Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- 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
Boeing cash flows generously, KC-46A snarfs up some of it
By Dan Catchpole
July 25, 2018, © Leeham News: The cash keeps flowing at Boeing. The aerospace giant posted free cash flow of $4.3bn for the second quarter of the year, despite recording $426m in costs related to its delay-ridden KC-46 tanker program.
Despite posting strong earnings, the charge rattled investors, who drove Boeing’s share price down in early trading Wednesday.
Boeing continues to work on closing the business case for its New Midsize Airplane (NMA), a business case unlike any the company has done before, Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said in a conference call with reporters and investment analysts.
NMA business case
“We’re looking at it both from an airplane and downstream services standpoint, so an integrated lifecycle view,” Muilenburg said. “Again, where can we create value for customers?”
The flip side of that question is where can Boeing create future revenue opportunities?
“Depending on the customer set, there’s a different value proposition for different airlines,” Muilenburg said. “In some cases, we can reduce operating costs, in some
Dennis Muilenburg. Photo via Google images.
cases we can help them reduce capital investment costs. So, we’re factoring that entire equation into our business case.
“It does give us more parameters to look at, more ways to construct a business case for the future, and taking that wholistic lifecycle view, you know, just gives us a more robust business case,” he said.
Capitalizing on lifecycle services revenue could be key to getting the NMA to pencil out. Plenty industry insiders privately express skepticism about the business case for the NMA. The day before the Farnborough air show began, Boeing said it would put off deciding on the NMA to 2019.
Sticking with 2025 EIS
However, the company insists it will still deliver the plane in 2025.
Boeing is “doing the appropriate long-lead work to protect that 2025 EIS,” Muilenburg said during Wednesday’s conference call.
The company sees a market for 4,000 to 5,000 airplanes.
Boeing’s increased integration of services and aircraft sales will affect how the company sells the NMA, the CEO said. It will influence “how we can tailor a value proposition for different customers, and it will drive different ways for how you might design such an airplane.”
If Boeing launches the NMA, its engineers will incorporate digital capabilities and flexibility into the design of the aircraft, “so that it can enable optimized services for customers,” Muilenburg said.
“It’s not only something that factors into the business case, but it also factors into how we design the airplane,” he said.
Muilenburg did not give any more insight into where Boeing is with settling on a narrowbody or widebody design for the NMA. Customers want a widebody with narrowbody economics, “and that’s frankly the challenge of closing the business case,” he said. “It goes back to all the work we’re doing on transforming our enterprise to drive efficiency in development, production and support. And if we build the confidence and the data we need to make a business case that closes, we’ll launch, and if we don’t, we’ll continue down the path with our current product lines.”
He reiterated, “it’s important that we get (the business case) right, and we’re going to take the time to get it right.”
Focused, disciplined
Muilenburg and Boeing CFO Greg Smith struck a cautious tone during the call, repeatedly underscoring that the company was not overextending itself.
When asked about 737 production rate increases, Muilenburg said Boeing is “very focused on being disciplined about our rate decisions in our production ramp up,” despite consistent market pressure to increase output.
President Donald Trump’s mention of a “space force” drew praise from Muilenburg during the call.
“I’m very encouraged by what I see as the administration leaning forward on investing in space,” including space exploration and militarization.
Space contains growth opportunities for Boeing going forward, from low orbit satellites to deep space exploration, he said. “We’re going to continue to lean forward in that business. It is an important investment area for us.”
The first two 777X production planes are in low-rate production. The 777X program is the primary driver behind a $1bn increase in inventory during the second quarter of the year. The 737 ramp also contributed.
The tanker charges broke down across Boeing’s three revenue divisions. Commercial airplanes posted a $307m charge, while defense posted $111m in higher costs. Boeing Global Services also reported an $8m charge related to the tanker program, reported Bloomberg.
“Management has previously expressed confidence that there would be no more tanker charges, and yet they keep coming,” Rod Stallard, an investment analyst with Vertical Research Partners, noted in a research note on Boeing’s quarterly earnings.
Quote: “…And if we build the confidence and the data we need to make a business case that closes, we’ll launch, and if we don’t, we’ll continue down the path with our current product lines.”
First time I see “if we don’t”,
Another Sonic Cruiser (?), I hope not.
KR
Airboe
Funny way to do a business case…. to me it sounds like fluff on a new project, in IT its called vapourware
That’s exactly the right word: “Vapourware”.
1) No engine: GE/CfM, RR and PW have sent in their “proposals” which means they have not even started development.
2) No technology to make a low cost oval CFRP fuselage.
3) No factory to produce said oval CFRP fuselage.
“Protect” EIS in 2025? Well, that’s the easy part of it, because you don’t need to protect something that simply doesn’t exist. Who do they think they are kidding?
They mean something like $2000 spark plugs with Boeing pn’s only. Or the B-1 toilet chairs and ash trays for x times their purchase price to protect revenue according some formulas for indirect cost. You can easily upset customers like Honeywell did before Boeing kicked them out from the 787.
Boeing has the opportunity to design a new aircraft to fit exactly the market segment they will define. Is there vacant space between the 737 and 787? Of course there is. And this space will not be exactly filled by the A321neo and A330neo combo.
A new airplane for a new market segment will create its own market, just as the 787 did.
So, enough with all the buzzwords and… Just Do It!
There may well be a gap between narrow bodies and wide bodies but that doesn’t mean it is feasible to develop an aircraft platform to fill that gap.
The gap exists due to the laws of physics and they don’t bend too easily.
When Boeing launched the 787 there was a clearly defined market – this is not the case for the NMA where there is a wide and diverse range of requirements from airlines around the globe as to cargo capacity and range.
A new 783 wont work – way too much structure and a 321XLR would eat it alive in terms of CASM.
Boeing’s constant emphasis on after market services suggests that they would sell the aircraft at a loss and recoup that loss through future support services. The extensive digitisation of such services may be used to construct a closed system where Boeing chooses who does future MRO and other services and they will choose themselves first.
Such a process of locking in future revenue streams may sufficiently mitigate the project risk for the board of directors (who have had enough of “moon shots”) to give it their seal of approval.
“Boeing’s constant emphasis on after market services suggests that they would sell the aircraft at a loss and recoup that loss through future support services. The extensive digitisation of such services may be used to construct a closed system where Boeing chooses who does future MRO and other services and they will choose themselves first.”
Why would any leasing company or large airline order a plane like that?
Exactly, this is what Boeing Global Services is for. Leasing companies and big airlines can order large quantities in order to reduce their subscription fee.
Subscription fee?
It worked with engines (power by the hour), maybe it could work for planes.
However the value of the plane after say 12-18 years will be highly influenced by how open the maintenance market is at that time. Boeing dominated MRO options with Boeing actively blocking others to step in, does not bode well.
A lot of the larger airlines have maintenance capabilities they make money on (by doing work for other airlines). They wouldn’t consider buying a plane if Boeing blocks them from the maintenance business on that platform.
Boeing wouldn’t block airlines with MRO capabilities, but simply increase the initial purchase price for them. So the respective airline CFOs can do the math and decide which financing model suits them best.
For lessors, however, this model of financing a plane might turn out lucrative (in case the capital market does not react with more favourable offers).
Generating the revenue over the life span of the plane rather than at the POS comes with risk, of course. I assume that the decision not to use CFR materials for the fuselage is a risk avoidance strategy in that regard. From a Boeing management perspective this concept is highly appealing, too, because any flaws would land on the desks of their successors.
So you expect an airline with MRO capabilties to pay more for an airplane. Which they would have to recoup years later by getting MRO work done for airlines that got a larger discount, while Boeing aims to be their main competitor to get any of that work.
We’re talking about Delta, AF/KLM, Lufhansa, IAG (BA, Iberia), Air China, Etihad etc. I think the idea of them having to pay more is not gonna fly well with them.
There have never been a wide body that could take the hard cycling economically. Now with Carbon fiber it might be the right time for the aircraft structure and make landing gears of Inco 718 instead of stress corrosion sensitve HSS. Engines are a different story, to make a 50k engine that can stay on wing for 15 000 cycles has not been done before. They often they struggle to get 1500 cycles on wing initially.
BernardP – “A new airplane for a new market segment will create its own market, just as the 787 did.” And what was that segment called? The ‘Middle of the Market’ — funny, that…
There is some good insight here and then just negatives.
The A321XXXXXXXX anything can’t bridge that gap, it was done once and was called a 757. The gap filler -300 did not sell well.
What you have is a conundrum. Single aisle can’t fill it and wide body are two expensive to build for a market area that has single aisle economics.
Its very possible the indsury experts are right and you simply cna’t do it.
Its also for certain that Airbus can’t fill it with A321 or the A330. One can’t be stretched that far and one is the same old too heavy for the mission.
The 777 started out as a 3 engine aircraft.
All designs morph.
The Sonic Cruiser was a starting point that had interested (NMA maybe) but could not make the economics case.
It did turn into the highly successful 787. A lot of the tech for the Sonic Cruiser was the basis of the 787.
So, the NMA may be no more than a pattern for the next actual aircraft build.
That is how that industry works.
How many iterations of A330 modified did we go through before they gave up and said FINE, we will make the A350?
And then Wallaa! We get the A330 mk 4 after all.!
You just don’t know do you?
The B757-300 might not have sold well, because of a cycle in the aerospace / airline industry. I wonder if a B757-300 has a good resale value? Trouble is they made so few of them, and they are all being used to probably their fullest extent.
Agree, you can only push the single aisle that far.
There is a big gap between the A321 and 789, hope AB realizes that an A330LiteMkX is not the answer.
In 10-15 years airlines would like to replace A321’s with “small” twin aisles (~250 seats?) due to growth, airspace and airport limitations.
Engines the question, but hopefully BA (and maybe AB) and the the engine manufacturers catch up on this. Just get on with it, the market could surprize.
In the East Comac/Irkut is developing the C919/MC21 and C929, still leaving the NMA/MoM position up for grabs.
The real issues is improvements in the air frame structure being able to return its share to the overall.
Engines can be had that are good, but you need something like Sugar, High, Low or other.
And clearly the mfg price has to be single aisle and that is a tough thing to do. Impossible probably.
Boeing did the 787 instead of the Sonic Cruiser.
It was a wise move.
A necessary move. the Sonic Cruiser phase was in a way prerequisite.
The down conversion of all that agglomeration of high tech speed to the “super efficient” Dreamliner was a core helper in its sales success. ( Don’t tell that the best part of gains is from just the engines.)
the whole premise of the sonic cruiser was that new engines meant you could fly 20% faster for the same fuel cost as the plane being replaced (767-300er)
customers said “screw speed, show me the money” and they scaled back the dream to same speed, 20% less gas.
And used the same tech base on composites and much more electric to do so.
Bilbo – quite right; the early/mid-70s ‘energy crisis’ design sported a relatively slow cruise (Mach 0.80, was it?) to re3duce SFC. So when airlines started extending range, for which Boeing briefly proposed (and one carrier ordered) the 6,500nm-range ‘Longer Range 767-400ER,’ or -400ERX, flight times were getting pretty long – hence thoughts turned to speed. Although the Sonic Cruiser ‘offer’ invited understanding that the speed came without extra fuel cost, I seem to remember that post-cancellation references usually acknowledged a slight SFC increase. Of course, the 787 also returned to a more-conventional M0.85 cruise speed.
The issue IMHO is how much share can Boeing hope for in a 4-5000 aircraft market. There is a healthy skepticism regarding that number, and a revamped A321XLR is probably good for 2,000 frames?
Well the longer 757-300 did not go over very well so how long can you make a single aisle before it become non viable?
The issue with the B757 stretch was not the layout / floor area or the loading arrangements it was the lack of range.
It suited one group of customers looking for passenger capacity above all else and who were happy to put up with weaker performance in other areas.
The MoM’ster debate is rapidly turning into a one trick pony — range.
The A321 and its 50T OEW is now the standard for efficiency and capability at the moment — and the hurdle it places on any BA MoM competitor is getting higher by the minute.
The A321 XLR looks like a low cost, low risk parts bin special to nail another headline number to its advertising strapline.
The current A321 LR looks to be sniffing around a nominal 4500 NM figure for its brochure range — doesn’t matter if the passenger load is reduced to 170 it is the range figure that counts.
Then you have the 500 NM gap that the XLR needs to conjure up so that the market will take notice — is a figure of 5K NM that outlandish for a A321 carrying another 4T / 5K litres of fuel?
A321 XLR — out with the ACTs in with proper tanks.
A 3T increase in MTOW to a nice round 100T figure means another 4T of fuel onboard.
Consequently AB is in full incremental mode on this front.
Finally for 70 / 75T OEW — what arrangement is more efficient as well as being more capable?
SA vs TA?
My money is on the SA.
No, its not range that counts. Its revenue.
If your 170 pax don’t pay the bill, then its non viable.
That is abo8ut what Singapore is going to do with an A350-900, all of 170 some.
But that is two wealthy cities and assume they know what they are doing and market.
If you can carry 250 though, that is double the revenue (MOM) and on single aisle economics.
How many markets does it open up?
As noted, prior to the 787 we did not have Nariata to San Jose or Narita to Boston and there are a bunch more like that.
Fourth attempt so please be patient.
Revenue goes up as the number of passengers goes down.
Lie down business is 5/6 times economy revenue while using only 4 times economy space.
Win win as the reducing payload helps increase the fuel load and the range.
A321 floor area with a 4 class interior runs to about 150 seats with facillities for a 10 hour flight has the potential to generate the revenue equivalent of 230 economy fares.
That is 20 plus more than a one class only at — long haul friendly — 32″ pitch.
Great aircraft for Glesga to greet the world.
See an A321XLR market (4500Nm-180 pax?) as <1000. The big market could be the illusive "A322" with 2 extra seats rows in economy, 2nd access door in front of the wing, new CAT-C CFRP wing, 3500Nm range with 220 pax, 102T MTOW.
Put the new wing on an A320+ ("325"), and keep the current wing on the 320 and 321's for LCC's.
Is Boeing up for a repeat of what happened when it was about to build a new narrow body and thinking the market would wait for them only to be forced to revert back to incremental design of the 737? Bad news is incremental opportunities are all but exhausted.
Yes, they can’t build the “incremental design” fast enough.
Really bad move on Boeing’s part.
No question Boeing would be far better off with a new 737 two generation ago.
They boxed themselves in and the engineers made it work.
I would rather have the A321 than the 737-10 thank you.
Maybe says a lot for the sad state of structures and design that only new engine help, air-frames don’t that much.
if a company had the cojones to try an unconventional configuration, airframe could make a huge contribution.
CFRP/double bubble/canard/overwing engines would give a gigantic drag reduction and increase in L/D ratio
10 wide based on A320 diameter bubbles would kill the 777/a350 while still providing plenty of LD3-45 cargo space
similarly an 8 wide based on E190/A220 fuselage diameter would be a MOMster that would kill in the 762 – A332 space
Again (for me), two points surface on BA: 1) who’s “walking the plank” at Boeing for this continuing KC46 fiasco, now pushing $3 bil, after tax; and 2) “incrementalism is your friend”, and “no more moonshots”: time to take the 787-9, cut the fuselage down by 16 frames (32’j, and derate sole source Genxs to 60,000 to 62,000 lbs thrust. Voila, a 767-300X/high end NMA!
The question is how much it will cost and how much fuel it will use.
It would be too much airplane for the job with huge range.
If anything, they can revive 787-3 with smaller wings as well.
Let me be more specific on who I had expected would be fired for this KC46 program fiasco: Ms. Leanne Caret. The losses, per Dominic Gates, Seattle Times, now actually total $3.3 bil, AFTER TAX. (See his article online today.) They’ve mostly occurred under her BA Defense unit leadership. At some point, Muilenburg looks like/becomes a complete idiot with his recurring, quarterly bleatings about how these program losses have ended. Hello, any one on the BA board want to provide executive management oversight? (Some day BA’s going to wake up and find itself facing a giant class action lawsuit for fraud with these ongoing, Muilenburg program public pronouncements.) On the NMA, my 767-300X/“787-11” would be priced at or near $100 million per plane—per 10 or more fleet buy. It would be considerably lightened with 16 fewer fuselage frames, and tankage reduced so range wouldn’t exceed 5, 500 nautical. A deal would be cut with GE for engine exclusivity. It would not hold more than 240 pax, United style configuration. So, it’s no short range, Japanese market-serving, 290–300 pax 787-3.
The airframe is still heavy and United can put in 240 because they have 16 more section to work with.
Do you not think Boeing would have done this if it was possible?
The same people that have stretched the 737 into the 22nd century ?
If Boeing doesn’t do the NMA, then I assume the next aircraft will be a 738 to A321+ replacement. Two lengths, about 135′ and 150′, for 175 passengers and 200′ in mixed class respectively. Folding wing, CFRP fuse, 2033 EIS? Why wait so long, what to do or talk about in the mean time? That’s one peripheral reason to launch the NMA.
Agreed on the next likely one.
At issue though is you can sell thousands of 737s for high profit.
A new aircraft has to sell at the same or lower prices as an A320 series and you get no profits for the 12 billion investments for a long long long time.
The best move would be an A321 competitor that is intended to be shrunk a bit.
EMB will come up with the A220 competitor that takes over the -8 area.
Boeing had the 727, then 757, now the 797 is in the works. The 727 was a gas guzzler by the end, the 757 became to expensive to operate vs A321 (just the difference in Engine maintenence cost between the RB211-535E4 and CFM56-5B), so the 797 need to become an ecnomic and reliable horse to take over the A321neo + 767-200/A310 market, the Engines are key to this I Think.
Not to expensive to buy, still very reliable and fuel efficient. The risk is the opposite, very expensive to buy fully QEC’d, expensive to send thru shop OVH (>7 MUD + LLP’s) and reliable as the first version of the PW2000’s.
I’m thinking Boeing should have engineers dusting off 787-3 plans as the solution for their NMA and save their $$$$$$ for a true clean sheet replacement for the 737 program
I agree with Marc Newman:
Optimize the 787 airframe for lighter loads,
New optimized 2020 wing a la 787-3 style
Should be ready for delivery by 2025
And further Down the road a new optimized narrowbody, that takes over where the E-195 ends.
Kr/ Airboe
Twice. About twice as heavy, capable and priced as an A321. Like going to the supermarket with a Hummer.
I took a look (again) last year. It would probably be inefficient on anything less then a 3 hours flight, less than 280 passengers. And that’s a lot, the challenge is IMO on the bottom side of the segment. Can it be competitive there.
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1358167
Yep, 787 lite is wishful thinking. It ain’t going to fly
Keesje:
You do realize a great many people in the US indeed go the Supermarket with things even bigger than a Hummer.
They now have pickups off Class 8 Truck chassis!
Not to mention the Motor Home behemoutsn, sort of like something out of Jurassic era when large things stalked the Earth.
I can’t wait for the MRAP.
Since there remain a “certain” number of major or class 1 issues still unresolved regarding the KC 46 performance per USAF, I see no reason the cost overruns will stop any time soon… the gift that keeps on giving.
Additionally will the customer exact any penalties for late delivery?
The fixed price contract presumably includes some mechanism to address this and USAF must be getting a little hot under its blue collar.😤
Is cancellation for lack of performance an option?👎
I think there is one more good round of costs.
I have yet to see a penalty clause. Talk about it but if its not in the contract then they can’t do it.
Are the customers extracting any penalties for the A400M fiasco?
That was a whole new plane, with fly by wire everything and a whole new advanced engine..
The KC-46 was new what exactly ? Ohh ..a 787 style cockpit. To be fair the whole refueling system was new, digital flying boom, controllable trailing drogues. The rest of the plane was just a 767-300F with a bit shorter cabin.
To me the recurring problem of the 787 management and the follow on KC46 after the 747-8 issues.
Im not even sure Boeing can do a whole new plane again, no wonder the executives have such big eyes for ‘plane servicing’
I suspect the KC-46A needed quite a bit of modifications to systems and routings to meet all USAF spec’s especially regarding fire zones, protection and fire suppression. One stray bullet should not take it down as could be the case on a Commercial 767 or the Italian/Japanese KC767’s.
The A330MRTT migh have some of it but I suspect they would be really busy meeting all the requirements in a KC-45. Most likley they will do an A330neoMRTT pretty soon and be closer to the full USAF spec’s.
I see Cobham is severely impacted as well as B is spreading the pain to them for issues with the underwing pods.
Makes the OEM and supplier relationship a whole new bed of nails.
Also for a refueling platform, if the boom bumps the receiver AC and the pods flutter there should be some mission inefficiency…
apparently, the boom-strike issue is “no worse” than the existing platforms. problem is, they sold the AF that it would be better and it needs to be better to protect the shape and coatings on LO aircraft.
my understanding is that they have resolved the “tricky lighting conditions” issue and now it is just a matter of refining the control laws and training operators. this is really something that should be autonomous with human abort override for safety rather than directly human controlled anyway in normal circumstances. but the AF has very silly ideas about the need for man in the loop.
Jean-Pierre, Dhierin et al – Yes, this week Cobham (formerly Flight Refuelling) made a further £40 million provision (on top of £150 million earlier) against the contract, and – according to London’s The Times today – the supplier has said it faces ‘as yet unquantified [Boeing] damages assertions relating to the programme.,’ which the company (‘the most important thing we build is trust’) is disputing. Also, it says Boeing is not paying Cobham’s bills.
Especially the Italian KC-767 based on 767-200 had huge problems due to wing fluttering with pods. So this issue was well known ahead.
The USAF did expect problems during development and rated the Boeing development risk higher than for Northrop Grumman and Airbus. The risk was never related to money!
A330MRTTs are delivering fuel for years now via all ways even to USAF aircraft.
Especially Northrop Grumman was well aware of the necessary specs and told Airbus. Boeing way of acting was hybris.
I just read the MRTT boom is now controlled automatically to accurate contact with receiver. Perhaps this could be licensed?😎
Do you have a citation?
Its the idea and the US Navy is going there but as far as I know, its not been done.
There’s a couple of videos of the automatic refueling system being tried out on the A310 MRTT testbed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPmdD3qeUsA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh2j_bJ5Z-s
Not sure if it is operational on the A330 MRTT yet.
“A330MRTTs are delivering fuel for years now via all ways even to USAF aircraft.”
Amusing… sort of like describing a 16 month old toddler as being alive “for years now.”
767 has been delivering fuel for years as well
Up to now no one has delivered fuel with eh KC-46 specifications build aircraft.
Or the A330MRT that took 5 years to get up to where it could do anything but fly passengers.
What is the problem with last quarter 787 deliveries?
DPC burned has significantly been reduced, and at that speed we will need another 2000 deliveries to balance the remaining 24B!
Clunky Rolls Royce engines result in undelivered, backlogged “gliders” on BA’s ramps.
There were more 787/RR delivered in Q2 than in Q1. Also any delay financial consequences will certainly be borne by RR?
Likely but Boeing is the one with the aircraft sitting there and or slowed up.
Worst mess up on an engine mfg I remember.
may be related to the first couple -10s which were probably sold cheap and are going to cost a bit more to build till they get the kinks worked out.
SIA was probably not the best deal indeed.
As the first was delivered in Q1, difficult to understand how the next 5 are worth 160M DPC degradation.
Isnt Boeing offering as part of new orders on certain models , money on the hood type of deals for more 787s to go with it.
Tough to gauge because Boeing extended the block from 1400 to 1500 during the quarter, so there is a bunch of “noise” in that number as 2018 Q2 takes a profitability hit to reflect changed profit assumptions on all prior deliveries. Next quarter should be back to “normal”.
The numbers in the Boeing presentation are operating cash flow, not free cash flow
Oh no — not that old trick.
Come 2025 or 2030 will the BA company be celebrating the $3bill share buy back or will they be cursing the lack of new product?
I have been cursing the lack of a 737RS for a lot of years now.
“snarf”
Love the colloquialism!
Snarf me up Scotty!
One basic question — why havent OEMs led the servicing / maintenance market for the aircraft they build?
As noted with the stringent schedules to carryout checks and do stuff there is no shortage of work.
So why has the user model taken off?
OEM charges too high?
Is there any mileage in the rumour and scuttlebut that suggests that the MoM’ster design as the worlds wimpiest TA is just a cover story for a MC-21 sized/scaled SA that will start off big and then recycle itself into a HV Max 200 sized offering to takeover from the 737 Mk4?
Engine requirements would suggest a 60T OEW offering that is more amenable to SA norms than TA numbers.
Just a thought.
MC-21 sizing seems to offer a lot of possibilities.
Plus the E-Jet 4 wide fuselage is currently jumping with sharks as it stretches itself past 42M long.
Needs a new layout ASAP.