You read it here first: there will (in all likelihood) be no so-called MoM.
After my last post a few articles underline what I wrote. Richard Aboulafia wrote a commentary in the Aviation Week and Scott Hamilton just posted a story about notes from Buckingham Research, Bernstein Research and Goldman Sachs regarding Boeing and the MoM aircraft.
Goldman Sachs still thinks Boeing could develop MoM, but concludes that Boeing is in a lose-lose Situation here.
Bernstein thinks that MoM could be the "Mirage of the Market" rather than the "Middle of the Market".
Buckingham concluded that the market is not big enough to justify the development.
Maybe no mom. Still I do not believe Boeing will this significant segment to Airbus to harvest. Maybe a big Narrowbody could be a 737 replacement / Mom.
ReplyDeletehttp://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing%20MoM%20NMA%20NSA%20A321%20keesje%20Airbus%20Design%20Engine%20Wing%20737_zpscrrkvmms.jpg
Serving a minimalistic segment - labelled a "mirage" by some observers - of the Middle of Market craves a zero risk solution. The requirement is for a type A321LR NEO low-investment route-opener, close to the 200 seats "Sweet Spot" capacity, with a cozy APEX for from three to six+ hours' flights, ample carry-on capacity, containers for the bliss of payfreight revenue increment, quick ground rotations with up to three flight hours' worth of additional fuel in ACTs (auxiliary contaniner tanks) for TATL reach closely matching the range of the much-regretted late 757 - RIP !
DeleteYou needn't look any further, it's yours for the asking : the H21QR NEO ! By rearranging the cabin layout from 3+3 to 1+3+1 and with 1+2+1 in Premium, this no-nonsense beancounter-friendly A321 re-looking solution could well be hailed the missing piece of the MOM puzzle, in fine bringing consensus and ending the confusion ?
could we imagine a change in FAA/EASA regulation allowing 4+4 in a mid-body airliner ?
ReplyDeleteBoeing did kill the a340-500/600 by extending ETOPS beyond what was expected by other companies, let's do it again ( i do agree from a passenger point of view it would be a nightmare, but who cares nowadays?
Assimilating the Flight Attendant to a kind of crane, the width of the A320-type triple seat, of 62", was determined taking into account the reach from the aisle centre-line in the direction of the rhs or lhs outer seat of said "crane" when sized an average 1m73cm (typical female height, 1980 statistics). In 2016 you could easily take a 1m75cm tall female FA as the basis, whereby the outer seats of the C919 are still within reach (trim-to-trim cabin interior = 153.5" - up 8" from the A320)
DeleteBut the outer seats in a 4+4 configuration, NO WAY !!
the 4+4 seating on a single aisle aircraft would be hard to pass the safety test.
ReplyDeleteIs already a pain at 3+3 to get out under the 90 seconds rule.
Yes, they pass, but probably using the OEM workers and friends who in most cases are in decent shape physically and can move around easier than a few normal "real world" passengers.
With the way airlines are cramming up seats, making the seat pitch even as short as 28" inches, is only a miracle that 170 people can get out of it in five minutes time, let alone 90 seconds.
What is MOM? For Boeing, middle is halfway between the 737 and 787. Taking the midpoint between the commercially successful 737-8 (200 seats max according to Wikipedia) and 787-9 (420 max seats) yields 310 max seats. Similarly, the half way point between the 737-9 (220 max seats) and 787-8 (381 max seats) is 300 seats. For it to be middle, it would be a 300-310 seater in max configuration. That would be about the size of a 767-300. To make a family, you add a -200 and a -400, with the -300 being optimized. And to be a true trans-Atlantic plane, it would need 5,500-6,000 nm range. Trans-Atlantic includes West Coast routes, which are now greatly underserved by a modern point-to-point aircraft. Just look at where UA, AA and DL will fly you nonstop from LAX. Only LHR.
ReplyDeleteThere is no modern aircraft optimized for this market. The A330-800 and 787-8 are overkill. The A330-900 and 787-9 are too big. Such a MOM aircraft would have superior economics to anything flying trans-Atlantic and would truly fragment the market, completing the job started by the 757.
I think there will be a MoM, but a small one. Or a big narrowbody. It seems Boeing is the one who needs to move first, kicking & screaming. They can't leave alone the MAX in the 180 seats 1000NM segment.
DeleteMaybe a compromise using same fuselage cockpit / tail / systems but optimized wings engines could work. Similar to the E2 and 707 /727/ 737 / 757 and A330/330/340s before it.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/Boeing%20MoM%20NMA%20NSA%20A321%20keesje%20Airbus%20Design%20Engine%20Wing%20737_zpscrrkvmms.jpg
rgds keesje