Just days after taking the position of Chief Executive Officer of Boeing, David Calhoun has told the company to rethink what will come of the ‘797’/New Midsize Airplane (NMA).
The decision effectively sees Boeing shelving $15-20 billion in design and engineering plans; however this puts the company in a better position to address the 737 MAX crisis,also to develop an aircraft that better suits current and future market demand.
Calhoun suggests that the competitive playing field had changed, likely meaning that the highly-successful launch of the Airbus A321XLR, at the 2019 Paris Airshow, has resulted in too little market share left for Boeing to make the current ‘797’/NMA design worth it.
Airbus’ answer to the middle of the market question is a fleet pair of the A321neo and A330neo, however airlines have been interested in a single type with variants that can cover the role.
“Since the first clean sheet of paper was taken to it, things have changed a bit … the competitive playing field is a little different. We’re going to start with a clean sheet of paper again; I’m looking forward to that.”
Chief Executive Officer of Boeing, David Calhoun via Reuters
With the decision in place, employees working on the project have been tasked with studying the market, and speaking with airlines, to determine what aircraft is really needed.
Reuters notes that further evidence about the reassessment is brought to surface by the cancellation of a meeting with a potential major supplier, with no new date and time locked in place.
Additionally it is also understood that just weeks ago, Boeing was producing content for airlines outlining key features of the aircraft; with the working title “theNMA” and an advanced composite structure being used, according to slides seen by Reuters.
Whilst new aircraft generally take six to seven years to enter the market, Boeing has said that they aim to reduce this time to around five years; by using various digital technologies and a new business model that has the ‘797’/NMA as the central product.
Original market assessments and initial key design specifications were made about two and a half years ago, notes Calhoun, however the new study would see the company built on what has already been learned in design and production.
The original plan with the ‘797’/NMA was to produce an aircraft seating 220-270 passengers, to fit in between the 737 MAX and 787 Dreamliner. A launch was expected to occur last year, however the second crash of the 737 MAX placed the company in a fragile position; especially with delays already building on the 777X.
Since the 737 MAX crisis began, Boeing has been questioned about the ‘797’/NMA decision; the 737 is at the point where a complete replacement would be a valuable addition to the company’s portfolio and the Airbus – Boeing competition.
With the company recently seeking a loan of $10 billion to cover costs of the 737 MAX crisis, does shelving plans in favour of a new, evolutionary development make sense?
What are your thoughts on this development?
At AA, they’ve been using the 787-8 and some -9 models on many domestic routes. It’s worked fantastic during these months where there is less European tourism and now zero flights to China. I’ve flown the 787 for 2 years now and rarely have an aircraft write-up. Cabin write-ups are a problem though largely due to plastics and their weight savings.
If it’s a fast turn airlines want, the twin aisles cut boarding and deplaning times in HALF. Passengers are typically very happy to have a quality aircraft on their route and not an aircraft (737) designed in 1970 that has merely been updated over the last 50 years. The 787-3 was built and 50 had been ordered for Japanese local markets. Either just using the -8 or getting certification for a slightly smaller version seems better and quicker than yet another rushed Boeing product.
Nah, the 737 Max is a great product with thousands of orders. It is cheaper to buy, maintain and is slightly more efficient in short haul flights than the A320 Neo family. There really is nothing wrong with it and it is perfectly safe to fly without MCAS. That is solely to make it handle EXACTLY like the 737 NG, maintain the same type rating and eliminate re-training of legacy 737 pilots.
—
IMHO, the best way to field an A321XLR challenger is not a new aircraft but simply to abandon the type rating and certificate of the 737 while further stretching the fuselage and giving it new main gears and a new wing.
—
The 3+3 737 fuselage is already optimal for the capacity, a twin aisle 797 design is actually less aerodynamically and mass efficient. They can call it the 797 or whatever, but keep the 737 fuselage and add another stretch to the original Boeing 707-320 length of 46.6 m (2.8m longer than the 737-MAX 10). This will seat 240 passengers and structurally the fuselage was originally intended for that length anyway. The new composite wing should be about 130 feet long with folding tips to get it down to 116 feet to fit Group C Gates. A MTOW of 105 tons (up 16 tons from the Max10 and down about 10 tons from the 757-200) and 40,000 lbs thrust engines will give it a nominal range of about 4,500 nm which is perfect for the mission. A shorter variant sharing the same exact fuselage as the Max 10 will go 5,000 nm at the same exact MTOW.
—
As far as the 270-290 passenger segment, well, forget about it! Two regional aircrafts of that capacity — the 757-300 and the 787-3 — didn’t sell worth a damn anyway. Besides, if they can 260 passenger plane off the aforementioned platform with a further 2.8m stretch using exactly the same gear and wing if they drop the range by 500~700 nm back to 757 specifications of 3,800~3,900 nm.
(1) Why introduce an all new airplane to seat 220-270 passengers? That is EXACTLY the capacity of the 787-8. Why not reuse the 787 fuselage and simply give it a new short span wing and 40,000 lbs class engines? Better yet, make it a 125′ wing with folding tips to fit the 118′ Group III (Group C) Gates? The 787 fuselage is already the lightest for its capacity in the industry and this also means that it is possible for 797 and 787 pilots to share a type rating or at least transition with minimal re-training.
(2) There is really NOTHING WRONG with the 737 Max. It was, and is, a perfectly safe aircraft to fly without MCAS. The problem was trying to get it to handle exactly like a 737 NG for type rating purposes and implementing that unsafely. The Max is actually a lighter and slightly more efficient aircraft than the A320 Neo family — particularly in short to medium haul flights. The only reason the Max is inferior to the A321XLR in range and/or capacity is because of an unwillingness to change the main gear to allow higher MTOW, a longer fuselage and greater fuel capacity. Again, this is in the interest of a common type certificate. However, in contrast with a brand new airplane a 737-10LR with a different type certificate is cheaper to build and no worse for the customer than a 797 to introduce into their flightline.
I still do not know why Boeing put the 757 platform
to pasture, such an amazing and capable aircraft still doing it’s job and companies holding on to it
because of it’s abilities as a workhorse
if boeing finish the Boeing 737 max and boeing 777x flight and then later to launch the FSA and the NMA together to catch up to airbus
I’ve heard this back and forth waffling over the 797. I also read that the a321 NEO was STILL not what the airlines were quite looking for. I’m not sure what the truth is, but if Boeing is getting that kind of feedback from airlines, don’t count on them shelving the plane. I’ll wait for an official statement, not hearsay from the avgeek community.
This is great news! Apparently Boeing has been “floating” a FSA (future small aircraft) to some airlines. I would be so excited if the Max is their shortest production run ever and a new aircraft where Boeing engineers actually could do what they’re great at. I think the 797 will be 180 – 250 seats and be a great aircraft. Then all Boeing needs to do is convert orders of the 737 Max to the 797 – easy! The challenge I have with the Max is that it has so many legacy issues that the FAA have let through based on it being a “737”. It would not pass the new standards for a new aircraft coming to market. The public will be flying on it for the next 20 years! I’d rather Boeing kick the 737NG production up until the 797 is ready (what they should have done in 2011)! If Boeing really was living safety, they would acknowledge this and move on.
I have no desire to fly a single aisle airplane to Europe, I’ll always pick the widebody, even if it costs more.
“Whilst new aircraft generally take six to seven years to enter the market, Boeing has said that they aim to reduce this time to around five years.” There we go again! The thing is not even on paper and they already start to speed things up. What do they need more than the sh** they are in now to start using common sense and take the time they need to design a good and reliable new plane.
Keep the Aircraft as a single isle ,however do something radical make the cabin two to three feet wider and taller seats wider etc etc .
Can you imagine while the F/As are doing a meal service you can actually move past the meal trolleys .
And the fuselage profile could be like an old C97 small luggage area and decent size cabin !
From a paxex perspective a twin aisle that could do shorter and lighter missions would have been very welcome
This is a sensible move. Boeing is currently in survival mode (although the previous management didn’t seem to realise it). In survival mode, you focus exclusively on solving current issues, not on investment for the future. Current issues are returning the MAX to service, rebuilding a sales process for the MAX (or whatever they choose to call in in future), selling the 787 and replacing the 777 with the X. All of those will bring cash to the company. Launching a new aircraft will consume cash which Boeing does not currently have and might never again have if they don’t do the other tasks.