Engine makers “inside the tent” on Boeing NMA, but airframer still ponders provider

March 5, 2018, © Leeham Co.: The three engine makers, CFM/GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce, are the only suppliers that have been brought “inside the tent” by Boeing for the New Midrange Aircraft, a company executive said today.

Launching the program is critical on the engine companies, says Randy Tinseth, VP marketing for Boeing. Boeing hasn’t decided—officially—whether it will have a

Randy Tinseth. Photo via Google images.

single-engine or dual-engine source for the aircraft because the program hasn’t been launched.

Market intelligence tells LNC that Boeing wants two engine choices. Intel also indicates all three engine OEMs view the market demand as sharply smaller than Boeing’s publicly-stated forecast of 4,000 Middle of the Market sector airplanes over the next 20 years.

Market Demand

Boeing sees the NMA as a game-changing, market disruptor that others don’t understand.

“We believe it truly has the ability to disrupt the market,” Tinseth said on a conference call with reporters.

“We continue to make progress. Things around the configuration and capability of airplane are coming together,” he said. “This is the first multi-market airplane that we build that will be effective in short range markets and replace wide body airplanes that are bloated and heavy to operate.”

Tinseth said the 797 will have 40% lower than trip costs vs widebody airplanes it replaces (the 767s, A300s and A330s) and generate 30% more revenue than single aisle aircraft.

Entry into service is still targeted for 2024-25.

“If it goes beyond that, it will be a challenge,” he said.

Long, thin routes

The 797 is targets for mid-range routes with an expectation that it will open new markets. During the press conference, Tinseth pointed to the routes operated by 737s that are more than 3,000 miles.

The 737 is serving more than 70 routes of 3,000 miles or more, Tinseth said.

The map illustrates this—and seems the harbinger of one crucial element of the business case for the New Midrange Airplane, the NMA or 797 as it’s already commonly called.

The NMA is intended to be a 767-sized airplane of 220-270 passengers, 2x3x2 coach configuration and with a range of 5,000nm and 4,500nm respectively. Boeing continues to talk with customers about the aircraft. Authority to offer for sale may come by year end. A formal program launch is expected next year, after the 777X development is over the hump. The 777X is expected to enter flight testing next year.

The 787 has opened 170 markets since EIS, which required 200 airplanes. This doesn’t fill the demand gap between what the engine OEMs see—they’re fairly in agreement in their market forecasts of 2,000-2,500 airplanes—and the 4,000 Boeing sees.

LNC sees a demand of about 2,300 aircraft and this is also consistent with some suppliers.

69 Comments on “Engine makers “inside the tent” on Boeing NMA, but airframer still ponders provider

  1. Interesting marketing 🙂

    How many new routes did the 767 open up in the same period, or the 757s?

    I wonder if Boeing dares to bypass either GE ($$), or PW (geared fan operations leader). And what about RR, many preferred it on the 757, A330 and 787.. Leahy didn’t succeed in melting PW and RR. No doubt MTU and Safran are in the game too.

    • RR has something like 40% of the 787 market.

      The Trent 10 may do better, but the failures on the 1000 have had serious impact to NZ, ANA and Virgin that have been reported.

      Fuel burn never got to where it was specified and they had to come out with an all new engine.

      I would have expected it to have had a real jump, 3% I believe it was, which gets it even.

      I came across a reference that they were asking for a smoke waiver for some engine ops areas (TEN)

      Shades of P&W with the GTF.

  2. Scott, two questions: 1) Is Tinseth’s 40% number just so much marketing “hot air”?; 2) isn’t the GE engine really supposed to be a CFM one, joint between GE and Safran?

    • @Montana: About a year or 18 months ago, based on what we believe the NMA would be, we concluded the NMA would be more than 30% but less than 40% more efficient than the 330-200. I don’t recall what the comparison to the 767 was.

      Whether the GE/CFM engine is from GE or CFM depends on the thrust. CFM does engines up to 50K, GE above 50K.

      • Thanks, Scott. On the GE engine side, it seemed like much recent press was regarding CFM as a contender. But most 767s seem to range well over 50,000 lbs. of thrust with their CF6-80C2 engines. And, the comparable P&W 4,000s, powering the KC46, have 63,300 lbs. So, on the surface, unless the B797 gets a lot lot lighter, it looks more likely it’s on GE’s side of the CFM/GE thrust divide.

        • There was discussion going on with GE and Safran on upping the area of joint venturing.

          GE may well be happy to JV it with CFM rather than go solo regardless.

          I would think GE and PW are the two main contenders.

          Some loose talk about Boeing buying GE aviation!

          • Surely the timeframe is precisely what RR would be looking at for their new developments. This gap in the market (very large SA/ small TA) looks to be on opportunity that all engine manufacturers will fancy their chances at. To me it gives RR a means to expand out of the large engine niche that they have backed themselves into

          • RR is looking at 2025 for their GTF.

            The engines have to be there sooner.

            RR can maybe offer and advance, but that is a GE type.

            P&W is the only one that has a GTF solution in hand.

            All the NASA studies show the GTF is the engine of the future.

            None of the bigger efficiency gains occur without it.

        • Hello MontanaOsprey,

          Regarding: “But most 767s seem to range well over 50,000 lbs. of thrust with their CF6-80C2 engines.”

          According to Wikipedia, engine options for 767-300ER’s, by far the most common version still in service, range in thrust from 56,750 to 61,500 pounds; however, engine options for the original 767-200 (not the ER version), which had about the same seating capacity and slightly less range than what is usually reported for Boeing’s NMA proposals, ranged in thrust from 48,000 to 52,500 pounds. I think it is likely that advances in aerodynamics and construction methods since the 767-200 was designed in the late 1970’s, would allow the same or similar performance to be achieved in a clean sheet design today with lower thrust engines than were used for the 767-200.

          767-200 specs according to Wikipedia.
          1 class seating capacity: 245
          2 class seating capacity: 216
          3 class seating capacity: 174
          Range with 216 passengers (2 class): 3,900 nmi
          Takeoff Length, MTOW, Sea Level, 30 Deg C: 6,300 feet
          MTOW: 315,000 pounds
          Engine Thrust Options: 48,500 to 52,500 pounds.

          767-300ER specs according to Wikipedia.
          1 class seating capacity: 290
          2 class seating capacity: 261
          3 class seating capacity: 210
          Range with 218 passengers (3 class): 5,980 nmi
          Takeoff Length, MTOW, Sea Level, 30 Deg C: 8,700 feet
          MTOW: 412,000 pounds
          Engine Thrust Options: 56,750 to 61,500 pounds.

          • using modern seat pitches and cabin configurations, I would bet that a -200 length 2.5 class (bus, econ+ and econ) would cram in about 250, and up to 300 in Ryan Air configuration

          • AP I have used up all my matchboxes on the NMA but my views still changes on a daily basis. Can see why BAC is battling to freeze a design of some sorts, the 200-250 seat market looks like the real MoM with capacity, range, thrust, etc.

            One of the problems is trying to find a balance with 2 models, maybe the route is a single uncomplicated “niche” model. If you look at “champions”, 737-800/MAX8, 757-200, 763ER, etc.

            Keep it simple, one model, one engine type, simple structure, sell in high volumes at low production costs. Maybe something like (for today in any case)?;

            1) 245 seats (typical 2 class),
            2) 2×3/(4)x2, (17.5″ seats),
            3) 4750Nm,
            4) 48 Klb engines,
            5) OEW 75T,
            6) MTOW 155T,
            7) LD3-45’s,
            8) Length ~52m?,
            8) Very good wing, 45m span, 30 deg sweep?!

            That’s now an armchair NMA, think it should fly and sell?

          • @ Anton:

            As far as we know today, Boeing is talking about a 2 version family.
            Something about 220pax in 2-class (maybe 3 class with a real C, Y+ and Y) and 270 pax in 2-class. One about 48-50m, the other about 55m.
            Orphans have always sold poorly.

            If you want to load dual LD3s, you are at a A300/A330 fuselage.
            It’s one of the many points where Boeings anouncements so far don’t make sense, as Boeing said it will be 2-3-2, but the B767 did loose out on the A330- also due to the LD3 option.

            Actually i have no clue what Boeing does fuselage wise, if it goes with a new designed B767 one, or if it tries so flatten edges so LD3s fit in with 2-3-2.

      • GE has come out and said they will be bidding/competing via CFM on the 797. I think it’s basically common knowledge they see it as a key to the next Boeing NSA.

        It probably was necessary, imho, from an intellectual property perspective, to do a joint venture expansion via CFM vs a total clean sheet.

        • How is a new 50,000 lb. + thrust engine the basis for a new 35,000 lb. thrust engine?

        • GE could maybe reuse the core Engine from the GEnX-2B of the 747-8 and have Safran “and the French tax payers” pay for a new LP system. It depends on the tradeoff between SFC and Life on wing and what Boeing requires. Are they happy with 3000 cycles on wing or demand +10 000cycles? That effects core Engine flow and temperatures alot.
          My guess they will demand 2 x A330 Engine Life on wing with as low fuel consumption they can get with the same Engine price as on the 787’s.

          • Keep in mind the 777X is actually a lower thrust engine than the 777CEO

            Weighty and aerodynamics have their say and the 797 if it comes to be will be much lighter and definitely more aerodynamic.

  3. My view is that Boeing are guilty of forcing an aircraft on an ever decreasing market opportunity. To contrast the 797 with current TA aircraft that are being utilised on sub optimal short to medium length sectors is missing the point. It is precisely those sectors that are vulnerable to existing SA and in particular new and more capable SA aircraft.

    We are told it will use cutting edge design, materials, engines to ensure it retains an edge in economics.

    We are told it will come in at a price point that will make it competitive with SA aircraft.

    We are told it will employ new and considerably more efficient engines.

    So the former and the latter could subsequently be used by a SA aircraft to destroy the economics argument and the middle issue just doesn’t ring true given current cost differentials.

    So where does this leave the 797? No doubt it will have a market but I fear the market will be limited. Will it major on efficiency and get blown out of the water by an Airbus that takes advantage of all of the inherent cost and efficiency advantages of a SA alternative? Will it major on comfort, a somewhat out of date concept? Will it major on capability and come up against a very cheap A332/8 competitor which will be more capable?

    My view is that it is being promoted because Boeing knows it must be seen to act in a market segment that it is less competitive in. The trouble is that it should be addressing this by focusing on a slightly larger A321 competitor or if you wish a B757 replacement. Yes it is less sexy than a NMA but at the same time they are more likely to be competitive and at the same time give Airbus a real headache.

    • There’s probably markets for both. If we can believe the media, the airlines would really prefer a follow on to the B767-200, and soon.

      • I think that is what is being missed in the discussion.

        The 767 is still well used (and liked I gather) and something like 1000 pax versions were made.

        Add in that market and the upper end of the single aisle (which is being stretched range wise if not fuselage wise) all the time.

        At one time West Coast to Hawaii was a wide body, not there are a lot of SA doing that.

        I am not saying Boeing can do it, but their target costs are well below a much bigger A330NEO (or CEO)

        New tech is not always more costly.

        Big drops in out of auto clave curing (MC21) and there may be other rabbits there.

        Despite the management debacle, the uber tech of the 787 was really pulled off incredibly and Airbus said that could not be done.

    • They will probably do both, Boeing Seattle do the 797 and Embraer the NSA one or two years later with all the new systems, software and boxes of the 797.

  4. Interestingly a quick and cheap answer from Airbus has been discussed for years.

    I hope this doesn’t turn into a killed in the craddle project like NSA in 2010.

    Let us not forget the 767s were pushed out by slightly larger, way more capable and flexible A330s, using the same engines.

    Slightly too small for LD3’s didn’t help the 767 on medium flights. Going there again.. brilliant?

    • Any particular reason the 737 cannot be re-winged and stretched just as easily if that is what Boeing wanted to do?

      • It,s an OLD airplane, too narrow (compared to all other SA), not fly by wire. Plus it looks foolish with its 1950’s nose. All new is the only answer.

        • An ugly Boeing 1950’s nose. The nose on the 1950’s Comet/Caravel still looks sweet.

  5. Current turn-around times (in scheduled planning terms) of the A321 in the LCC guise = 222 pax = 37 r0ws 3+3 is around 50 minutes minimumm, up to 65 minutes in holiday outstations. Make the maths : bring TAT down to 28 minutes on a 180 ‘ FT + 60′ TAT = total 240 minutes trip time stretch and the stretch will take only 208 minutes. Now if costs divide 45/35/20 between hourly/fuel/cyclic and if trip duration is shortened to 208’ vs 240 then the reduced hourly costs impact upon trip costs as 0.45 x [1 – 208 / 240] = -6 % only on turn-around time. The rest of the expected efficiency improvement comes from new engine technology (say -18 % vs the NEO/MAX models), new materials + aerodynamic excellence (-6 %) and from freight revenue leverage of the CASM formula (-7 % vs MAX-8) plus various (-3%) = total 40 % CQFD.

    Enough to cause Airbus to seriously consider launching A322 as a preemptive retaliation with the same engines as for the 797 NMA ?

    • Or you could just do what they do in Australia: use 2 doors (1 front, 1 rear) so passengers can alight and board much more quickly.

      • A330 shared the same family engines with the 767 10,000 lb more thrust. Not the same.

        • Fair enough, once a new engine type is put on the drawing board(s) it usually comes out as a family of various thrust settings. The same will probably go for the 797 engine(s), whereof there will be one made available for an A322 as well, and/or to re-NEO a PIP’ed and tweaked A321LR NEO towards the end of the next decade ?

          • Current is 33k for an A321.

            Call it a de-rate to 40k and you have a fairly heavy engine for the thrust.

            Might not fly economics maximum wise.

            P&W is talking about a PIP II to the GTF with a revised pressure ratio now they have the more conservative PIP I figured out.

            That might get the 40k with some internal upgrades for heat.

          • For an A322 you want the same engine family as on the A320/a321neo due to cost and with a new carbon wing+wingbox it is enough with 35-37k thrust. A new B797 engine like a GEnY woulf fit a new A390 all composite small widebody to repace the A330Re if the market is big enough to split with Boeing.

          • I can see an ~37Klb thrust engine for example is what an 322 needs for a 3m stretched aircraft with 100T MTOW. My question is can either of the engine manufacturers squeeze out the thrust of the current designs.

            Another of my 322 questions is if the wing will be specific to an 322 or a new common shared wing. I am hopefully wrong but can’t see a much bigger than 500 aircraft market for the 322, so does that justifies an exclusive and expensive wing for it?

            If its a new CFRP wing for use on the entire 320 family it will be exciting.

    • You don’t need a new plane for that. If on-board luggage was restricted and trolleys were carried for free as belly cargo, you’d decrease TAT by 10-15mins already. LCC usually use parking positions where fwd and aft exits are both used, that gives you another 5-10mins advantage over bridge positions.

  6. Whatever the final configuration of the plane is it may well be the last fully new plane with “classic engines”.

    By the end of next decade we might be seeing the first commercially viable open rotors and geared turbofans should be the standard up to a thrust of 45-50000lbf.

    Anyway, If the market is as big as 4000 NMA planes (that remains to be seen but it looks pretty optimistic to me) as they say then, they are going to need more than one engine supplier. RR has been working on GTF for a while. P&W has them already and I’m quite sure they will be able to upscale their current technology. Meanwhile GE is focused on advanced materials but I don’t know if they have any active research related to geared turbofans.

    However, for Boeing the chance to make the 797 competitive is not a matter of just getting the best engines available and the most efficient design in regards of aerodynamics and weight, but most importantly a very automated (read robotized) production line in order to minimize quality problems, reduce costs and achieve a fast ramp up process (which also involves suppliers not screwing it up).

    The risk is that Airbus will likely keep on with their incremental approach to upgrading the A320 Family, not necessarily stretching it but making them slightly more efficient year after year (some improvement will keep on coming from PIPs on engines that are fairly new now), also slowly padding towards the “more electric plane” paradigm and eventually selling them dead cheap as developement costs have been paid long ago, while Boeing will still have to pay 797 developement.

    So Airbus may just opt to erode the lower end market for 797 for now (the a330neo will always be a harder case) and put their sights in a fully new single aisle plane for the 2030’s based in open rotors of which lower end could be a320 size and the upper end 757-200 size.

    • So far, the open rotor is kicked down the road every 5 years another 5 years.

      RR has shifted their program to using the research into the Advance and the GTF (which uses the advance core)

      It has a lot of inherent issues, including the very specific (and heavy structural ) mounting system for each variant.

      Even if all the other issues are overcome, its still got inherent ones that won’t go away.

    • Airbus cannot sell the A320 dirt cheap as the supporting goverments gets their % back forever thanks to their launch aid now repaid several times over on this program.
      Airbus used to like high Tech, with the CEO gone a year from now they can respond with a A322 for the low end and a new A331 using all the 797 systems and Engines to be a few % better on seat mile efficiency. We will see by next Paris Air Show 2019.
      Open rotor awaits more expesive fuel and a goverment paid demonstrator I think.

      • I am sure that the UK government has agreed to go easy or forgo the royalties entirely. I think this might be some aid for the A400 disaster.It would be interesting if someone could balance the losses on 340 and 380 against royalties on the 320 and 330.

        • The A400 disaster will be rightly or wrongly put at the door of the many parties who have had their fingers in the pie of specification. The goalposts have moved time and again on this programme.

          I would be surprised if the original A340programme didn’t pay back as part of the overall A330/340 deliveries and I thought the 500/600 development was paid for out of petty cash. I am aware that there have been negotiations with the UK govt to ease payments but that they are not open to the general public.

          • Those discussions never are. Conditions never are.

            It would clear the air of a lot of suspicion if they were public.

            Its one reason this side of the pond smells rats

            Don’t get me wrong, having seen Boeing shenanigans from what was a worthy company to the play the US game to the Max (pun intended) Boeing is gone down an even worse road.

            Europe gets something for it, Boeing is trying to drive the workers down into the dirt, but that has become typical corporate America.

    • There is no reason why they can’t launch with 1 engine at the start and a second engine 3 years down the line . Like GE first with slightly less thrust for those customers who need the plane now and then a thrust and efficiency upgrade in year 3. This will be just in time for the second engine (say RR or PW) which will be more expensive and more efficient. This will allow GE a run of say 400 engines under its belt to mature the design, pay a large chunk of development cost and upgrade it to the slightly higher thrust and increase efficiency

  7. The 727 and 747 were both launched with uncertain outlooks and they did alright. By comparison it probably wouldn`t be too hard to see an opportunity for Boeing to be taking bids for who would be the official launch customer for the 797. Airbus sees the market and will respond, of course, but Boeing is setting the narrative here.

    • 747 yes. 727, no. It always had a good market.

      You could see the segment open up by the 707, not as much range but with 3 engines over water capability (for the time)

      No one offered as flexible an aircraft with its size at the time.

      All the European aircraft of that era were simply too small.

  8. What I want to know is where they are going to build this aircraft, Brazil??

    • There’s 400 acres for plant development being “held” in Charleston for BA.

    • It sounds like it will be built by robots next to the new composite wing factory. There will be partners and they will ship their sections/engines etc. but the Boeing manhour to assemble it will be like 23% of what it takes to assemble a 767.
      Robots will produce thir parts/sections 24/7 and the blue collars on their shifts will have a robot as their work buddy. Since the final assembly will be so few manhrs they can open FAL lines all over where the market is., Brazil one of them if they order a few hundred in S. America.

  9. With the rise of the C919 and MC21 the single aisle market in the East could shrink for AB and BAC. The NMA will fit in nicely between the C919 and C929.

    Read 6 C919’s will now be used for certification, with 850 orders it is starting to have impact.


    • Arm twisting by the Chinese government does not man actually aircraft built.

      All those orders are internal Chinese.

      Production rates are going to be what?

      They can’t be used on any near Asia flights (not certified)

      Also not competitive cost wise.

      You will see it dies quiet death with a few token ones operated by each airlines per the dictates of Chinese emperor.

  10. Are there any Grandfather rights that Airbus would call on with potential developments of existing designs that would give them an advantage vs the NMA in the way the 737 gained has gained an advantage over the 320?

    Any regulatory advantages Boeing may have that can change the game similar to the way with the 777 ETOPS vs the 340?

    Beyond the immediate market gap, how would the NMA evolve into adjacent markets over time? Ever increasing range a la 737/320/330?

    Is there a map of routes currently served by 757/767 to see where Boeing sees the ‘guaranteed’ demand, rather than the evolving upgauge demand from longer range 737 sectors?

    • The range exceeds the A320/737 by a margin.

      Malign it longer rage and heavies is not in the intent of the design and cost target.

      It also may wind up being a 767/A300 lite and not be the game changer.

      As you see, when you do that upgrade, then that opens a market below for competitors to flow into

      Balancing act.

      • you compare airframes with previous generation engines
        to current generation upgraded NB craft.
        Put a NEO engine on 767-2/3 or A300/A310 and you get quite a bit more range.
        but go back to the tanker competition: the much higher OEW A330 provided quite a bit more payload for a minimal increase in fuel use.

  11. Oh lord… I wish they’d just launch the thing so we can take an actual look-see… And Airbus can show their alternative.

    If it’s 40% better than xxxxx aircraft it’s going to be some amazing machine… Not seeing it… But it will be built (they have nothing left to offer in this area)… And it will sell. Will it provide a ROI… Less certain.

    • No need to make a return on investment,that’s what all those subsidies are for.Very sceptical whether it can enter service by 24/25.

  12. Tinseth said “the 797 will have 40% lower than trip costs vs widebody airplanes it replaces (the 767s, A300s and A330s) ”

    Did he really say that as printed?

    with the 787 it was 20+% better than current generation aircraft. … which later was contracted to 767.

    767 + 6% : A332 * 15% : A338NEO : 10%+ densified seating + 6..7% better sfc for afuture engine : that is a delta of 36..38% already. another “Mogelpackung”.:-)

  13. I do understand what market Boeing want to target, still remain skeptical.

    There is a gap between SAs, ag some point their engine and wings are just not efficent for long flights.
    And the smallest wide bodies A332/338 and B788 are not optimal too if you don’t need the range, they are to heavy, have too much wing, etc.

    I see there’s a market, but I can not estimate how much demand there is.
    A330neo offers to much range, and thus is not optimal.
    A321lr is too small, non efficent wing, etc.
    How many airlines will go for an extra family just to get that little more efficeny?

    Technically, i do not see how Boeing want’s to built this plane.
    2-3-2 is very comfortable for the customer – but the wont pay a huge premium for.
    It carries just +1 seat per row and needs that 2nd aisle compared to a SA.
    So basically it’s a modern B767 fuselage with it’s limitations of not suitable LD3 containers.
    How much can be gained in a redesign of the B767 fuselage?
    Length will be 50 and 55m, so a little shorter then B787, much like B767 200/300.

    The B767-300, who cashed in the major part of the orders, had engines with 265 – 282kn thurst to lift a MTOW of 186t, MWE 88,5t.
    Let’s assume it’s 20% lighter (that’s a lot), so the new plane is about 70t.
    A321neo is 48,5t for 44,5m – so 20t more for a longer an bigger plane make sense, it will be 70-80t.
    So it’s more efficent, needs less fuel so MTOW should be lower than B767.
    Wing will be better, etc.
    So how much thurst will it need? 200kn? A321 has 150kn –
    where does that new modern 200kn engine come from?

    All together, Boeing want’s to sell this plane for 75 Mio. $…
    new fuselage, new wing, new engine, and that price….
    I don’t know how that shall work out.

    • They will have robot make parts and help assembly. The price is without engines/APU’s, seats and BFE like galley and pilot cup holders.

  14. 40% lower (if true) trip costs doesn’t mean that the 797 would be 40 % more efficient. Efficiency is cost per seat, not trip cost. A smaller and lighter airplane (than an A330 which is the target) is supposed to be cheaper (to buy and to operate), no surprise. But if you remove 30 or 40% of seats (still comparing to an A330), at the end the game is not changing that much. And as the range is much shorter, there’s also a loss of flexibility.
    Anyway, this usal war of figures between A & B is beside the point. We should focus on the project schedule and the EIS timing. Boeing is still talking about a 2025 EIS. 6 or 7 years to develop and test a brand new airplane with a brand new engine seems very optimistic. Let’s remember that the 777X has been officially launched in 2013 for an EIS in 2020-2022 (and they didn’t start from scratch). For the A350, it took 8 years (from launch till EIS) which is considered as pretty good.
    Boeing is between the devil and the deep blue sea : launching the 797 too late would leave a monopoly to Airbus. Launching it too early could force them to miss the next breakthrough in engine technology (Airbus thinks it will occur in 2030 or so). Engine manufacturers are not only “inside the tent”. They take up almost all the tent.

    • Birdy: I think you miss the point that its a lighter far more efficnet 767 not an A330.

      While Airbus touts the A330, its not really in that market segment sans a short hop followed by a much longer one.

      In this case (if it works) a 797 could do a shorter hop followed by a longer one.

      I don’t think its really understood that aircraft are an average not a true optimization.

      • TransWorld,

        I am trying to understand how a 767, or even a brand new aircraft designed to replace the 767, will beat an A330? After all, it was the introduction of the A330 that seemed to severely curtail 767 sales.
        I understand the economics of a “medium” range twin aisle, which the 767 is pretty well at the optimum. But I don’t see how it is going to greatly expand on the 1200 odd 767’s ordered. The ranges/capacities/economics at both the upper and lower limits of the 767 are more or less covered, even when not 100% efficiently, by other options. This does not leave much room to improve on the number of 767’s sold.

        The short hop, long hop combo doesn’t really convince me either. It seems like a weight/range/efficiency/cost compromise that will fail to satisfy many.
        I do agree with your last statement in general but in the “business” case of the 797, it does need to be a true optimization.

        I am also of the opinion that the estimated launch and EIS dates do not work.

      • If Airbus can continue to improve the A330Re making it lighter, cheaper and even more durable for a mix of short hops and longer flights. To make it close to the 797 it needs a new all carbon slender wing for flights 1000nm longer than the 797’s. The A330Re advantage is LD3’s and 2-4-2 seating but it got old engines by now still new 52-56k 797 engine can work on a A330neoRe.

  15. If the 3,000nm 737 and A320 has an average stage length of 1,000nm, then the 4,500nm range NMA is the perfect aircraft for average stage length of 1,500nm???

    To some degree there is a correlation between size and range. Delta CS100 will be used on less tan 1,000nm flights. I think the NMA will be used heavily and do well on transcon, Hawaii, and Iceland flights.

    • That is where the issue comes in assessment wise as each airline has a unique route signature.

      SW is different than AK which is different than Delta etc.

      You could have two 500 mile hops down the West coast followed by a 3000 mile Trans Con.

      I figure the people who work with this stuff live in rubber rooms and drool a lot.

    • “Average” is a bit misleading there. Median would be a bit higher and a better indicator.
      Example is Australia where lots of sectors on shorter east routes which is heavily travelled as well, yet all the carriers need the same plane to do transcon.
      During the recent mining boom a lot of transcon sectors were done with widebodys, the fall off in traffic meant they kept the frequency with narrow bodies, but as traffic picks up again the wide bodys will be back.

  16. If the engine OEMs are right, and there’s only a market for 2,000-2,500 NMAs, is that still enough for Boeing to proceed?

    • Only the A320 and B737 lines have delivered more that 2,000 frames so far. The A330, B747, B777, and B727 are below that figure and they are considered successes.

      • The 737 and A320 are almost a factor 10 better, the 737 now at 10,000 all up.

  17. With the exception of Turkish and maybe cops it’s hard to come up with a worse group of airline/routes to base a $15B investment.

    They should be focusing on how to make NMA competitive with A321neo on 2knm routes. That would be a winner if it is possible.

  18. With every new snippet of news that comes out about the BA MoM’ster the more it appears that it will be at the skinny end of the segment.

    If they go new on the fuselage then it will be 8 wide and fancy.
    The range looks a bit on the short side.


    Top = 90T OEW / 180T plus MTOW for 360 standard seats and 6K NM nominal range.

    A300 MK3 would be right on the money at 58.5M long.

    Middle = 75T OEW/ 155T MTOW for 300 standard seats.
    Looking like 5K NM range nominal possibly out to 5.4K NM.
    Super Duper Sixty if AB go SA.

    Bottom = 55T OEW / 110T MTOW for 240 standard seats.
    Looking like 4.5K NM range nominal.

    With all these potential arrangements AB is in pole position.
    BA looks like it is trying to put in a lightweight TA with 270/300 standard seats and a limited range — less than 5K NM nominal.

    Could become very expensive if the BA767 heritage is thrown out.
    Plus AB can top and tail it without breaking sweat.

    BA not in a good place.
    However — as it showed with the B787 — it can hype things up with th3 best of them.

Leave a Reply
