Boeing-Airbus rivalry heats up again

I'm putting this under politics as it has to do with international trade

https://leehamnews.com/2018/02/08/airbus-boeing-square-off-a330neo-787-advance-nma-launch/

Boeing is trying to destroy the upcoming low cost widebody competition, the A330neo using the same tactics they publicly deplored by Bombardier.

Hawaiian Airlines had the lone order for the smaller variant of the A330neo, the -800. Yesterday HA cancelled the order for 6 planes in favor of the smaller Dreamliner and a favorable termination of leases for Boeing 767-300ERs.

The A330-800neo and the B787-9 both have maximum seating of 406 (FAA exit limit).
The A330-900neo and the B787-10 both have maximum seating of 440 (FAA exit limit).

United States Airlines and leasing companies have placed 69 orders for the -900 variant.
Air Lease Corporation — 29
Delta Air Lines — 25
CIT Group — 15

Foreign Airlines have placed another 150 orders for the -900 variant with the following two orders as the largest
Malaysia AirAsia X — 66
Iran Air — 28

The Airbus A350 XWB with 854 orders is too entrenched of a program to kill.

Boeing seems determined to envision it's future in widebody aircraft.

You call this "rivalry" but the lawyers are likely to call it "predatory pricing" and "warfare".

Quote: Fleastiff

You call this "rivalry" but the lawyers are likely to call it "predatory pricing" and "warfare".

It's customary to build two to four variants of each new aircraft. A mainstream plane, a smaller plane and usually a larger plane. In some cases an xtra large variant if the large doesn't sell well.

Boeing
737 Max-7 small
737 Max-8 regular size
737 Max-9 large (sales were poor)
737 Max-10 xtra large

The research is too carefully done and buyers are lined up for the regular size plane, it is often possible with "predatory pricing" to kill one of the variants.

Boeing charged Bombardier with trying to kill the 737 Max-7.

But the smaller A330neo-800 and the A350-800 looked like they have both been killed.

Boeing can argue they don't get subsidies (COUGH-F35) and that theya ren't selling the 787 below market price (as they did when the plane launched).

But first Airbus has to ask someone for a tariff, then they have to be stupid enough to implement it.

Short of a Boeing-Airbus merger (AirBoeing? BoeingBus?), not only will you always have competition, but either firm would be incapable of being that much bigger then their rival. Besides, when/if the Chinese get theri act together and make a COMAC jet worth having, things will begin to look different. Too bad, for them they didn't buy Bombardier's commercial jets division.

The linked article starts off with the following statement.

Boeing hasn’t launched the New Midrange Aircraft (NMA, aka 797) and may not until next year. But the maneuvering to capture, solidify or preempt moves is already well underway by Airbus and Boeing.

* Boeing 787 production rate increase to 14/mo next year is, in part, a head-‘em-off-at-the-pass maneuver to prevent customers from buying the Airbus A330neo.
* The 787-8 could see a new lease on life as interim airplane.
* A330-800 has steep uphill slog.
* Airbus, Boeing face off 787, A330neo.


As the A330neo is clearly a challenger to the Dreamliner and not the NMA, I am not sure why they are linked in the article.

I have expressed the opinion that instead of letting production die on the B787-8, why not offer it for sale for less money. By now the RDT&E has either been paid for or it never will, and they might be able to convince airlines to buy it for less money. The CEO of Qatar Airways even further thn my comment to say that Boeing should tweak the smaller B787-8 instead of developing the NMA.

Quote: Pacomartin

The CEO of Qatar Airways even further thn my comment to say that Boeing should tweak the smaller B787-8 instead of developing the NMA.

There's a lot of that going around.

Patrick Smith at Ask The Pilot blog, suggests modifying the 767-200 with new engines and new (composite) wings, plus updated avionics and stuff, instead of developing a 797. He even suggests they call the modified 767 the 797 (Personally I'd go with MD-12 just to confuse everyone).

But then Patrick may be a bit biased. he flies 757s and 767s for some "major airline" (I imagine it's not Southwest).

Quote: Nareed

suggests modifying the 767-200 with new engines and new (composite) wings, plus updated avionics and stuff, instead of developing a 797. He even suggests they call the modified 767 the 797

OEW- operating empty weight
B767-200 OEW was 176,650 lb with an exit limit of 290 seats or 609 pounds per seat and a range of 3900 nm.
B757-300 OEW was 141,860 lb with an exit limit of 295 seats or 481 pounds per seat and a range of 3400 nm.

The B757-300 was introduced 17 years after the B767-200. One of it's design goals was to replace the older B767-200

It had -21.06% less weight per seat and -12.82% less range , so fuel efficiency was better by (1-21.06%)*(1-12.82%)-1= -31.2%.
Those efficiency numbers were confirmed with tests and the fuel capacity was less by 31.2%.

So those 50+ airlines want a 275 seat airplane with a 5400 nm range, but they presumably want it to weigh less than 150,000 lbs.

Quote: Pacomartin

The B757-300 was introduced 17 years after the B767-200. One of it's design goals was to replace the older B767-200

I think airline owners and airline pilots know a great deal more about the business of making planes than I do, but far less than the people at Airbus, Bombardier, Embraer and Boeing.

What i would like the plane makers to do is find a way to increase passenger comfort, seeing as how the airlines won't.

That's a tall order, as they can't control how airlines configure their planes. Thus far, Boeing managed to increase cabin pressure and humidity for the 787, and Bombardier did a great job with the middle seats on the C Series. That's about it. And quite frankly, I don't see what else they can possibly do. Besides Airbus stopping it with the nightmare scenarios like standing passengers and such.

For instance, if you quit carrying freight on commercial flights and forbade checked bags (ie carry on only), how much below-decks space could be used for seats?

Quote: Nareed

For instance, if you quit carrying freight on commercial flights and forbade checked bags (ie carry on only), how much below-decks space could be used for seats?

I don't know if there is a clear consensus on whether the bulk of profits come from freight or cargo, but i think businesses like to have as many sources of income as possible. I am willing to bet that cargo makes a bigger profit pound for pound.

Quote: Nareed

There's a lot of that going around.

It would be a little easier if we know what nominal configuration Boeing was talking about when they say NMA is 225 or 270 seats. Does that mean an exit limit, a one class comfortable configuration or a two class.

The B787-8 has an exit limit of 381, but most configurations are 270 seats or less.

Sample configurations
38+35+88=161 Japan Air Line v2
46+21+102=169 All Nippon v3
42+0+144=186 Japan Air Line v1
36+70+113=219 United
42+0+198=240 All Nippon v2
32+9+202=243 Aeromexico
0+22+232=254 Qatar Airways
18+238=256 Air India
0+24+246=270 Ethiopian Airlines
12+323=335 All Nippon v1