Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Discussion of aviation issues which are not safety related (airline operations, pilot contracts, aviation industry news, etc.)

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
J
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby J » Wed Mar 08, 2017 2:49 pm

Boeing said it expects to launch a new larger version of the 737 MAX by year-end. But industry players are skeptical it will halt the dominance of the rival Airbus A321neo

San Diego, Calif. – Boeing said Monday it expects to launch a new larger variant of the 737 MAX family, the MAX 10, by year-end.

This latest chess move between Boeing and its great rival Airbus, which had been telegraphed for some time, aims at reducing Boeing’s growing lag in orders for the largest single-aisle jets. But there’s considerable skepticism in the industry that this new model will achieve that outcome.

Boeing vice president of marketing Randy Tinseth, speaking at the annual Americas conference of the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading (ISTAT) in San Diego, said the planemaker has extended business offers to some airlines that are possible launch customers for the new jet.

The MAX 10 will fit into a segment of the market where the Airbus A321neo has been dominating against the 737 MAX 9.

As a result, Boeing’s new 737 MAX family trails well behind Airbus’s new A320neo family. With almost 1,400 orders for the A321neo alone, Airbus has a total of just over 5,000 neos ordered, compared to about 3,600 MAXs
* * *
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... ry-doubts/

But then, maybe Boeing is moving to something a little larger with longer range:

United ‘very interested’ in Boeing MoM [middle of market] concept
United Airlines is very interested in Boeing’s potential middle-of-the-market aircraft, says chief financial officer Andrew Levy.

“It has a lot of merit and, if they decide to launch it, we’d be very interested in considering it,” he says at the ISTAT Americas conference in San Diego today.

Boeing’s middle-of-the-market, or MoM, will be a twin-aisle, Levy says – the first confirmation of the specs of the potential new aircraft.

He does not comment on whether the airframer is moving forward with the unconventional "ovular" fuselage cross-section that had been speculated.

“We continue to study what that airplane would look like,” a spokesman for Boeing says. “We’re having very productive conversations with our customers and firming up opportunities there.”

United needs an aircraft to replace a range of mid-market aircraft, including its transatlantic Boeing 757-200s up to its Boeing 767-400ERs. Scott Kirby, president of the airline, said in January that the 767 is the only aircraft in its fleet that it does not have “line of sight” to a replacement.

The carrier operates 48 757-200s, 21 757-300s, 35 767-300ERs and 16 767-400ERs, the Flight Fleets Analyzer shows.

The long-range variant of the Airbus A321neo has emerged as a replacement for transatlantic 757s at other carriers. Aer Lingus will lease seven A321LRs from Air Lease to replace its 757s with deliveries in 2019 and 2020.

“The A321 does a nice job but it doesn’t quite meet all the needs we have out of Newark, that being said the 757 didn’t either,” says Levy on the A321LR.

He notes that United likes the commonalities of aircraft families, as it has with the Boeing 737, 787 and 777s. The airline does operate the Airbus A319 and A320.

Boeing is looking at a MoM aircraft that would seat between 200 and 270 passengers with a range of 4,800nm to 5,200nm using some of the composite wing technology that it is developing for the 777X programme. The power range would likely be around 40,000lb-thrust.

If the programme is approved, it would enter service in 2024 or 2025, the spokesman says.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pt-434905/

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby 3WE » Wed Mar 08, 2017 4:09 pm

This calls for the standard, overly bold statement that Boeing wrongly shut down the 757 line with no apparent consideration and should revive it forthwith.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby Gabriel » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:29 am

This calls for the standard, overly bold statement that Boeing wrongly shut down the 757 line with no apparent consideration and should revive it forthwith.
the 757 didn’t either,”

elaw
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby elaw » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:03 pm

“The A321 does a nice job but it doesn’t quite meet all the needs we have out of Newark, that being said the 757 didn’t either,” says Levy on the A321LR.
What he really is trying to say is they need an aircraft that will fly from 10 to 1000 people any distance from 50 to 10,000 miles without burning any fuel. Also the a/c must be free and have no maintenance costs, and have 100% cockpit commonality with a type they already own so pilots do not have to be retrained.

Once one of the manufacturers supplies such an aircraft, everything will be fine. 8-)
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
J
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

797

Postby J » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:35 pm

Here is another take on the issue.

Boeing’s talking with airlines about a ‘797’, and they like what they hear
Excerpt:

Major players in the world of airplane finance said this week that Boeing seems keen to go ahead with a new jet sized between the largest single-aisle 737 and the smallest twin-aisle 787, and capable of carrying more than 200 passengers.

SAN DIEGO, Calif. — “Call it a 797,” said Steven Udvar-Hazy. “That’s what it’s going to be.”

Thanks to aviation-industry market guru Udvar-Hazy, chairman of Air Lease Corp., we can now dispense with the varied dreadful designations Boeing dredged up for its next all-new jet, from the MOM airplane (Middle of the Market) to the NMA (variously translated as New Mid-sized Airplane to New Market Airplane).

Forget it. Boeing is talking to airlines about its concept for the 797.

At ISTAT, the annual conference of the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading this week in San Diego, major players in the world of airplane finance indicated that Boeing is keen to go ahead with such a plane.
Sized between the largest single-aisle 737 and the smallest twin-aisle 787 Dreamliner, it’s an idea Boeing broached publicly at the 2015 Paris Air Show.

Such a plane wouldn’t enter service until 2025, but Boeing may launch it as early as next year.

While it was heavily discussed at last year’s ISTAT conference in Phoenix, Ariz., this year, Boeing chose to focus its presentation on the MAX 10, a new variant of the 737 MAX family, and left it to airlines and lessors to discuss 797 details.

The concept Boeing currently favors, airline executives said, is a twin-aisle jet that can carry more than 200 passengers with a medium range of about 5,200 miles.

At an ISTAT panel discussion, John Kirby, vice president of capacity planning at Alaska Airlines, expressed potential interest in buying such a plane.

Daniel Pietrzak, managing director of fleet transactions at Delta Air Lines, said it could be an ideal plane for transAtlantic routes.

And Andrew Levy, executive vice president and chief financial officer at United Airlines, said his company is looking for a plane that can fly from its Newark hub deep into Europe, say to Berlin. He said Boeing’s concept has “a lot of merit.”

Airbus sales chief John Leahy, also presenting at ISTAT, tried to knock the concept down by reminding the audience that smaller, lighter twin-aisles jets have failed before. He cited the Airbus A310 and the Boeing 767-200, saying that the drag and weight of those wide, twin-aisle planes produced worse per-seat economics than long single-aisle planes.

“Light twins will never compete with a stretched single-aisle,” Leahy declared, championing his own transAtlantic candidate, the single-aisle A321neo.

But John Plueger, chief executive of Air Lease Corp., said the aviation market has dramatically shifted since the days of the 767-200, with the rise of low-cost carriers that now are venturing into long haul routes.


The 797, he said, “could be the airplane that creates the next phase of growth for the low-cost carriers.”

Plueger, who along with Udvar-Hazy consults closely with Boeing on new airplane concepts, said Boeing executives are projecting a market for 5,000 of these airplanes.

“I get the sense within Boeing Commercial that they want to launch,” Plueger said.

Udvar-Hazy said the key to going forward will be development of a suitable engine with 40,000 to 45,000 pounds of thrust. He said he expects Boeing to offer a choice of two engines, likely one from GE and another potentially from a Pratt & Whitney/Rolls-Royce joint venture.

If Boeing does go ahead with this particular 797 concept, he said, he expects Airbus to respond not with an all-new airplane of its own but with a modification of its current airplanes.

“By the time this comes out, there’ll be thousands of A321s” in service, Udvar-Hazy said. “Why would Airbus just abandon that? I think the manufacturers will address the market from different directions.”

He expects Airbus to either fine-tune the wing of the A321 to improve its performance or to lighten the twin-aisle A330, reducing the maximum takeoff weight and engine thrust to suit the 797 missions.

Neither of those options would produce a jet as good as a clean-sheet concept, but both would be dramatically cheaper and so Airbus could expect to compete with lower pricing.

That would make cost the decisive factor for Boeing. It has to be able to manufacture the jet at a cost that allows the price airlines want to pay: around $70 or $80 million.

That’s a tall order for a twin aisle jet. If an airline today paid $100 million for the smallest 787 Dreamliner, it would be a steal.

As he always does when talking to Seattle-based reporters, Udvar-Hazy didn’t miss the chance to say that this again brings up the question of where Boeing will choose to build the plane.

“Do you build it in unionized Washington state, or somewhere else, like Texas or South Carolina?” Udvar-Hazy asked. He didn’t answer the question, though he brings it up so much one has to suspect he has a strong feeling on the matter — and doubts about Seattle.

That decision will be Boeing’s and the man who’ll make the business case to the board in Chicago is new Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief Kevin McAlister.

Given the super-expensive and much-delayed development of Boeing’s last all-new airplane, the 787 Dreamliner, McAlister will have to lay out for the board every technological and financial implication as well as the market potential.

“I spent the weekend with him,” said Udvar-Hazy. “I know he’s focused on it.”


http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... they-hear/

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Re: 797

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:30 am

Boeing seems keen to go ahead with a new jet sized between the largest single-aisle 737 and the smallest twin-aisle 787,
Ah, so the 797 would be a one and a half aisler? :?
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby 3WE » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:08 pm

“The A321 does a nice job but it doesn’t quite meet all the needs we have out of Newark, that being said the 757 didn’t either,” says Levy on the A321LR.
What he really is trying to say is they need an aircraft that will fly from 10 to 1000 people any distance from 50 to 10,000 miles without burning any fuel. Also the a/c must be free and have no maintenance costs, and have 100% cockpit commonality with a type they already own so pilots do not have to be retrained.

Once one of the manufacturers supplies such an aircraft, everything will be fine. 8-)
Let's hope Boeing AND Airbus make one so that we can debate their merits.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

elaw
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby elaw » Fri Mar 10, 2017 1:26 pm

Hmm...

BoBus? AirBoing?

:mrgreen:
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
Rabbi O'Genius
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:37 am
Location: Hauts de Seine

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby Rabbi O'Genius » Fri Mar 10, 2017 2:24 pm

Hmm...

BoBus? AirBoing?

:mrgreen:
Rabbi O'Genius... :o :idea:
......never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – John Donne

User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 1875
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 2:55 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby Gabriel » Sat Mar 11, 2017 3:35 pm

Airbus sales chief John Leahy, also presenting at ISTAT, tried to knock the concept down by reminding the audience that smaller, lighter twin-aisles jets have failed before. He cited the Airbus A310 and the Boeing 767-200, saying that the drag and weight of those wide, twin-aisle planes produced worse per-seat economics than long single-aisle planes.

“Light twins will never compete with a stretched single-aisle,” Leahy declared, championing his own transAtlantic candidate, the single-aisle A321neo.
This is true. The 767 had a 2-3-2 seat config (7) which has only 16% more seats per row than a single-aisle with 3-3, but twice the number of aisles and, when you square the diameter to convert it to area, a LOT more frontal area (and more wet area too) that increases drag. Also, a bigger diameter increases the thickness of the skin necessary to hold pressurization, and hence increasing weight. If the plane got tooooooo long, then the improved flex performance of a wider diameter may offset the other problems. But for a relatively small plane it is hard to believe that a twin aisle can be competitive (in price and operating cost) with a similar-sized, 16% longer single-aisle.

That said, pax appeal can be a factor. Typically, pax like a bigger diameter (feels less claustrophobic), twin aisles, and fewer middle seats (2-3-2 has 57% fewer middle seats than 3-3)

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 4853
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby 3WE » Sun Mar 12, 2017 12:39 am

7 is one more than 6
I haven't spent that much time on 767s and didn't consider how little you get for the bigger fat twin-aisle 767.

I thought the 767 replaced the L-1011 / DC-10...wrong again.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
PurduePilot
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:02 am
Contact:

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby PurduePilot » Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:52 am

This calls for the standard, overly bold statement that Boeing wrongly shut down the 757 line
Yes.
and should revive it forthwith.
No.

User avatar
J
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby J » Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:27 am

Video about the 797.

https://youtu.be/UNqGLUa280A

User avatar
J
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby J » Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:09 pm

Did Boeing Tip Plans To Introduce 797 At Farnborough On July 16?

Article states that Boeing has recently approached engine manufacturers for proposals for this prospective new aircraft. The A330 NEO is selling slowly and this might enliven things.

Excerpt:

•The chance that Boeing will introduce the 797 at Farnborough Air Show has jumped to more than 50%.

•An introduction announcement will start work on the engines and the aircraft itself, which is needed for risk reduction.

•The announcement should increase the price of Boeing stock.

Boeing (NYSE:BA) asked for final engine proposals for the 797 from GE (NYSE:GE), Rolls Royce (OTCPK:RYCEY) and United Technology (NYSE:UTX) by the end of June 27.

It helps to understand the 797 introduction from Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg's point of view. He will have the following considerations:

Boeing needs to announce at a major show with signed orders. The last aircraft announcement was at the Dubai November 2013 show, where Boeing’s CEO Jim McNerney walked away with orders worth $250 billion for the 787-10 and the 777X. Dubai is the home of the big operators of wide body airliners.

Boeing states that they may not go through with the 797, as they always do. Boeing also said that they need to complete the business plan for board approval. They need a manufacturing plan to present to the board. However, the board has to have extensively reviewed the 797. This is a $10 to $15 billion investment. It's also an investment that the industry is expecting. If they waited until the last minute, it would be managerial malpractice. Final approval of the introductions can be done on a conference call.

The most important market for the 797 will be at Farnborough. Singapore Air Show would work but it is seven months later. Randy Tinseth, Boeing VP Marketing, has said the 797 design is complete. But the manufacturing plan needs more work.

Engine reliability and availability are bigger problems than they appeared last fall. The geared turbo fans teething problem are well known. Despite Muilenburg’s carefully hedged statements, Boeing has problems with GE engines. The 737 Max engines are behind schedule and promised future production increases were blocked by GE’s joint venture partner. Boeing has covered the shortfall by producing more of the previous generation but they are running out of orders for the old design. The new engine for the 777X is flying but that version cannot be certified. Boeing also has 787s parked for lack of Rolls Royce engines. So while Boeing does not have the 100 planes without engines like Airbus, they are facing problems. The solution to these problems is more development. An earlier announcement will provide more engine development time.

Boeing wants an improvement in fuel efficiency of 25% over the engines used on the 757. The other big issues will be whether the 787 will have an exclusive engine supplier or whether the customer will have a choice of two engine suppliers. Randy Tinseth said that the only item in which all engine suppliers agreed on was that they should be the exclusive supplier.

The 797 production cost is targeted at $65 to $75 million. Engines can be 20% to 30% of that. So, Boeing needs a price to agree to 797 contracts. Boeing has under employed engineers coming off completed projects. These engineers could use the time to improve the 797.

Chasing after billion-dollar orders a half a month before announcement is more than a little crazy. But what's the alternative? If the process is done on a realistic time frame, it will leak out and surprise will be lost. The customers have been in discussion with Boeing for some time. Perhaps coincidently, Delta CEO Ed Bastian told the National Press Club on June 27 that they have had discussions with Boeing about being launch customers. Delta would be an excellent customer because they have sixteen 757s and seventy nine 767s that need to be replaced. On this schedule, firm orders are unrealistic, but they can sign letters of intent with many areas to be discussed.

Jon Ostrower, who broke the information about submission of the final engine proposal being done on June 27, 2018, also described small changes to aircraft. As before, there will be two models with the same takeoff weight for maximum commonality.
•One version with 267 seats has a range of 4,800 miles.
•A longer-range version with seating for 228 has a range of 5,800 miles.

Both will use the same engine etc. The shorter-range aircraft will have seven more rows of seven across seats. The 767 has a 2-3-2 arrangement.

So, is Boeing really going announce at Farnborough? I give it 2 chances out of 3. More information will come out as Farnborough approaches. At this point, it's a risky move but Muilenburg likes to take risks. I believe that an announcement would create a favorable view of Boeing’s future and increase the stock price.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/41845 ... gh-july-16

User avatar
J
Posts: 1261
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:33 pm
Location: South of Canada

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby J » Thu Aug 30, 2018 8:47 pm

Getting back to the 737 Max, here is an article and video about its landing gear designed to accommodate the longer fuselage w/o tail strikes.

How Boeing’s engineers redesigned the landing gear to make the 737 MAX 10 fly
Excerpt:

When Boeing’s customers said they wanted a stretched-out 737 MAX jet, there was one big problem: The 737’s landing gear was too short to handle it.

Fortunately, Boeing’s engineers came to the rescue, with a stretched-out landing gear to match the fuselage of what’s now known as the 737 MAX 10.

The way the engineers resolved the issue, well more than a year ago, is a testament to how Boeing uses technology to accommodate market demands, even if those demands seem unmeetable at first glance.

“We always like to look at how we can address market demand with the technology and engineering solutions that would be required,” Gary Hamatani, chief project engineer for Boeing’s 737 MAX program, told GeekWire this week.

Hamatani explained that the challenge had to do with simple geometry as well as the complex requirements for a new breed of 737 MAX.

To satisfy the needs of Boeing’s customers — and stay competitive with the jetmaker’s European archrival, Airbus — the fuselage had to be 66 inches longer than the MAX 9 fuselage. That would accommodate up to 188 passengers in a two-class layout, and up to 230 in a single-class layout.

Could it be done? “We had lots of constraints,” Hamatani said. If the 737 MAX 9’s landing gear was used, the pilots would have to make a longer, more gentle takeoff than they were typically trained for. Otherwise, the tail would scrape the runway as the jet rose, like a car bottoming out when it hits a bump in the road.

That wasn’t an attractive solution, because the whole idea behind offering different variants of the 737 MAX — the 7, the 8, the 9 and now the 10 — was that pilots would be able to carry over their training from one variant to another.

Engineers shifted their attention to a hardware solution: lengthening the landing gear by 9 inches. But that plan raised another issue. The standard 737 MAX wheel wells wouldn’t be big enough to accommodate the longer landing gear. That was a problem, because Boeing wanted to keep the design differences between the variants of the 737 MAX below 5 percent.

“Keeping that 95 percent commonality was one of the imperatives that soon became self-evident to us,” Hamatani said. “We couldn’t make a new airplane that broke that family tree of the MAX.”

The engineering team ended up adding a spring-loaded lever to extend the telescoping landing gear, plus a “shrink link” mechanism that pulls the extension inward when it needs to be folded back up. And to power the movement, the engineers took advantage of a retraction actuator that was already in the design for the other members of the 737 MAX family.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/boeing-73 ... ding-gear/

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2463
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: Boeing’s plan for biggest 737 MAX meets with industry doubts

Postby Not_Karl » Fri Aug 31, 2018 5:59 am

I wonder if they also redesigned the shimmy dampeners...
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.


Return to “Aviation Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest