|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 3, 2016 17:56:06 GMT 1
Designing a new wing is one of the most expensive and complex things to do. A hypothetical A322 is anything but easy. Yes, that's why not all projects come true. It's like a game of poker : I might do it ... or not ! You must pay to play ! You are right XWB a wing is more complicated than an aerosol can  |
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,336
|
Post by someone on Jul 4, 2016 10:11:55 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 4, 2016 11:04:35 GMT 1
So, Leeham has market intelligence telling them that the talk about all options remaining open actually is a smokescreen, and that Boeing is going for a seven-abreast widebody. This, if true, is very big news : it actually means an early 788 replacement !
Is the gap between narrowbodies and 789s wide enough to warrant a whole new aircraft family ? 787 operators may no buy this idea (pun intended). Anyhow, this would be a most interesting development (sorry, pun intended again).
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jul 4, 2016 11:08:41 GMT 1
Boeing also predicts 4,000 to 5,000 sales but the article also says it would cannibalize some 2,000 other airplane sales. I guess it means the end for the 787-8.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 4, 2016 11:11:32 GMT 1
Per the above information, Boeing may be developing a 767 successor, not a narrowbody. I suggest that we re-name this thread 'Boeing's mid-market projects'.
|
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,336
|
Post by someone on Jul 4, 2016 11:14:47 GMT 1
So, Leeham has market intelligence telling them that the talk about all options remaining open actually is a smokescreen, and that Boeing is going for a seven-abreast widebody. This, if true, is very big news : it actually means an early 788 replacement ! Is the gap between narrowbodies and 789s wide enough to warrant a whole new aircraft family ? 787 operators may no buy this idea (pun intended). Anyhow, this would be a most interesting development (sorry, pun intended again). I think we need to look on other aspect other than the aircraft's size. As the Leeham comment mentioned is that what is needed is really a cheap plane with enough range (but not too much) suitable for short and mid haul operations, larger than todays largest narrowbodies in production. The 787 is way too much aircraft for this, and as well too expensive. Especially to expensive to built. While Airbus is trying to address this issues, mainly with the combination of A330regional and the different A321 variants (You could also argue with the 330neo, although it provides more range than needed), it is only a halfway solution. It might be close in size to a 787-9, although probably lika a 767-300 or 787-8, but instead of just de-rate a longhaul aircraft, they need to actually build flexible and inexpensive CASM killer for high density routes up to 5-6 hours Boeing also predicts 4,000 to 5,000 sales but the article also says it would cannibalize some 2,000 other airplane sales. I guess it means the end for the 787-8. probably, but the 787-8 is anyway on its road to the grave. The aircraft is just to expensive to built for Boeing, and it has the same disadvantage as with A320 vs A319 or 737-800 vs 737-700 |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jul 4, 2016 12:04:48 GMT 1
I think we need to look on other aspect other than the aircraft's size. As the Leeham comment mentioned is that what is needed is really a cheap plane with enough range (but not too much) suitable for short and mid haul operations, larger than todays largest narrowbodies in production. The 787 is way too much aircraft for this, and as well too expensive. I doubt developing an entirely new aircraft is the best way to make a cheap product. I also have doubts about the competitiveness of a seven-abreast aircraft. In short, Boeing's alleged trade-offs appear very risky. Leeham may be wrong, or there is something we miss. In all likeliness, the cross-section would be '7,5 abreast', making the aircraft an eight-abreast seater for all practical purposes. Even so, a 787-8 replacement should not be Boeing's priority in my opinion. I don't believe in it. |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 4, 2016 12:26:08 GMT 1
I think we need to look on other aspect other than the aircraft's size. As the Leeham comment mentioned is that what is needed is really a cheap plane with enough range (but not too much) suitable for short and mid haul operations, larger than todays largest narrowbodies in production. The 787 is way too much aircraft for this, and as well too expensive. I doubt developing an entirely new aircraft is the best way to make a cheap product. I also have doubts about the competitiveness of a seven-abreast aircraft. In short, Boeing's alleged trade-offs appear very risky. Leeham may be wrong, or there is something we miss. In all likeliness, the cross-section would be '7,5 abreast', making the aircraft an eight-abreast seater for all practical purposes. Even so, a 787-8 replacement should not Boeing's priority in my opinion. I don't believe in it. As they still build the B767 why could they not do -200 Neo project ?, new engines, may be a composite wing, a few aero tweeks, but keep the cheap tube ? |
|
someone
in service - 1 year
Posts: 3,336
|
Post by someone on Jul 4, 2016 12:33:02 GMT 1
I doubt developing an entirely new aircraft is the best way to make a cheap product. I also have doubts about the competitiveness of a seven-abreast aircraft. In short, Boeing's alleged trade-offs appear very risky. Leeham may be wrong, or there is something we miss. In all likeliness, the cross-section would be '7,5 abreast', making the aircraft an eight-abreast seater for all practical purposes. Even so, a 787-8 replacement should not Boeing's priority in my opinion. I don't believe in it. As they still build the B767 why could they not do -200 Neo project ?, new engines, may be a composite wing, a few aero tweeks, but keep the cheap tube ? They tried this with the 747-8. As soon as you start getting a new wing, you can just as well make a new plane, instead just improving an old frame. Again, the challenge is how to get the building cost low |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jul 4, 2016 13:02:01 GMT 1
The B747-8 just came out 5 or so years to late when it was already clear that the market for 4 engined jets had dried up !
|
|
