Boeing, United Airlines Announce Order for 100 737 MAX 10s and 4 777 300ERs
Jun 22, 2017, 1:34 pm
#106
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 99
Kind of a funny comment given how many folks here tout how great Boeing is. 
I grew up in Seattle, I have five family members who were/are engineers at Boeing, and know two high level execs (one now retired) I know the type. 
But on a serious note, Boeing has floated concepts and we know what they are trying to interest airlines in, and there has been a large amount of talk about what the airlines want (see e.g. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...arket-aircraft )
.
Airbus has also floated its concepts: See e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/news...797/index.html
I have a view on what makes more sense (and I think the airbus approach is better, although I would must rather fly on the proposed Boeing 797) and if you want to contribute to the discussion - since UA is holding off for now waiting to see what Boeing will do, feel free.
And if you want to see some published analysis that takes my view, look at this: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/10/ai...ll-boeing-797/
I grew up in Seattle, I have five family members who were/are engineers at Boeing, and know two high level execs (one now retired) I know the type. But on a serious note, Boeing has floated concepts and we know what they are trying to interest airlines in, and there has been a large amount of talk about what the airlines want (see e.g. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-a...arket-aircraft )
.
Airbus has also floated its concepts: See e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/09/news...797/index.html
I have a view on what makes more sense (and I think the airbus approach is better, although I would must rather fly on the proposed Boeing 797) and if you want to contribute to the discussion - since UA is holding off for now waiting to see what Boeing will do, feel free.
And if you want to see some published analysis that takes my view, look at this: https://leehamnews.com/2017/05/10/ai...ll-boeing-797/
[removed by mod] please tell me the per seat economics of UA's 753 to 2 significant figures.
Last edited by l etoile; Jun 22, 2017 at 3:51 pm Reason: Removed overly personal/argumentative comments
Jun 22, 2017, 1:53 pm
#107
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
(and P.S., my pro-Boeing days ended when the McD management took over
)No one, not even Boeing, knows the exact per sear economics of a 797-6 or 797-7 or a A322neo, but everyone knows that a comparable single aisle will beat a double aisle plane, and as e.g. Leham points out, Airbus can stretch the A321 architecture, Boeing has nothing to stretch, having bailed on its Y1 concept and gone with the cheap ("profit maximizing") MAX approach instead.
If you want to argue the merits of this fundamental point great.
Last edited by l etoile; Jun 22, 2017 at 3:54 pm Reason: Removed overly personal/argumentative comments and responses
Jun 22, 2017, 1:56 pm
#108
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 99
I know nothing about what the exact numbers are on any MOM concept, and did not claim "high level connections" gave them to me, I was commenting on the pro-Boeing type in general.
(and P.S., my pro-Boeing days ended when the McD management took over)
No one, not even Boeing, knows the exact per sear economics of a 797-6 or 797-7 or a A322neo, but everyone knows that a comparable single aisle will beat a double aisle plane, and as e.g. Leham points out, Airbus can stretch the A321 architecture, Boeing has nothing to stretch, having bailed on its Y1 concept and gone with the cheap ("profit maximizing") MAX approach instead.
If you want to argue the merits of this fundamental point great.
(and P.S., my pro-Boeing days ended when the McD management took over
)No one, not even Boeing, knows the exact per sear economics of a 797-6 or 797-7 or a A322neo, but everyone knows that a comparable single aisle will beat a double aisle plane, and as e.g. Leham points out, Airbus can stretch the A321 architecture, Boeing has nothing to stretch, having bailed on its Y1 concept and gone with the cheap ("profit maximizing") MAX approach instead.
If you want to argue the merits of this fundamental point great.
Last edited by l etoile; Jun 22, 2017 at 3:55 pm Reason: Edited quote
Jun 22, 2017, 2:20 pm
#109
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Makes my point. I don't work in the industry, but I am interested in the bigger concepts and how the airlines (here UA, which is putting off anything new until they hear about the 797-6 and its proposed specs) and their decisions impact me as a passenger.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 22, 2017 at 5:45 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster(s)
Jun 22, 2017, 2:24 pm
#110
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 99
I have no real interesting in engaging in a discussion of DOT data on specific airline's fleets, its OT. If you look up the CASM for the UA B763 you will see that it is higher, and I can tell you that w/o knowing the actual number. Makes my point.
I don't work in the industry, but I am interested in the bigger concepts and how the airlines (here UA, which is putting off anything new until they hear about the 797-6 and its proposed specs) and their decisions impact me as a passenger.
Makes my point. I don't work in the industry, but I am interested in the bigger concepts and how the airlines (here UA, which is putting off anything new until they hear about the 797-6 and its proposed specs) and their decisions impact me as a passenger.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 22, 2017 at 5:46 pm Reason: quotw updated to reflect moderator edit
Jun 22, 2017, 2:48 pm
#111
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
No one, not even Boeing, knows the exact per sear economics of a 797-6 or 797-7 or a A322neo, but everyone knows that a comparable single aisle will beat a double aisle plane, and as e.g. Leham points out, Airbus can stretch the A321 architecture, Boeing has nothing to stretch, having bailed on its Y1 concept and gone with the cheap ("profit maximizing") MAX approach instead.
If you want to argue the merits of this fundamental point great.
If you want to argue the merits of this fundamental point great.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business...le-797-design/
Jun 22, 2017, 2:52 pm
#112
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,850
What does that even mean? Is it 77W-10-across-comfortable with A318 economics?
Jun 22, 2017, 2:52 pm
#113
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Airbus can't stretch the A321 without a new wing. The existing design simply can't hold enough fuel without eliminating passengers bags and cargo. But, that's largely irrelevant to United's recent order. Unless you can find a way to connect the manufacturers' long-term product strategy to United's commercial decision.
It's clear that United's position is a depreciated, fully-updated 757 can do a better job in the interim on marginal routes until Boeing is able to develop and deliver a clean-sheet replacement (which, by the way, is coming).
Last edited by EWR764; Jun 22, 2017 at 3:21 pm
Jun 22, 2017, 2:56 pm
#114
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
We know airlines are willing to buy planes with 17" wide economy seats. We also know they will demand economics competitive with the most efficient narrowbodies, including acquisition costs. If Boeing can't figure out how to do that, it won't build the plane.
Jun 22, 2017, 4:07 pm
#115
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
I 100% agree with you. (1) the 797 will not match the per-seat economics of the A321neo, and (2) the proposed 797 can serve TATL markets the A321LR can't serve.
My point is that given the truth of point (1) the proposed 797 is going to be a rather limited market, given that the A321 can beat it in any thing less than about a 3500 mile flight, and as I noted, Airbus can -and I would expect them to - stretch the A321 either (a) having a shorter range, more like 3000 miles, or (b) redoing the wing at the same time, which would result in a plane with a range sufficient to do east coast-western Europe, and even better economics.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a 2-3-2 midrange plane (basically a 763 replacement) with the bells and whistles, I just think that Airbus can counter it rather easily with a single aisle (that with 2L boarding and the 7" wider cabin can compete on load times and passenger comfort), eating into the lower end of the range/missions it can do, and that existing aircraft can do the upper range/missions.
I think Boeing would be far better served by future proofing the narrow body line with a new design (basically a modern 757-300 size AC with a wider cabin and carbon fiber parts, and 2L boarding) that fixes the 737's limits and also has the capacity to out range/out-comfort the A321LR for TATL flights into secondary cities.
My point is that given the truth of point (1) the proposed 797 is going to be a rather limited market, given that the A321 can beat it in any thing less than about a 3500 mile flight, and as I noted, Airbus can -and I would expect them to - stretch the A321 either (a) having a shorter range, more like 3000 miles, or (b) redoing the wing at the same time, which would result in a plane with a range sufficient to do east coast-western Europe, and even better economics.
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a 2-3-2 midrange plane (basically a 763 replacement) with the bells and whistles, I just think that Airbus can counter it rather easily with a single aisle (that with 2L boarding and the 7" wider cabin can compete on load times and passenger comfort), eating into the lower end of the range/missions it can do, and that existing aircraft can do the upper range/missions.
I think Boeing would be far better served by future proofing the narrow body line with a new design (basically a modern 757-300 size AC with a wider cabin and carbon fiber parts, and 2L boarding) that fixes the 737's limits and also has the capacity to out range/out-comfort the A321LR for TATL flights into secondary cities.
Redoing the 320/321 wing is not just a wing exercise. Depending on loading, it may involve reworking the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear, wing box, attachments/loading, rotation and flare angle limits, and of course reprogramming and testing all of the associated control laws in their software. There is a point it approaches clean sheet criteria, the 320/321 is not immune from that either.
Last edited by prestonh; Jun 22, 2017 at 4:14 pm
Jun 22, 2017, 10:52 pm
#116
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
IIRC the 797 will have 2 versions, a shorter range high capacity version and a longer range lower capacity version. The wing will probably be optimized for the LR version at fast cruise while the 321 is stuck at .78 mach so I suspect the shorter range version will be a stretch of the LR. They probably get close to narrow body economics via the stretched seat count, lower weight frame (not built for 7-8000mi ranges) and next gen wings/engines. Plus it will probably fly faster.
Redoing the 320/321 wing is not just a wing exercise. Depending on loading, it may involve reworking the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear, wing box, attachments/loading, rotation and flare angle limits, and of course reprogramming and testing all of the associated control laws in their software. There is a point it approaches clean sheet criteria, the 320/321 is not immune from that either.
Redoing the 320/321 wing is not just a wing exercise. Depending on loading, it may involve reworking the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear, wing box, attachments/loading, rotation and flare angle limits, and of course reprogramming and testing all of the associated control laws in their software. There is a point it approaches clean sheet criteria, the 320/321 is not immune from that either.
Boeing has not put out a spec sheet, what they have been doing is having "discussions" with airlines on what they would be interested in. The discussion has been centered around a stretch 275 seat and a longer range 225 seat model I don't see why the plane would be faster, it increases fuel burn, and certainly the 350/787/777x have not been faster, they are actually slower than is the 747 and older planes like the DC-10/L1011.
A new design is expected to be at least $5B in development costs, a new wing - according to multiple sources (see example article I linked to) - is more like $1B. That is btb much higher than what Boeing spend on the NG wing....
While people can just assert marketing fluff like "the plane will have single aisle economics", I have seen no independent analysis that suggests or shows any way a twin aisle can best an updated single aisle plane (such as the A322 Airbus has floated). The advantage of a twin aisle is better range since it has a much bigger fuselage, but you pay for that in higher operating and capital costs. Again, don't get me wrong, as a passenger I would love to see it ^ I just see it as another ill thought-out move by Boeing, and airbus would cut their legs out from under them.
Jun 23, 2017, 2:09 am
#117
Join Date: May 2007
Location: variously: PVG, SFO, LHR
Programs: AA ExPlat, UA 1MM Gold, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat, HH Gold
Posts: 1,678
While people can just assert marketing fluff like "the plane will have single aisle economics", I have seen no independent analysis that suggests or shows any way a twin aisle can best an updated single aisle plane (such as the A322 Airbus has floated). The advantage of a twin aisle is better range since it has a much bigger fuselage, but you pay for that in higher operating and capital costs. Again, don't get me wrong, as a passenger I would love to see it ^ I just see it as another ill thought-out move by Boeing, and airbus would cut their legs out from under them.
A MOM 797 using an oval-shaped fuselage means high pax capacity but limited cargo capacity while providing single-aisle level weight. Many airlines apparently are interested in such a tradeoff. Anyway, most of the weight of the airplane is not in the fuselage. That is one of the lightest parts. Much heavier is the engines, wing box, wing, gear, and other components. If you can have a wide plane with small wings and small engines you have a light airplane.
Last edited by andrewwm; Jun 23, 2017 at 2:17 am
Jun 23, 2017, 8:05 am
#118
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
The A321neo is maxed out range/weight-wise, you need a new wing for it to fly any farther. There is no 'cut the legs out from under them' possibility without $$$$$$ from Airbus. Earlier in this thread you also suggested a 2L boarding, which is now impossible in the A321neos as all future versions will have the 2L door permanently plugged.
A MOM 797 using an oval-shaped fuselage means high pax capacity but limited cargo capacity while providing single-aisle level weight. Many airlines apparently are interested in such a tradeoff. Anyway, most of the weight of the airplane is not in the fuselage. That is one of the lightest parts. Much heavier is the engines, wing box, wing, gear, and other components. If you can have a wide plane with small wings and small engines you have a light airplane.
A MOM 797 using an oval-shaped fuselage means high pax capacity but limited cargo capacity while providing single-aisle level weight. Many airlines apparently are interested in such a tradeoff. Anyway, most of the weight of the airplane is not in the fuselage. That is one of the lightest parts. Much heavier is the engines, wing box, wing, gear, and other components. If you can have a wide plane with small wings and small engines you have a light airplane.
And Airbus is talking new wing, as reported numberous places. Here is the Reuters peice's quote: "Three industry sources said the plans include an A321neo-plus-plus with a new wing. Analysts say such makeovers cost $1-2 billion against $15 billion for a new jet." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN185101
And sorry, a plane with a 40" larger cross section vs the A321 to add a single extra seat (7 vs 6) is NOT going to be able to compete on fuel burn/ weight, it just will not. And trying to then recoup $15B in development costs (vs $1-2B for a new A322) will make it noncompetitive in acquisition costs.
Jun 23, 2017, 9:07 am
#119
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
You don't know the weight. You don't know the dimensions. You don't know the surface area. You don't know the engine technology.
I'm going to bet that Boeing is not in the mood to put billions dollars up on something that's as simple as you say.
Jun 23, 2017, 9:20 am
#120
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tx
Programs: AA, UA, WN
Posts: 812
And you know this, how exactly?
You don't know the weight. You don't know the dimensions. You don't know the surface area. You don't know the engine technology.
I'm going to bet that Boeing is not in the mood to put billions dollars up on something that's as simple as you say.
You don't know the weight. You don't know the dimensions. You don't know the surface area. You don't know the engine technology.
I'm going to bet that Boeing is not in the mood to put billions dollars up on something that's as simple as you say.