Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 3. Propulsive efficiency April 12, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 2 April 11, 2024
- Pontifications: Boeing “transparency”–not so much. April 9, 2024
- Airbus charges and write-offs since 1999: more than €33bn April 8, 2024
Odds and Ends: 757 replacement search continues; Qatar’s A350; PNAA aviation conference
757 replacement: Aviation Week has a good piece about Boeing’s studies of a replacement for the 757, harking back to the era when Boeing designed the 757 and 767–a New Small Airplane and a New Light Twin. Guy Norris’ story hits on many of the same themes we discussed in October when we interviewed Kourosh Hadi of Boeing’s product development team. Our post then was behind our paywall; we’ve opened up today for all readers.
Qatar’s A350: Flight Global takes a look at what’s up with the acceptance delay by Qatar Airways of the world’s first Airbus A350-900. Free registration required.
PNAA aviation conference: The Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance will hold its annual conference Feb. 10-12 in the Seattle area. This has become the largest conference of its kind on the US West Coast, expected to serve about 500 delegates at this event. Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, suppliers and a suppliers fair are key elements. You may click through to the conference via the banner advertisement above.
Qatar A350 flight global page link doesn’t work.
Fixed.
A nice article of Guy Norris, nice illustration too.
What I sense though is the same we saw with the 777X and the NSA before. Boeing looking at there own portfolio, the market, options, talking to the airlines, in a seamingly autonomous way. Saying 10 years from now is early enough because their current products are superior anyway and thei customers will wait.
Until it becomes clear they aren’t alone and airlines are unloyal and impatient. By then they lost a good number of customers.
When mostly aluminum was the material, the 757 and 767 made sense (and both very successful).
It seems the desire to have common tech when you no longer have a common base that suits both needs hangs this up.
And likely the approach is driven by Chicago so they don’t have to do anything. i.e. the usual excuse to make it unworkable and then throw up your hands and, well this is simply not workable (and why would you compete down at 150 when there is no market nor are you selling for your larger aircraft there?, i.e. another excuse tactic).
Other than common cockpit aspects, I don’t see the two markets having much in common aircraft or even tech wise.
It does bring home the fact that Boeing will cede the A321/757-200W market (well other than PR fluff and spin on the 737-9max.)
It does bring into question is there really that much of a 757 market? The 1200 figure thrown out would seem to be grabbed out of the air (pun intended) as the original program sold 1050 and a large part of that market has been undercut by improved 737 and A320 series.
Is there a different market in that 737/A321-787 gap?
I think this is the murkiest areas to assess with the various aspects of old single aisle going where no single aisle went before, tech changes and a whole different world and market.
No 737 MAX replacement(NSA) until 2030. What’s the timeline on the Middle Of Market(MOM) project?
Aspire says 2018. I think Scott and others suggested that year at points, and McNerney’s statements seemed to tamp down speculation on that. Aspire’s piece on this seems very convincing. Ad that to an increasingly compelling business case, and McNerney’s 2030 statement seems like more smoke blowing from Chicago.
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2014/11/26/boeing-nsa-2018-launch/#.VHV-6mAg-uc.twitter
Ad that to an increasingly compelling business case,
Could you elaborate on that increasingly compelling business case? What is it? What are the numbers involved?
The 757 replacement market has already been 90% covered by 737-9/-900ER and A321ceo/neo, with the A321neoLR covering another 5%. To me, it still doesn’t make any sense to start development of a new airplane in the next 5-7 years just to cater for the 5% that are left.
Even if you think about opening up that 5% to also cover a bit of the gap between A321neo/737-9 and A330-800/787-8, with the cost involved in developing a new airplane, you would want to make that plane part of a family. Which means the plane catering for the ~5% left of the 757 replacement market, would have to be the basis for the 737 replacement as well. And to launch that plane within a year or two of MAX EIS just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
Boeing and Airbus are in the business of making planes and earning money doing that – not in the business of filling every conceivable market niche that may or may not exist.
Transworld: “It does bring into question is there really that much of a 757 market? ”
As Sinnett says: “The 757 is a proxy for something that is not a 737 and is not a 757.” The market is far larger then the “757 replacement” currently occupied with 757s, 762s, 737-900ERs, A321s, A300/A310, use of oversized A330s/788s. Thousands in the next 20 years.
If Boeing continues studying the market, talking to airlines, reviewing new technologies and discussing with the engine makers, Airbus will meanwhile sell another 2000 A321s (/322s). Simple as that. In the US, Delta and American are already switching, United probably soon. Get moving instead of talking!
Boeing has to wake up & smell the coffee. If they expect the 737MAX to hold on for the next 15 years, they are (again) only listening to themselves.
I am not disagreeing Boeing has screwed up as there is a clear market for the A321 sized aircraft Boeing is no longer able to match in any form.
That A321 segment is broken into two discreet parts. Bigger A320 as normal progression to move up (where Boeing falls off one cliff). That segment is now 30% and growing fast.
The other is a 757-200w where Airbus talked about 400 of the A320NeoLRs.
My take is that the first segment can be served quite well by single aisles.
Murky is the overlap in the 757-300, A321NeoLr and what is the right aircraft to serve that. It has to be at the right price.
And there in lies the crunch. 757s prices are right, A321NEO certainly for some of it. But is it so budget constrained that a 100 -150 million dollar aircraft makes it uneconomical?
Boeing can’t build an aircraft that just takes on the A321 (they should have but can’t now)
It needs to be broad spectrum but they also seem to shoot that in the foot trying to compete in the 150 segment when the move is 180 to 230.
there still has to be a business case and that even assumes their is a desire by Boeing management to the future or its just as long as I get mine now what so what for the future of the company. That side is winning so they will study it to death and do nothing (sans a change of command)
Airbus may offer a kind of A330-100 to close the gap to the A322. I don’t think Airbus will put a new wing beneath an old aircraft. I expect a rather small wing for a rather short A350. Maybe with folding wing tips.
Boeing could do the same after the MAX is ready and the 777X wing is finished.
Folding wingtips requires a new wing. You can’t do it with current controls and forces.
Boeing could not get anyone to buy it on the old 777 with the old wing as said wing folding system entailed folding control surfaces (heavy and no one wanted it so it died. )
the only reason Boeing can do it now is they designed a new wing and the length allows them to do it and control surfaced all designed inside the fold.
A350 shrink was knows as the A350-800, too heavy to be competitive.
Maybe an A300NEO! (grin). Darn, should have kept the jigs.
For sure a new wing design.
The A350-800 wing was just slightly smaller than the -900 wing. Undercarriage and wingbox was quite the same and therefore no big weight difference.
An aircraft for medium ranges needs a complete new wing design and undercarriage. The A300 fuselage also operates today with a different wings.
It would be nice to use such a wing for a short/medium twin aisle and for a single aisle with enhanced range.
You can think of A330 with smaller wings, lighter landing gears, A350 cockpits etc. I guess an investment of $5-6 Billion
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA330NEORegional787MediumGENXBoeing_zps1cc03564.jpg
But I think in the end Airbus will also come up with something optimized for 200-300 passengers up to 5000NM’s, replacing the A300/330, filling the large medium gap between the A321NEO and A350-900.
& years ago I opened a discussion on the topic & did some powerpoint;
http://s191.photobucket.com/user/keesje_pics/media/greenlinerseatranges.jpg.html?t=1197119330
The “Greenliner” is now called NSA, NLT, MoM or A370 but the market requirement has been there a long time. I see it as an important market opportunity for Boeing.
I think a consensus might be that if you bring something to the market bigger then a single aisle, it has to substantially bigger and capable. To justify the higher weight, costs and fight off the A320 NEO versions.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/A320A370A330_zps45e129ee.jpg
Transworld agree, Issue is Boeing has to do a new 150-220 too, a carbon, A320 sized, light, highly efficient workhorse for this largests segment/ customers. The Boeing interview Leeham did seems to confirm this. (btw excellent interview, would have been an industry hit, if it hadn’t been behind the paywall..)
What Boeing needs to do (replacing the 737 two generations back) and what they will do are whole different matters. BM is interesting only in returning profits to shareholders while patching the rickety wagon one more time. Ergo even in a clearly defined market segment they will do nothing until?
Figuring out what the configuration size etc as well as the range in a segment above that single aisle is even more iffy. Everyone can have their theories, I do not begin to have the kind of data base nor the Airline sources that would tell you what that is clearly enough to be defined. basically is a vague 220 or so to 250 (bit more dense pack) medium range. No one was interested in the shorter range 787-3 (other than too few number in Japan which might well be a good market for the A330SR (short range)
While photo shop is fun, its not real world. There seems to be the feeling all you have to do is point and click, design an app and that makes something occur. It doesn’t. That why aircraft are hugely expensive, it takes thousands of engineers to design anything let alone something that meets marketing needs and costs.
Where do you optimize it? As we have seen, the 787 was optimized for longer range and can get undercut by an old tech shorter range A330NEO
The Sonic cruiser was a pie in the sky idea, no one was going to commit to it, the like the tech but not the platform mission (ergo, use the tech to make it economical not high speed and low passenger carry).
The 777 started out as a triple and evolved into a twin (and to this day carries a 767 nose) . Design, offer, feedback, re-design, offer feedback. It takes a fair amount of time to just get to the final design (and many still fail)
Interest is not sales. One of the big air freighter companies was deeply involved in the A380F and decided it would not suit their heavy haul missions. That happens all the time.
And then there is cost. Can someone figure out how to undercut you with the A321?
If there is no right aircraft, then Airlines make do or can’t offer that service and then its a so what? The world does not end because the ideal aircraft is not flying the routes you would like. When there was no mechanical cooling system they made do with ice.
When we did not have long range jets, we hopped across the oceans using refueling stops (Middle East is going gangbusters doing that with just a single fuel stop)
So even at the best is a tough endeavor and Boeing is showing negative interesting in doing so.
Airbus has other segment issues to deal with.
And that goes back to the priority of where your new aircraft (i9f any) efforts go. Baldy run or not, Boeing has limited resources and even at the best of times has decide where to spend that.
It currently looks like Airbus cedes the big twin 777 size market and Boeing the A321 and that is where it may stand for a long time to come.
Hundreds of professionals talking to dozens of airlines and doing a zillion calculations launched the 767-400ER, Sonic Cruiser, 787-3, 747-8, would finish the Dreamliner in 4 years , decided 2020 is early enough for the 777X, the 737-9 is the ideal 757 replacement and the MAX will do fine for the next 15 years.
You have to respect the insight and history of the big OEM’s. Using your own common sense can be valuable too.
“looks like Airbus cedes the big twin 777 size market”
Maybe they are. Anyway the A350-900 just got certfied ETOPS 370 & production of the -1000 started a few months ago.
In the coming years Cathay Pacific, Singapore, JAL, Asiana, Qatar, Ethihad, Lufthansa, British Airways, Airfrance/KLM, Delta, United and American Airlines will start flying A350s on their networks.
That’s what I’m thinking too. Plus, why do wider more comfortable jets keep winning over the cramped ones? Ejet over CRJ, A320 over 737, Delta order for A330/350 over 787. I’m not seeing the stampede towards the 777x, probably a similar trajectory as the A380 or 748, early excitement and then demand is filled.