s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Nov 9, 2015 21:11:09 GMT 1
Correct - the plane MUST have economy of NB i.e. list price just above 100 mil USD i.e. real price around 60 mil. No way even stripped 787 might fill this need. In BO case it must be clean sheet design. Both 737-9 + 787-8 does not fill the need. How large this market is remains to be seen. BO has to speak the way it speaks since they do not have something like 321neo / 321neoLR. The Loooooong NB has as we all know a problem with getting the people fast out/in to the plane versus definitively tougher economics of WB due to many reasons. As always we will see.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 10, 2015 0:16:37 GMT 1
Correct - the plane MUST have economy of NB i.e. list price just above 100 mil USD i.e. real price around 60 mil. No way even stripped 787 might fill this need. In BO case it must be clean sheet design. Both 737-9 + 787-8 does not fill the need. How large this market is remains to be seen. BO has to speak tha way it speaks since they do not have something like 321neo / 321neoLR. The Loooooong NB has as we all know a problem with getting the people fast out/in to the plane versus definitively tougher economics of WB due to many reasons. As always we will see. NB (no brainier) is not always cheaper to make, just CTF (cheaper to fly) it is cheaper to operate as it does not need to punch the same sized hole thru the atmosphere (O) than a WB (Wide Boy). If you dock a SA (single aisle ) or a TA (twin aisles) at the airport it depends on the AB(s) (air bridge(s)) available. If there is only one it does not make any difference, apart from the fact that on a TA you have two shorter queues to get out of the same door as in a SA ! PS in the UK we are happy to EV (exit via) the rear door as well ! PPS we are not on Twitter
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Feb 12, 2016 9:45:40 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 12, 2016 12:36:02 GMT 1
If NB it would be very long and the turnover at the gate would be long. A wider aisle might help, or perhaps some innovation regarding exits could bring decisive improvements.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Feb 12, 2016 14:23:57 GMT 1
If NB it would be very long and the turnover at the gate would be long. A wider aisle might help, or perhaps some innovation regarding exits could bring decisive improvements. Wider aisle would mean wider body - which would mean more drag so.... up to that since we have already traveled with a plane we do know that disregarding the width of the aisle the speed of the movement i.e. time spent rummaging in the bin and or seats would be the same - so wider aisle would not help. Back door exit - would help if the airport can handle it. If there are the bridges than I do not believe it would be easily possible - huge restructuring of the airports would be needed to have a tunnel behind the wing ! So we are back at 757-300, 767-400 and 340-600 - why they are not liked too much by the airports/operators. (forget the gas....) But I might be off ?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Feb 19, 2016 11:03:27 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 19, 2016 12:54:04 GMT 1
This is a very interesting story, thank you s543 !. We learn much more on Boeing's projects from P&W than from the airframer !
|
|
|
Post by limoncello on Feb 19, 2016 13:11:45 GMT 1
Why don't Boeing develope the B787-3 as the wanted years before as the Dreamliner programme started. The range and the passenger volume are similar. the only difference the plane wouldt be a widebody and not a single aisle.
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Jul 1, 2016 7:17:29 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 1, 2016 10:20:24 GMT 1
I don't see anything new as long as no design trade-off seems to have been made yet, not even a choice between a single-aisle and a twin-aisle.
The Bloomberg piece states "Boeing hasn't decided if the new plane's frame would be metallic or made from spun-carbon fiber like the 787, or if it would have one or two aisles" and "the planemaker is in discussions with the three largest engine-makers for a new turbine to power the aircraft".
The WSJ even contends that Boeing might design two different planes ! "Boeing said it has held talks with 36 airlines and lessors over the past year, and potential customers said it is leaning toward a twin-aisle jet seating between 200 and 270 passengers, with seven-across seating in coach class."
"The company is also considering a new larger version of its single-aisle 737 Max with bigger engines and modified wings to seat 250 passengers .... Doing both new planes, says Boeing’s marketing chief Randy Tinseth, remains an option.
From these quotes, you might expect anything ... Or nothing at all.
Boeing's conundrum remains unchanged. A seven-abreast twin-aisle would in my opinion struggle to be more efficient than an eight-abreast 787, whereas an eight-abreast twin-aisle would cannibalise it. A newly-designed narrowbody might cannibalise the MAX backlog, and would be late to market, expensive and vulnerable to a re-winged A321neo boosted by aggressive pricing from Airbus. A revamped MAX might fail to stop the A321neo impetus ...
Is doing nothing a serious option, though ? Maybe Boeing does not want to move before MAX sales begin to decline.
|
|