Newman55

No doubt. Just seems that some are arguing that the end-all-be-all is the A320 family and that Boeing should just copy that because it's the gold-standard that can never be beat.

Airbus and Boeing never design planes that directly compete on the specs with each other. There are always trade-offs and there are plenty of airlines that will buy based on their network since they are all unique (airline networks).

spin88

If you actually read my posts, you will see I am arguing nothing of the sort. I have suggested that something like the wider 3-3 pictured in the LHN cross sections (upper right) is what Boeing ought to be doing. (slightly wider than the A321 cross-section, allowing for wider aisles, faster boarding, and 18.5" seats in Y. Then use the plane to fill in the range that the Max10 and Max9 are trying, rather unsuccessfully to date, to cover with an old design plane.

And if you believe Boeing and Airbus don't design planes to directly compete on specs, I respectfully beg to differ. Because of constraints on line offerings, or perceived risks of undercutting an existing plane, they will often make the range they offer different, but they compete head to head on nearly everything.

prestonh

Cruise speed is a function of wing design. Generally the more sweep the faster the wing. Even the 757 has a faster mach at 0.8 than the a321 at 0.78. They will probably also follow in the 757/767 shadow with a supercritical wing for faster efficient cruise. What was interesting about the 757 wing is that the supercritical design let it be swept forward quite a bit for its short field performance to be incredible. If the LR version went at Boeing's standard 0.85 mach, that would be over an hour advantage for the TATL crossing vs the a321...that adds up in fuel, duty time, and mtc/frame hours. Plus if the wing is designed for the mach the SPF will not be much different.

You are kicking the strawman to pieces. Boeing builds airplanes and they don't build 757's anymore. So they kind of have to do something in this space. It's develop something new or do nothing. I suppose you would have them bake girl scout cookies

Newman55

This would be a failure. You are just asking airlines to increase their costs through higher fuel burn with no additional revenue. I already know you'll say passengers will flock to it and provide that additional revenue, but you've never been able to prove it with any data. In fact the data shows the opposite.

This is my last post on the subject. It's gone too far from the subject and you don't want to have a discussion based on logic and reason.

jeedk

you can bet top dollar if the roles were reversed and UA buys 321LR while DL abandons it for 797/MoM, you KNOW someone here will argue how much better wide body comfort is over the long tube

anyone working in risk management can immediately see the biggest red flag here

minnyfly

Sure it could. It already is. The current A333 has roughly the same per-seat costs as the A321, and that's with the A321 at a more dense configuration and at its fuel-efficient stage length. If we made a comparison of the A321 in a business configuration and closer to maximum range with its small wing, I'd bet the A333 would blow it away.

Widebodies are very efficient cost-wise. They are also are generally far better comfort-wise as they can fit the best J seats, have fewer seats per aisle, etc. Surprising you're not pushing for that. It's on the revenue side that the challenge lies.

bocastephen

They don't buy airplanes with 17" seats, they install 17" seats in airplanes that could, with better layout design, accommodate wider seats without losing density, or the airlines forcibly cram narrower seats with higher density into aircraft for which such layout was never intended.

Airframe manufacturers can put a stop to this easily by designing cabin structures that limit the minimum seat width at maximum density and minimum allowed aisle width. Both Embraer and Bombardier did this with their narrow body offerings and included more comfortable coach seats in their marketing materials which helped sell the aircraft.

Do you think no one will buy the 777 anymore because they can't cram 11 or 12 seats across, or the 787 because it won't take 10 across?

To the point from another poster, widening the 737 fuselage slightly to allow for 18.5-19" 3x3 would not increase aircraft operating costs at all provided the wing and engine design delivered the same projected efficiency. Boeing could have done this with the MAX series, but chose not to. Airbus produces slightly wider single aisle cabins, but many airlines refuse to put wider seats in those cabins because they want a single seat design across different aircraft types.

Some of the blame sits with Boeing and Airbus, but the vast majority of it sits with airlines who are either crossing the line on seat comfort, or refusing to install seats that take advantage of the available space.

Until Congress steps in and mandates a set standard for measuring seat width and then creates minimum legal measurements for those seats, this will be an ongoing problem.

fly18725

The revenue potential of an airplane, which by definition is the number of seats that can be installed, is a primary consideration during the purchase decision.

Sure, the manufacturers could collude to agree on a minimum width or legislatures could require it. In a free market, airlines will continue to acquire the most efficient airplanes, which other factors being equal, will be the airplane with a narrower body. Bombardier and Embraer have succeeded in head-to-head competitions with other airplanes by reducing pricing. I don't think there is any airline that has paid more to acquire an airplane because it offers more comfortable coach seats.

Neither scenario exists, so I don't know what your point is.

Widening the 737 fuselage = a new airplane = exponentially greater investment without the corresponding return.

bocastephen

The purchase decision is made by the specs available to the airline during marketing. Cramming additional seats into 787s and 777s was a later decision, and in some cases, made well after delivery and the aircraft in operation.

Who said anything about collusion?? The narrowest body is not the most efficient - that is a very wide brush to tar an entire concept of aeronautical engineering and completely untrue. Bombardier and Embraer succeeded by offering better airplanes that are suitable to specific roles at competitive prices that made sense. Boeing and Airbus do the same.

The point is rather simple - airlines don't buy specific aircraft vs rejecting other specific aircraft solely on the basis of how many seats they think they can cram into the cabin at some unknown date in the future, usually as a competitive response to another airline getting away with the same.

So Boeing did not make any 'corresponding return' on the 787?

fly18725

Sometimes airlines reconfigure airplanes, like United is doing with the 777-200ERs. Airbus and Boeing, in cooperation with the airline, normally design a high-level spec before the order. Although I have no direct knowledge, I would be surprised if United ordered the 777-300ERs without the intent to configure Y at 10x. Net Present Value analysis is a critical part of airplane purchase decisions and you need to know (roughly) how many seats are on the airplane to understand potential cash flow.

All other factors being equal, the fuselage with the least amount of wetted area will be the most efficient. Manufacturers are motivated to build the most efficient airplane because that is what airlines want to buy. Requiring manufacturers to offer airplanes with a minimum Y seat and aisle width would require collusion or regulatory action.

The point is rather simple - airlines don't buy specific aircraft vs rejecting other specific aircraft solely on the basis of how many seats they think they can cram into the cabin at some unknown date in the future, usually as a competitive response to another airline getting away with the same.[/quote]

Seat mile costs (CASM or CASK) are very, very, very important in the purchase decision.

The investment case for a new airplane is very, very different than the investment case for a new variant of an existing airplane.

Dublin_rfk

If you so greatly desire them to build a '57 style aeroplane, cough up a couple hundred mil. and I'm sure they'll find some drafting space.

Paul510

Looks like United is continuing to migrate to an all Boeing fleet with this order, I think fleet commonality is smart but at the same time the A321LR is a much better option for East Coast to Europe routes. The 737MAX10 has a listed range of just 3215 NM, where as the A321LR tops out at 3850NM.

The 737MAX10 can replace all the 757 PS fleet but it will fall short replacing the 757 Intercontinental routes. DL and AA are going to use the A321 for these routes to secondary European cities what is United's plans for places like Manchester, Glasgow, Venice, Madrid, Berlin ect?

-Paul

DA201

To help clarify:
As of right now, the 797 would have two variants. One variant would seat 200-225 and fly ~5000 nmi while the other variant would seat 250-275 and fly 4000-4500 nmi. It would have an oval fuselage and 2-3-2 seating and cruise at about Mach .8. The A321neo CAN be stretched, but it would decrease the range to ~3000 nmi. The A321neo LR can't fly with as many people as a standard A321neo in order fly 3800 nmi. This short range makes Airbus unlikely to extend the A321neo even when the 797 is launched. Boeing is saying the 797 will have a ridiculously fast turnaround time for a wide body (don't have a specific time but hearing 1 hour could be normal).

My opinion:
In an ideal world, Boeing would remake their narrow body aircraft to have three variants: 150. 180, and 210 passengers. Make the range on all of them at least 4500 nmi. This fixes the underlying issues with the 737 and prevents overlap with the 788. Also, a clean sheet aircraft would be ridiculously more efficient than the MAX or neo, and this new aircraft could avoid competition with Bombardier and Embraer. Unfortunately, this will not happen.

What I am afraid of is Boeing making the smaller variant of the 797 too large. Airlines who want to open TATL routes to small cities can't fill a plane with more than 175 seats. I get the need for one variant to carry a bunch of passengers and have a ridiculously low CASM, but they can't forget about the TATL carriers who want the long range and low seat count.

Paul510

It's been speculated that both Boeing and Airbus would not lunch a new clean sheet MOM plane until the 2020's With the continuation and refinement of the A321neo or LR or the 737Max10 both are trying to squeeze out every drop of product they can sell out of what have been their most profitable products. The A321LR is barely a replacement for the 757 ETOPS, and the 737Max10 is definitely not a replacement for the 757 ETOPS.

Everyone is assuming Boeing will be the first to launch a MOM, since Airbus is winning the market head to head in the A321/737MAX, and A330 orders are still healthy. it puts the pressure on Boeing to come up with something new that replaces both the 757/767. Remember 767's are still being produced but were launched with the 757.

Boeing is a little gun shy because of all the 787 launch and production problems, if they are going to introduce a totally new product they can't repeat those mistakes made in the 787 program.

Daze

I can't say if this is the whole story, but the 737 fuselage is transported by rail from Wichita to Renton. I suspect that making it wider would render this process impossible, causing a complete revision of the manufacturing of the 737. Daze