Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
MOM market depends on price, says Air Lease Corp
June 9, 2015, c. Leeham Co. The Middle of the Market (MOM) airplane seems next up on the development plate. Air Lease Corp (ALC) is a major player in the development of any new airplane, and president John Plueger said the size of the market will depend greatly on the price of the airplane.
During a short interview on the sidelines of the conference, Plueger didn’t name a price but said the more expensive the airplane, the market could be as few as 800. The less expensive, the market could be as much as 1,200-1,600 airplanes. Either market isn’t big enough for Airbus and Boeing to play in this space, but Boeing–lagging in the single-aisle sector with the 737 MAX 9 to the Airbus A321neo–has to do something, Plueger said.
If the MAX was doing well, Boeing wouldn’t have to do anything, Plueger said. He sees the MOM entering service around 2023 or 2024, which means Boeing would have to launch the program in 2016 or 2017. However, as long as Jim McNerney is CEO of Boeing, Plueger isn’t confident Boeing will proceed.
McNerney, 66, is widely believed to plan his retirement after Boeing’s 100th Anniversary next summer. Although McNerney has said Boeing won’t do any more “moon shots,” this is understood to mean creating and implementing a host of new technologies at the same time, not that Boeing won’t do another new airplane incorporating existing technologies.
A321LR
ALC was the launch customer for the Airbus A321LR, the long-range version of the A321neo incorporating up to three auxiliary fuel tanks. ALC ordered 30 airplanes and Plueger said ALC has lease contracts in place for some of them.
United Airlines says the A321LR is too small–it carries five fewer passengers than United’s international Boeing 757s–and last week an American Airlines official echoed United. AA’s 757s carry 179 passengers to United’s 169 configuration. The A321LR in a match up to United’s configuration carriers 164 passengers. LNC hasn’t done a comparison to AA’s international configuration.
AA and UA are the largest operators of the 757 across the Atlantic.
Plueger shrugged off the two carriers’ complaint. He predicts new orders will be coming from the Asian market. He acknowledged the A321LR isn’t the perfect replacement for the 757 but says it comes close.
He also said Airbus learned from the corporate A319 ACJ, which uses aux tanks but of a simpler design from those used in A321s to-date. The aux tanks planned for the A321LR are smaller and easier to install or remove. Conversion can be accomplished within 24 hours, he said.
What’s the market, add up the 757, 767, A300, and A310, and then some more for growth in air travel since 1985. If the 787 and A350 hit 14/mo, the MOM is good for that. Ballpark 3,000 total. If they design a 180′ single aisle, that will probably sell about as well as a CRJ1000, IMO.
bardoadao.com the market, add up the 757, 767, A300, and A310, and then some more for growth in air travel since 1985. If the 787 and A350 hit 14/mo, the MOM is good for that. Ballpark 3,000 total. If they design a 180′ single aisle, that will probably sell about as well as a CRJ1000, IMO
Complete junk comments. Spam obviously
Agree with Ted on the market size.
United concluded the 757 lacks the range for reliable transatlantic flights and is withdrawing them -> So the A321LR also lacks the range for reliable transatlantic flights.
However the 757 specs aren’t keeping Leahy awake at night. Airbus sold 2400 A321s already (2 times total 757 production) before A321NEO first flight and not a single one is aimed at the Atlantic.
US Transcon, Caribbean, EMEA, Asia, network & leisure is where we’ll see them. (3500NM from HKG)
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=&R=3500NM%40HKG+&MS=wls&MR=900&MX=540×540&PM=*
Any MoM aircraft will probably be something like:
– Common fuselage barrels to the next gen single-aisle.
– Common wingbox (with potentially designed reinforcing points) to the next gen single-aisle.
– Mostly common wing structure to the next gen single aisle, but with extension to the the non-swept trailing edge.
– Non-common u/c to the next gen single-aisle.
– Non-common empennage to the next gen single-aisle.
The most productive use of the R&D would be to fork the product in 2 directions.
150-220 seats: wing A
220:280 seats: wing B
With the long range variants using wing B and the shorter “wingB option” fuselages.
A 280 seat single aisle is an awful long aircraft, but I would expect there to be a market for it, on missions up to 3,000 nm. The likes of Ryanair would eat it up as a big-small mix to their fleet.
The ‘single aisle 280 seat’ was the DC-8-61 and its CFM derivative which was 57m long. An A321 is 44.5 while 752 is 47.3 and 753 is 54.5m.
Max density at the time was 259 but with new ‘thin’ seats im sure it could have been around 290 by today’s standards.
The 757-300 was certified to 295 max passengers
An optimal clean sheet single aisle might look a lot like an A321, 150′ and 90t. The 787 is 250t. If the MOM is close to 150t, that might not have too much in common with a new single aisle. I think the MOM needs to be its own plane, not another plug and play F-35.
The days are gone you could compromise a fuselage for various different applications. A MOM fuselage/ wingbox would get outclassed around 150 seats.
“Boeing says airline requirements for a potential 757 replacement or middle-of-the-market (MOM) sector aircraft are coalescing on performance targets that will not only be tough to reach but also challenging to meet in a modular design that could also be scaled down to replace the 737. ”
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-reveals-challenging-757-replacement-requirements
Every ones fav topic 🙂
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-how-will-boeing-fill-a-757-sized-hole-412719/
Issue is, Airbus has a slightly larger, container carrying alternative that can be bumped up without investing 10 billion/ 8 years. A lean new wing, 40k lbs GTF, 5 extra rows. No rocket science.
http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00015369.jpg
I think boeing should consider a 757-300NG OR 767-200NG
What would be potenial changes:
First of all new ge9x. A ge9x technology engine is about 20 percent more fuel efficient than CF6.
Secondly a reskin al-li fuselge
Finally a redesigned wing 787 aluminium lithium. It could be built on the existing production line and cost about 3-4 billion instead of 10-12
1) The GE9X is way to big for the 757/767. It was designed for the 777X which is much bigger.
2) The 787 wing is way to big for a 757 and even for the 767-200.
3) The 757 production doesn’t exist anymore
4) You can’t just mix different aircraft parts (787 wing, 777X engine, 757 fuselage) like that. You need to consider global integration, systems, etc.
5) The 757 fuselage design is very old, no need to keep it, better go with a clean sheet design.
6) What you suggest will be very expensive, redesigned fuselage, redesigned wing, integration of a new engines, new hydraulic system, new pneumatic system, new flight control system, new electrical system, etc.
The days are gone you could compromise a fuselage for various different applications. A MOM fuselage/ wingbox would get outclassed around 150 seats.
I think boeing should consider a 757-300NG OR 767-200NG
What would be potenial changes:
First of all new ge9x. A ge9x technology engine is about 20 percent more fuel efficient than CF6.
Secondly a reskin al-li fuselge
Finally a redesigned wing 787 aluminium lithium. It could be built on the existing production line and cost about 3-4 billion instead of 10-12
1) The GE9X is way to big for the 757/767. It was designed for the 777X which is much bigger.
2) The 787 wing is way to big for a 757 and even for the 767-200.
3) The 757 production doesn’t exist anymore
4) You can’t just mix different aircraft parts (787 wing, 777X engine, 757 fuselage) like that. You need to consider global integration, systems, etc.
5) The 757 fuselage design is very old, no need to keep it, better go with a clean sheet design.
6) What you suggest will be very expensive, redesigned fuselage, redesigned wing, integration of a new engines, new hydraulic system, new pneumatic system, new flight control system, new electrical system, etc.
azucareranyc.com The days are gone you could compromise a fuselage for various different applications. A MOM fuselage/ wingbox would get outclassed around 150 seats.
The ‘single aisle 280 seat’ was the DC-8-61 and its CFM derivative which was 57m long. An A321 is 44.5 while 752 is 47.3 and 753 is 54.5m chanlluusale.co
Namevffvfv is obvious an semi automatic spam machine spreading irrelavent links to generate traffic. Pls delete.