Boeing releases more NMA details

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: thebozeian

United just converted 100 aircraft into the 10.

It looks like of the 240 orders, 90 are new the rest being conversions from a variety of airlines. I'm wondering if the slight extra range of the A321Neo is less important to many carriers than previously thought.

a reply to: FredT

There were a couple new orders, but with the exception of Lion Air at 50, it was 10 and 20 lots. It's selling far better than I expected it would honestly.

GE has announced that if Boeing goes with all three engine manufacturers, they will drop out of the engine program for the new aircraft. They said that the market share that comes from more than one or two manufacturers isn't worth getting involved.

Boeing has said they'd have extensive use of composites in the wings and fuselage. They're looking to push the envelope with the new aircraft, while using proven techniques and technology at the same time to reduce the chance of having the problems they saw with the 787 development.

The interesting part was discussion about the engines. The question of surpassing the current standard of 10:1 bypass ratios came up, and it was confirmed that a significantly higher ratio can be met. The comment was made that manufacturers have more options that using a gearbox to decouple the rotation speeds of the LPT and fan blades.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thats a good looking plane. Kind of like the offspring of a 787 and 757.

I can see GE's point. This is not going to have the volume of a 737/A320 line and the R&D for this will be significant. That being said, that R&D will pay dividends in the future and GE may fin itself behind the curve.

On the other hand while it was not popular I wonder if they would single source it like the 777 with the GE90. I wonder if GE is posturing to do just that

a reply to: Zaphod58

A 757 2.0, you say? With over 100,000 lbs of thrust, you say?

You have no idea how excited I am about this...

a reply to: FredT
I think thats exactly it Fred in this segment, seat count and operating cost is more important than range. 737's for the most part dont fly at max range so getting more bums on seats is seen as the greater priority.

As for NMA, when I first glanced at the picture Zaphod put up I immediately saw 767, dont know why. Second look and I could see 787. 757, 767 and even a little Max in there. I'm starting to really wonder if they can downsize it to replace the 737.

originally posted by: thebozeian
a reply to: FredT
I'm starting to really wonder if they can downsize it to replace the 737.

Southwest has been clamoring for a two-aisle 737 replacement for years, because of what it could do to slash their turnaround times.

With that in mind, I'd be shocked if a shortened, "A310-ified" version of the NMA with a smaller wing and engines doesn't end up replacing the 737.

originally posted by: thebozeian
I'm starting to really wonder if they can downsize it to replace the 737.

Maybe. for sure they will leverage the technology for the new narrow isle that replaces the 737 and perhaps build a small single isle and perhaps make it very similar to the 767/757 which had a similar type rating

a reply to: Barnalby

Southwest just tested a dual exit system for their aircraft. If it works for them, it may expand to other airlines. They said that early results are good for both on time, and passenger experience.

From Boeing's presentation about the 797 it shows the comparison between the 787 and the 737

a reply to: FredT

Or, if Boeing REALLY feels like shaking things up, they could use a two-aisle NMA derivative to replace the 737-8/9/10, while building a smaller single-aisle variant to replace the 737-7, with shorter versions to go after the Embraer E-Jets.

It's kind of amusing, because, much like this forum, Qatar and Emirates, the two biggest influences in commercial aviation, have radically d different views of the future.

The head of Qatar, Akbar Al Baker, sees no need for Boeing to develop the NMA, and believes Boeing needs to concentrate on the 787.

www.flightglobal.com...

Meanwhile, Tim Clark, president of Emirates, really likes what he's hearing about the NMA. He doesn't necessarily think it's right for Emirates, and thinks it's risky because airlines are averse to taking risk, but he likes what he's seen from Boeing so far.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Honestly, Qatar's probably too concerned with mastering the logistics of operating out of a cratered moonscape, should their home base and main hub wind up becoming the latest test range for Saudi Arabia and the UAE's new toys, to care about Boeing's latest offering in a market segment that's not part of their business model in the first place.

Throwing a (figurative) bomb at the stock price of the company who just made a bunch of cash selling the F-15s that would likely be dropping those (literal) bombs on their runways is probably just them having a bit of fun.

a reply to: Barnalby

I've noticed over the years that Qatar is seriously entrenched when it comes to new aircraft. They have very specific ideas, usually along the lines of "well this design worked fine before, why reinvent the wheel?" They would be perfectly happy with a 747 sized 737 flying around, as long as there's enough power for them to launch it at MTOW regardless of temperature.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You mean, you DON'T want to see Boeing try to build a 737MAX-11 that's as long as a DC-8 Super 61?

Where's your sense of adventure...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well entrenched is another word for risk adverse. For an airline those planes represent a serious capital expenditure so the cautious route once establish is often what companies do. It ends up killing them in the long run like XEROX, PAN AM, Apple (part one) and eventually Part 2 etc etc.

One of the few companies to avoid this has been IBM and while its not the behemoth it once was it is still in business and it has reinvented itself many times over

a reply to: FredT

Of course they are, they have to be. But at some point, you need to take a chance. You can't just keep going with the same designs, and improving engines, or stretching fuselages forever.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But many wont and that will be their undoing in the long run. The Primes are also to blame trying to wring out every ounce of profit which is their reason for being. The primes are in a better spot because they get to sell to whoever takes the airlines place.

a reply to: FredT

They're going to reach the point where they aren't taking the risk, and the one that does take it is going to corner the market and win big.

Interesting comments about the NMA.

Clark says he was shown the design during the concept stage and liked what he saw: "With its design optimised for low-cost and fast turnarounds with twin-aisles and lower freight volume, I have to say I was pretty impressed, although not perhaps for us."

Support from the leasing sector will be crucial and Avolon chief executive Domhnal Slattery gave the programme the thumbs up: "There’s no question in our mind and has been for a long time that there’s a very significant opportunity in terms of market size," he says. "We’ll do our own work pretty soon. But that’s an airplane we will be 100% behind in due course when Boeing’s ready to have that conversation."

Air Lease chief executive John Plueger says that it is vital that Boeing hits the demand sweetspot between single-aisle and widebody markets: "The key to making the '797' successful – at the right price - is that the total units produced over the life of the programme needs to be around 5,000 to ensure that the type achieves higher production volume than current twin-aisle aircraft, but lower than current single-aisle rates,” he says.

www.flightglobal.com...