Airlines want Boeing to build 180-250 seats "modern 757", 4500NM range before 2028.
 

Aviation Week did a survey, asking airlines what they would want Boeing to build.
It's a Nov 2021 joint Aviation Week Network and Bank of America Global Research survey
More than 900 respondents participated, including a large number of airlines and lessors.

Apparently airlines want Boeing to build a bigger (757 size) single aisle with strong focus on:
- Environmental Sustainability
- 10% - 20% Reduction in Direct Operating Costs

70% of respondents want it before 2028. Capacity should be up to 250 seats, so bigger than the A321NEO.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/a...oeing-aircraft

Todays reality seems Boeing needs to clear all 737MAX from storage, ramp up, resume 787 deliveries and get 777-9 certified.
But I think it's interesting to see airlines are stepping away from the small widebody 2-3-2 MOM / NMA kind of concepts, that have been floating since years

Can Boeing afford to invest, can they afford not to invest at this stage.,that's another question. Airbus and Boeing deliveries & backlogs seem out of balance.

With Boeings track record of late and no current engine in the size class, dream on.

Single aisle become very problematic when you go much over 200 seats because loading/unloading take forever. It's OK for longer range operations since the turn times are less critical, but to be economically viable, a new 200-250 passenger aircraft needs to be economical not just for long haul, but for 1-2 hour flights as well. Otherwise the market is too small.
That was a big factor in the flop of the 757-300. It's operating costs were quite good for the time, but it's turn times were horrid.

I still think Boeing's best bet would be a "767X" - 767 fuselage, updated composite wing, modern avionics, and new state-of-the-art engines. They'd just need to convince an engine company to do a new 45k thrust class engine.

Also single bogey (which the 75 did not have) becomes an issue for pavement loading and contaminated runways in the weight range suggested by the article. This limits the city pair point-to-point options, at least for the north EU bucket&spade market.

Dual bogey adds weight and complexity which is left unused unless it's twin-aisle.

What the airlines will get by 2030 at best is most likely A330-400.

​​​Based on A330-800 NEO
- minus the trim and centre tank
- severely reduced MTOM for route charges
- heavily derated engines for noise
- smaller fin for weight reduction
- A380 style hydraulics
- superlightweight interior based on biomimic 3D ALM
- redesigned flap allowing for smaller tailplane
- possibly aileron-less
​​- increased cycle count for overhauls of the LDG gear and lifespan of the load bearing structure
- redesigned outer wing with blended winglets but shorter wingspan

The benefits of proven FBW and established crew training programmes, fleet commonality et al will become priceless in the face of risk from a newly developed solution from an OEM who lost the mojo to meet their own targets.

Airbus always has the option to sell at loss just to keep the niche above 321 bridged, albeit with an oversize piece.

Still sounds like 76X, doesn't it? What the airlines are missing is an agile freight sales model + solution to take advantage of the decentralised e-commerce delivery demand to fill the surplus cargo space.

​​​​​

On the one hand, I wish Boeing had kept upgrading the 757 instead of the 737, as soon as large (high-high-bypass) engines were required, years ago. Those nice long main gear provided more space for growth.....

But I get tdracer's point.

Plus, with 4500nm range, we are talking trips of up to 10+ hours (especially if low in operating costs (even higher-bypass fans), and environmentally-friendly) - and I'd really want a bit more elbow-room on flights that long. ;)

Maybe time to revive the old 777-100X "Stubby" concept - the market has had 20-25 years to reconsider the idea.

Sometimes "the customer is always right" - and sometimes the customer is just a 5-year-old tugging on Mommy's arm yelling "I WANT.......!"

What happened to the 787-3? (-3 for 3000 NM range). Boeing even sold some but never built them.

What about a short 787?

The proposed "B783" would make even less sense nowadays than it did when Boeing cancelled it 11 years ago.

Bring back the A300/310 I say. 😁

Boeing seems to have missed the NMA window of opportunity years ago. Now the A321XLR eats their lunch. And Airbus can toy with rewinged big A321neo brothers that could be built faster and cheaper than any new Boeing competitor.

Boeings next aircraft must meet end of decade engine standards and be able to form the base of some future (bigger dimensioned) 737 follow on CFRP-family. So it must be done right from the start and it will be expensive. Before that Boeing needs some years to recover financially.

It seems (longer) single aisle aircraft are substantially lighter and cheaper to operate than same seat capacity twin aisles. A 757-300 is lighter and cheaper than a same generation 767-200.

I think comfort has more to do with a soft seat with decent knee room, entertainment and recline.

If Boeing specifies a single aisle 10-15 wider than a A321, wide seats, aisles and bigger luggage bins I'm ok.

A321 Seats are already wider than 777/787 seats, just more width per passenger over the cross section.

A big single aisle by Boeing would open the door develop a real nimble, lean, optimized efficient, possibly hybrid 737 replacement in the 2030s.

An airline offers you a job. There is a choice of type. A320/1 NEO or 737 MAX. Pay is the same, as is route structure. Which one would you choose and why?

The first offer .

An interesting list of changes there.

The no-aileron change I can see, so long as we're all happy for spoilers.

I see wings having higher aspect ratios with folding tips and mighty heavy joints/actuation systems that are justified purely on aerodynamic gains.

Vertical tail is sized for offset and engine out condition combined with some other stuff, so not sure how you get around that with a smaller vstab, unless further away. Also not so sure that horizontal stabiliser is sized around flaps, although whatever you can do to reduce flap moment about CofG is useful. Besides that, there are other manufacturing costs to consider as to whether a whole new tailplane makes sense.

I see systems being as electric as possible.

I would hope to see that, from the Airbus perspective, something useful came from WoT/WoTF and Blade (and its successor) that can be combined with the wing manufacturing tech bought in from C-series (the real reason it was bought to my understanding). Airbus must move away from black metal carbon composites design to really realise the benefits of CFRP in major wing structures.

Let's get back to the subject and not diverge into what you'd prefer to fly or what job you'd take first, but what plane will emerge.
There is a possibility that a new aircraft manufacturer will emerge in the electric area like Tesla appeared from nowhere and quickly overtook the established car manufacturers.
A plane manufacturer not constrrained on what has been before and bogged down for years in what current model they should develop further.
A manufacturer not constained financially of the drain of previous anc durrent failures/problems.
A plane maker whose share price and therebye potential for return on investment is not constrained by what it is now and what it was historically.
And not resticted by how long it historically, or more likely lately, took them to do inovation.
There should be plenty of potential areas available that Boeing have abandoned and is ripe for somebody to capitalise on left behind human expertice and experience mixed with some real new thinking. Sample: if Boeing won't be in Seattle maybe somebody else will.
Who knows. That plane could be an electric 757 stilt-shaped 4 aisled delta wing where triple-bogey wheels are used to land the extra weight of batteries, with a hydrogen fueled range extender only operating over water.

And the 5 year old is not the custmer, the mother is. Ultimately it's always the one with the money.

I just picked up Flying Blind - Peter Robison. The book portrays the McDonnell takeover as "hunter killer assassins" rolling over the engineer "boy scouts".

Boeing got subjugated to shareholder value metrics. IBM, GE and Xerox (a previous employer) also fell under the thrall of shareholder value metrics. They are all slowly sinking into the sunset.

With the current Boeing, any new design will be done on the cheap, but this time around the FAA will be closely supervising.

Robison is a Bloomberg reporter who covers the Boeing beat. So far in my reading of the book, he is more knowledgeable in corporate affairs than piloting and engineering and would have benefited from some technical help.

Whatever happened to the 797, wasn’t that supposed to be the 757NG?

Boeing will never build a 757 replacement. I would argue that the 787 is the last new aircraft program Boeing will ever do. The MAX budget was a bit less than $ 3 Billion . It was supposed to be the cash cow that would fund the 777X and NMA, however the impairment costs for the MAX debacle are nearing $ 20 Billion. The Max will never be profitable at a unit level even if Boeing builds 5000 of them and 787 program is a sucking chest wound being covered by more and more field dressings. The reality is that Boeing is locked in a crisis short term program management decision making loop that still prioritizes stock valuation over anything else. I see no sign of the C suite vision that gets them out of the downward spiral, if recovery is even still possible.

Boeing will blunder along for the next 10 years or so bleeding money and market share with a revolving cast of C suite MBA bean counters fixated on cost metrics until it hits the end of the road. We have seen this movie before and its name was McDonald Douglas Aircraft. The "businessmen" supplanted the engineers and a once proud company faded into irrelevance on the face of serial crashes caused by poor engineering (DC10/MD11 ) and lack of product investment (DC9/MD 80 series) in order to achieve short term stock market gains. That is assuming there is not another MAX crash directly caused by an engineering or production issue, in which case it is over for Boeing.

This will be a sad ending to what once was a world leader in commercial aircraft ...

You can make money by investing, developing and selling great products. Or by selling off "non core activities", cash cow upgrades, perception management and free cash flow consumption; short term value extraction.

Share holders/ WS love the second option! So executives are rewarded accordingly (Share value based bonus packages). I really hope there's $15B around to develop a new big single aisle.

You're wrong. We are operating ~230 seat A321's and do 35 min turn arounds... It depends on the airport but at most we can do it on time or within 10 mins of planned ETD for the next sector.... Just gotta use both doors...

@ Viking

I think you watch too many you tube videos. Back in the real world the development costs of a new airliner are in a completely different league to electric cars. That is why we have essentially a duopoly of plane makers and many hundreds of car makers. China has tried to break in and so far at least failed, Russia has tried also and failed too despite considerable aerospace expertise. This is one complex puzzle of finance, technology, supply chains, regulation, pilot training, fleet standardisation and reliability. On top of that the incumbents have a global pool of spares that keep the show on the road 24/7 all over the world, matching that for a new untested type is beyond the deepest of pockets. An insurmountable mountain to climb.

I don't think we'll see a new large commercial aircraft manufacturer burst in to existence in the west (and even less likely elsewhere), mainly for the reasons stated above but also regulation and standards. The regulators are conservative in the extreme and this acts as an effective blocker to transformation. Many would say of course that is what they are there for. I would say they go too far in terms of risk aversion.

I think that, if anything, you'll see an electric aircraft manufacturer grow in to a regional aircraft player, threatening the bottom end of the Airbus and Boeing ranges. I feel that Boeing commercial might end up getting sold off to someone else or broken out in to a completely new company as a damage mitigation measure.

My own airline was a Boeing early customer, operating 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 767, 787. Recently we ordered the A320/321 instead of the Max. We ordered the A220 and the A350 too. Boeing bet the company with the 787 and lost. Its going to take it a few more years to fall down though.

Sad to contemplate. More than any other maker, Boeing aircraft opened up the world.

Tesla
 

Yet they've already surpassed NASA, and by default Boeing, as the US space launch customer of choice.

Why couldn't they do it with an aircraft?

Hope and Fear.
I hope you’re wrong, I fear you’re right.

Because just about everything Elon is doing is based around getting to Mars. Electric Vehicle Tech, Rockets, Boring Tunnels...all technologies directly applicable to Moon and Mars colonies. IMO his focus is leaving this planet.

He will leave his people here on Earth if he succeeds, but those companies, imo, will be oriented towards exploration of space.

Baring a massive improvement in battery energy density vs. weight (I'm talking an order of magnitude), electric aircraft will never be viable for trips of more than a few hundred miles. Similarly, hydrogen has massive issues as an aircraft fuel - not the least of which is it has horrible energy density (even as a cryogenic liquid) meaning that for long range flight the fuel tank would be as large as the passenger compartment. Sure, it's light, but needing a huge, well insulated tank to carry it tends to offset that low fuel weight.
Then there is the complete lack of the necessary infrastructure for H2 has a fuel, plus the fact that creating H2 by electrolysis is horribly energy inefficient with current technology.

People tend to forget that, before becoming one of the world's richest people, Musk and Tesla came dangerously close to bankruptcy and financial ruin. The car business is hard. The commercial airline business is exponentially harder...

Big Pistons Forever Has it right in #18. It is a lot of what I was preparing to say.

One of the reasons that they failed is because all big corporations fail - eventually - and usually by their own hand. Kodak had the first digital camera in their lab and could not see the future. Whilst Sony lost the VHS/Betamax battle, it won the professional side of the business and they had multiple product lines, so they got through - this time. There are dozens of examples of how corporations fail. Each generation of new graduates have read the stories and think that they are smarter than their fathers and grandfathers. Until the day they discover that they are not.

Boeing will be rescued by the USA tax payer because of the military side but the commercial is going to die. They made too many mistakes and changes. Thus far Airbus has, essentially, only made one - the 380 but they had enough other product lines, so they got through - this time.

I agree that many 'bright young boys' will try their hand at fixing Boeing and make money for themselves but the cost in money and reputation can NEVER be recovered. The Max might now be safe to fly but the deaths will not be forgotten. Overall, as others say, the Max is a millstone, the 78 limps on with the 777 being the last of a long and fabulous line up. In the forseeable future the only global game is Airbus. When USA carriers started buying the Bus, Boeing could have responded in time. But they were complacent and then panicked. It is an old, old story.

Well, there must be a reason why it is so damn hard to enter the real jetliner B737 / A32x market. Embraer and Canadair/Bombardier never got past the overgrown regional jet stage, and the Russian and Chinese offerings have problems getting taken seriously in the A22x class for all the Western avionics, propulsion and consulting they bought. So I don't really see a newcomer breaking into the real airplane bracket from nowhere.

The A380 might have been a commercial failure when seen as an isolated product line. I suspect, but haven't seen a detailed analysis, of whether it still wasn't a net profit for Airbus considering it pulled in previous Boeing customers, locked in additional sales in A330/340 and A32x because of training commonality, furthered integration of Airbus and pioneered technologies for the A350 and A32x Neo.

One could also argue that the A350 is a B787 done right, learning from both the B787 and A380's mistakes as well as gains.

`
Fully agree and the revolution in battery technology might be around the corner , there are however " fixed rules" that will no change and prevent (or at least seriously hinder) long range use ; The main ones are carrying and landing with the battery weight all the way , and battery recharge time.
Changing empty batteries for fully charged ones was a dream that still need a technological solution as the risk of fire is great. EASA has currently prohibited this on the small aircraft currently being commercialized ( e.g the Velis) . Then there is the notion of reserve ,which needs to be revised and the demonstration to be able to perform a safe go around a Maxi take off weight on near empty batteries.
The fact than range will also depend on the age of the batteries is also an issue. Time might help solve those issues , but it will take many years.

Bio-fuels might be more viable in the mid-term, even if a mixed bag enviromentally. Just take the issues about the B787 and A350 avionics batteries and image the issue magnified 100x. Pods similar to those used for missiles, bombs, range extender tanks or additional reconnaissance equipment on military aircraft come to mind. Easy to exchange for a pre-charged one and easy to jettison in case of trouble. Doesn't solve the energy to weight issue, though.

I've got experience of 239 pax A321NEOs. 35 minute turn around is quite possible, the key is ensuring not everybody has their life in a roller bag. Airline fares are increasingly limiting passengers to backpacks, with a limited number of upgraded fares available for rollers. Using both doors helps a lot too, but isn't essential. I think the slightly wider Airbus aisle and bin which is easier to empty from C&D seats marginally help. It's hard to argue the extra weight of a 767 style fuselage is worthwhile on short haul, and I agree that a MOM needs to be economically on short, mid and longhaul.

It sounds like the airlines are asking for a 757-300, ironically one of the least commercially successful designs ever built. The 753 struggles a bit with turn arounds because of the very small overhead bins, which can be designed out.

I do think that it's only a matter of time before longhaul narrow bodies change aviation. It means you needs less capital and a smaller market share to establish a profitable longhaul airline.

All this is very true. I've run the numbers several times re energy density and volume of liquid H2 vs liquid hydrocarbons and hydrogen just doesn't make sense. There are proponents of hydrogen fuel cells for aircraft, but that's even worse when you look at high energy demands for take off, etc. Battery electric aircraft have their own issues, including energy reserves and the fact that weight doesn't decrease with electric (fuel) consumption; you land with take off weight.

​Is un/loading better with two narrow aisles or a single wider one? A single aisle takes up less fuselage volume.

Charging for a single bag has resulted in a contest to see how much stuff pax can waddle through the door.

So if you want to avoid being bogged in turnarounds, you may get faster results with baggage going into the hold than crammed under seats and overheads.

On many regional turboprops, the pax are invited to place their unchecked bags into a rolling bin on the tarmac just before boarding. Of course with 239 pax, that needs to be done at check-in.

Now that Boeing / Airbus have given the Chinese the know how, you may find that they will have to follow something produced and designed in China if they want to compete…

737-900ER is as close as Boeing will get to a 757/similar platform.
787-8 comes next. No incentive to spend $B's.
The FAA / non-flying public will drive the Cert cots through the roof....

757-300 replacements has a difficult business case
 

The 757-300 was a victim of timing in nothing else. The line was shut down immediately after industry contraction from the 9/11 attacks and was also the victim of the merged Boeing-McDonnell Douglas management that focused on Return On Net Assets, which made the Renton factory floor appear expensive. I have been told by those in the know that airlines came back to Boeing after the 757 line had been shut down requesting to purchase more, but by then the decision had been made.

The 757-300 for a long time had the best single-aisle economics, which is why Delta/Northwest used them to replace the DC-10s on their Hawaiian routes, which are the most price competitive in the US. One can see why airlines are asking for a new airplane to fill this niche. Looking back certainly, the continued low fuel prices also played a part in 757-300 orders as it permitted more fuel-inefficient airplanes to continue operating rather than be replaced.

The problem with a 757-300-type replacement is whether the size of the market is sufficient to develop an entire new platform and new engine. With 737Max and A320Neo families offering trans-continental capability, the market for a slightly larger airframe with marginally more range might not be sufficient to drive the per unit costs down low enough to take market share from 737Max/A320Neo airplanes to make the business case work. Rather than use a 757-300 replacement, airlines might just use more frequent 737/A320 flights on the shorter segment to fill the need rather than pay higher acquisition costs for a more fuel efficient narrow body.

Indeed. I once saw analyses of the A380 that indicated it succeeded because:
1) By simply existing as an alternative to the B747 it stopped Boeing pushing the B747 prices up and thereby killed a cash-cow for Boeing;
2) Again, by simply existing, it stopped Boeing doing the co-sell of the 737/etc along with the 747 and in-extremis threatening to block 747 sales unless the co-sells were done;

The only reason to want Boeing to build it is to force some price competition on Airbus. Not to actually buy it.

I don't get this fascination with absolute maximum range. The vast majority of 757s, to take an example, were bought for notably shorter runs. BA were first in the queue for them, the majority of such flights being little more than an hour. Aircraft that are optimised for seven hour flights are typically giving away efficiency as a result on trunk short hauls, which is notably where the bulk of the market is. Even though 737s and A320s seem to have taken over US transcons (just about, in winter winds), the bulk of their flights there are for trips way shorter than this.