"The short-haul 787-3 "Addison Schonland, chief executive of AirInsight Research feels that the NMA could be a revived 787-3. Perhaps unlikely but it would take care of the upper end of the segment and open the way for a narrowbody 737 replacement.
https://www.flightglobal.com/airfra...7-3-could-be-reborn-as-the-nma/136589.article
Would Boeing now be better served by doing what they should have done with the MAX, retain the 737 fuselage for now, and concentrate their design efforts on new wings, tail, and corresponding undercarriage ?
Boeing Hints At New Direction For NMA Refocus | Aviation Week Network
Boeing appears to be redirecting its next new airliner project to compete more directly with the long-range Airbus A321XLR rather than take on the broader 757-767 replacement market previously studied under the shelved New Midmarket Airplane project.aviationweek.com
Is this based on anything beyond speculation?
Boeing Chief Executive Officer David Calhoun confirmed to investors this week that the aircraft manufacturer is not looking to introduce a brand-new model anytime soon. He cited the lack of propulsion systems on the horizon that can deliver the improvements to make developing a new airframe worthwhile.
As aircraft often remain in the market for many years, Calhoun wants the next jet to be groundbreaking rather than rushed through to fill a gap. He explained that fuel efficiency and carbon emissions reductions are crucial hurdles that Boeing must overcome before moving forward.
Boeing estimates that customers will want 20-30% cost savings over existing models before considering a fleet renewal. Aircraft manufacturers can achieve this partially by integrating new technology, but a significant portion will likely come from reduced fuel consumption. CEO of Boeing, Dave Calhoun, cited the lack of propulsion technology available that would deliver the desired efficiency:
“If it doesn’t have a sustainability wrapper all around it, if it can’t meet the emissions tests, if it can’t deliver significant performance advantages, then there won’t be an airplane.”
He went on to conclude:
"There'll be a moment in time where we'll pull the rabbit out of the hat and introduce a new airplane sometime in the middle of the next decade."
And, conveniently for Mr Calhoun, he'll be on a golf course enjoying his stupendously large retirement holdings by then."There'll be a moment in time where we'll pull the rabbit out of the hat and introduce a new airplane sometime in the middle of the next decade."
Guy Norris:
Michael, this is just to add to something that Joe observed early on in the beginning of this podcast. I remember as a young, foolish, naive journalist covering McDonnell Douglas in the '90s, I was amazed when the Wall Street Journal gave McDonnell Douglas full marks for not launching the MD-12. Their share price rocketed up and everybody seemed delighted and I was thinking, “What's going on? It's the beginning of the end,” or the end had already been coming for a long time before that, the last all-new airplane having been launched in the '60s with the DC-10 really.
But I didn't understand it, and of course you're absolutely right. It's all about Wall Street. And that was the moment where I realized that this game wasn't just about new air planes. It's a much bigger picture than that. Of course what they were doing is they were fattening the turkey for the Christmas sale where Boeing came in and the merger was completed. But anyway, that was a very good observation.
Joe Anselmo:
Guy, you preempted me. That was actually going to be my next question to you, because you and I have been around long enough to remember McDonnell Douglas and I think our younger listeners might be surprised to hear that McDonnell Douglas had a huge lead on Airbus. Airbus was a distant third in this market, and then McDonnell Douglas seemed to focus on shareholders and stopped investing in the future. By 1997 it was gone. Just gone.
Guy Norris:
Absolutely. And I think that's one of the things that are Richard Aboulafia, who's a friend of the podcast, has observed quite rightly, that if you look at the trajectory in history, that's exactly what happened. McDonnell Douglas really stopped investing in all new designs and it withered on the vine. Airbus came in, an aggressive competitor, and it was able to bite away mostly at McDonnell Douglas's market share before of course it became a duopoly.
The availability of 777-class engines was easily forseeable when the MD-11 was launched. I suspect that McDonnell Douglas saw a window before their arrival when a modern trijet would be the best DC-10/L1011/early 747 replacement. It would allow them to remain viable with a redesigned airplane that the competition would have to design from scratch. McD did envision a twin-engined development that looks a lot like a 777/A330 (see MD-20).I'm not sure the MD-12 is all that instructive. Arguably it would have been as great a flop as the A380 and $4 billion R&D costs was not to be sniffed at. And at the time the MD-11 was hardly selling like hot cakes with high sales costs to cover the $1.7 billion development costs and with hindsight the tri-jet was the wrong move as ETOPS came about and aircraft like the 777 were the future.
Yes sticking with the DC-9 and DC-10 design philosophy was probably backwards thinking but I get the sense economic downturns in the 80s and early 90s conspired to restrict what McD could afford to do and there just wasn't the funding or impetus to do a clean-sheet design.
Boeing has more cushion to do something new but let's not kid ourselves that a 7x7 would be drastically different to the current spamtube with two turbofans. 30% fuel reduction sounds a big ask.
Boeing To Focus On Truss-Braced Wing, Autonomy For Next Aircraft, Calhoun Says | Aviation Week Network
Boeing’s commercial aircraft development efforts are focused on emerging airframe technologies that could lead to a new aircraft available starting in 2035.aviationweek.com