining factor in a 200 aircraft order.
The B737 MAX is a stop gap until a clean sheet replacement can be developed. Pumped up, blinged out and sold cheap, to hold the line against Airbus while new designs take shape.
A similar approach could be taken with the B757 airframe. Winglets, 787 flight deck and current generation smaller engines would give an aircraft that would cost very little to develop as it uses currently available technology and could easily be made slightly more capable than the A321LR giving Boeing the lead.
The B757 was overpowered and not all operators needed or used its full capabilities. Smaller modern engines could power a new version, which whilst not giving it the payload/range of the old one, could still do the job and offer a greatly reduced fuel burn. The opportunity is there to tailor the aircraft to specific requirements in terms of take off weight, payload/range and fit appropriate, currently available engines.
This becomes Boeing’s m.o.m aircraft until the new range of narrow bodies becomes available in 10 years time. It slots neatly into the gap between the B737 MAX and the B787-8, costs little to develop and can therefore be sold cheap. As it uses a 1980s rather than a 1950s airframe it can incorporate modern technology. I find it unusual that Boeing have already retired the relatively modern B757 fuselage but continue with the antique B737 version to this day.
It would plug a big hole in Boeing’s range and could retain customers who were considering moving to Airbus.
The funny thing is that Boeing designed and sold an all-new MOM aircraft nearly 20 years ago. That was the 787, the original 787-8, which was touted to replace the 757 and 767, both of whose production was running down. There was the 777 and 747 above it, and the 737 below it. In the event the 787-8 quite soon became a mediochre seller, as soon as it (finally) entered service there were few additional orders, and production switched to the enlarged 787-9 and even larger 787-10, the latter certainly impinging on the 777 market.
Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.
Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.
The funny thing is that Boeing designed and sold an all-new MOM aircraft nearly 20 years ago. That was the 787, the original 787-8, which was touted to replace the 757 and 767, both of whose production was running down. There was the 777 and 747 above it, and the 737 below it. In the event the 787-8 quite soon became a mediochre seller, as soon as it (finally) entered service there were few additional orders, and production switched to the enlarged 787-9 and even larger 787-10, the latter certainly impinging on the 777 market.
Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.
Somebody in Wall Street is going to be asking Boeing serious questions on why this previous MOM aircraft turned out to be relatively unwanted. It does seem that in going for a huge Intercontinental range capability, which I'm sure looked exciting, they in turn reduced its attraction for the far larger Transcontinental/medium haul market.
Boeing did offer a shorter range 787-3 - basically a lighter, shorter range version of the -8. It sold like week old hotcakes and was quietly cancelled due to lack of interest.
Yes, they produced a good number in its first few years, but market attention has moved on.
And why was the 787-3 such a flop. Wasn't that even closed to the MOM market position in concept ?
The B787-8 is a small version of a big aircraft so it retains all the costs and disadvantages of wide bodies but has fewer seats.
The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.
The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.
Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.
In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.
Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.
The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.
The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.
Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.
In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.
Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.
Last edited by krismiler; 12th Oct 2018 at 05:57.
The B787-8 is a small version of a big aircraft so it retains all the costs and disadvantages of wide bodies but has fewer seats.
The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.
The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.
Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.
In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.
Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.
The A321LR is a big version of a small aircraft so it retains all the advantages of a narrow body but has more seats and greater range.
The A321LR is well positioned at the lower end of the m.o.m spectrum, a re-engined B752 with winglets and a B787 flight deck could occupy the upper end of the m.o.m area. If it offered a significant improvement on the B737 MAX but was sufficiently restricted so as not to compete with the B787 it could prove an attractive option.
Even if not hugely profitable for Boeing, it could help in retaining customers who might be tempted towards an Airbus fleet due to the gap in the range.
In the beginning there was First Class and Economy Class, then Business Class appeared in between. First Class is on its way out but now we have Premium Economy appearing in between Economy and Business. Business class went up and Economy went down leaving a gap in the middle. The aircraft market varies in a similar manner, who ever offers the right aircraft at the right time wins.
Whilst the market is definitely there for m.o.m aircraft, I don’t think it’s big enough to justify both manufacturers each developing a stand alone type and slugging it out over a few hundred sales. The m.o.m can largely be covered by taking narrow bodies to the limit as Airbus have done with the A321LR. Boeing are fortunate in having the B757 airframe to use in competition if they decide to go down that path. You can’t please everyone all the time and there will be a small segment not catered to. There will still be a significant step involved but it won’t be as big as the jump from B738 to B772 or A321ceo to A330.
Saying that Boeing is fortunate to have the 757 available is patently wrong; the market rejected the model in the early 2000s, Boeing took the logical consequences and killed it off.
I stand corrected re B757 availability as an interim measure, it looks like Airbus have this niche to themselves for the foreseeable future then as I can't see Boeing making a considerable investment in a direct competitor to the A321LR, given the limited numbers likely to be sold vs development costs and the necessity to concentrate resources on a B737 replacement.
It will be interesting to see how this area of the market is addressed by both manufacturers when they replace the current A320/B737 offerings with brand new designs.
I predict that with both companies starting at the same time and going for the same areas, it will be difficult to tell their aircraft apart, similar to how cars competing in the same segment all look the same.
It will be interesting to see how this area of the market is addressed by both manufacturers when they replace the current A320/B737 offerings with brand new designs.
I predict that with both companies starting at the same time and going for the same areas, it will be difficult to tell their aircraft apart, similar to how cars competing in the same segment all look the same.
AvWeek says that Boeing is likely to launch the new mid-market aircraft next year:
Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
“Boeing has not yet gained confidence that the business case will close [regarding price, unit cost, investment]. Airbus continues to say an NMA market can be satisfied by its existing products,” Harned observed. “But airlines appear to now be more interested in the NMA relative to current Airbus or Boeing products. We believe this could lead to a more aggressive response by Airbus.”
AvWeek says that Boeing is likely to launch the new mid-market aircraft next year:
Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Analysts Increasingly See Boeing NMA As Likely Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Do you honestly believe that the aircraft couldn’t be scaled to at least the 800, whilst only incurring a fraction of the time/cost of Boeing doing a clean sheet replacement of the Max. Airbus has ~ 20% of the work ahead of it to match what Boeing comes up with.
A big reason why the 'dumping' complaint got thrown out was that the C series and the 737 don't compete against each other.
5 abreast seating, relatively low thrust engine, and a small wing optimized for short range and 100-130 passengers. You really think you can make a 200 passenger mid-range aircraft out of that?
A big reason why the 'dumping' complaint got thrown out was that the C series and the 737 don't compete against each other.
A big reason why the 'dumping' complaint got thrown out was that the C series and the 737 don't compete against each other.
“Short range” ? The CS300 has the same range as the MAX1000. Which is a 200 seat aircraft in two classes. The current wing is only 2 feet shorter than the Max.
Yes, I think the C Series (Axxx) will need development. Given your background, you know that the majority of the heavy lifting in airfoil design, avionics, systems and materials has already been done. An uprated engine, a plug and a redesigned wing will cost a fraction of a clean sheet design. That will get them to at least the size of a MAX800.
In the end, I think Airbus will use the C Series, along with their own design as the basis for a new aircraft.
You stretch, shrink, re-engine, design a new wing, etc, but you're still stuck with the same basic parameters, most importantly the cross-section and therefore the maximum limit on potential growth.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wing you do not want to change either, except for winglets and changing the flap configuration, as anything structural requires a full re-certification, including static and dynamic load tests.
Two Three Two, so two! (I did all that to create a post of 10 character or more...).
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...g-much-closer/
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...g-much-closer/
So seven across which means the airlines will want to squeeze another column of seats in and spoil the design. B787 went from eight to nine across and the B777 went from nine to ten across.
OK, I know BAe went from the originally-envisaged 5-across to 6-across in the 146/RJ, to make the numbers better, but passengers nowadays aren't willing to suffer that amount of discomfort any more. Or maybe they are ... ?
So assuming a similar cross section to the 767, little worry that you'd see widespread 8 across seating.
Then again, an 8 abreast 767 still be far more comfortable than the 200 seat C-series that JPJP is advocating...
I just hope the belly will be made wide enough for pairs of standard cargo containers this time on the widebody