General Aviation Thread

[Sandhi Yudha]

Big Boeing 797 Updates - Dj's Aviation

Boeing's proposed new middle-of-the-market airliner, often dubbed the 797, appears to be further away than expected.

djsaviation.net

NMA rendering seems shown choices between 787 little brother or 757 Max. Personally I rarther they build 757 Max variance, and something they need to do rather then 737 Max.

Still this is a choice between 2-3-2 as 787 little brother or 3-3 configuration as 757 Max.

Re-engine the 757 is the most less-risky and the most cheapest way to modernise the 757. But simply "MAXimising" them by putting some LEAPs under the wings would be impossible. The maximum thrust of the LEAP-variants is below 33.000 lbf, much lower than the RB211 and PW2043 used on the 757-300. Besides that the fuselage of the 757 is still based on the one of the 727, only modified with newer materials during development in the end of the '70s. This will make the 757 MAX a poor competitor for the A321neo.

 

[Ananda]

Besides that the fuselage of the 757 is still based on the one of the 727, only modified with newer materials during development in the end of the '70s. This will make the 757 MAX a poor competitor for the A321neo.

It will be new fuselage from scratch, whether 797 going to be 787 baby brother or 757 derivatives. I call it 757 max as 737 max also only derive from 737 original design but already different airliners altogether.

Boeing like other manufacturer will use aspects from their experiences to be new design. They will just review whether the market want is either smaller dreamliner or 757 derivatives

757 replacement would be great but That segment is at the moment sadly Airbus’s. They have the A321XLR rolling out and the majority of the market for it is either going to buy those or try and keep its 757s flying.

Seems that's what this NMA need to answer. 200-250 capacity medium to long range able to handle city to city thiner direct routes. Hub and spoke business model now have to compete with thiner point to point model. Yes, that's what A321 LR/XLR give, and I believe that's where this NMA should answer. Either that, or Boeing just give up on that market segment.

There are talks to give HGW version for 737 Max 10 to give it more range. Still even with 737-10ER, it won't be enough to face A321XLR. It is their own calculation that has to determine whether want to challenge Airbus on that market portion.

 

[Terran]

Re-engine the 757 is the most less-risky and the most cheapest way to modernise the 757. But simply "MAXimising" them by putting some LEAPs under the wings would be impossible. The maximum thrust of the LEAP-variants is below 33.000 lbf, much lower than the RB211 and PW2043 used on the 757-300. Besides that the fuselage of the 757 is still based on the one of the 727, only modified with newer materials during development in the end of the '70s. This will make the 757 MAX a poor competitor for the A321neo.

The 757 is dead. The tooling and manufacturing base is long gone. Where the 737 it still exists.
Farther both Engines that it used are long gone too.
Basically Boeing has to start from scratch and has to get a new engine for it too.
The Original Boeing NMA project was supposed to use RR Ultrafan engines which may be the option here.

Seems that's what this NMA need to answer. 200-250 capacity medium to long range able to handle city to city thiner direct routes. Hub and spoke business model now have to compete with thiner point to point model. Yes, that's what A321 LR/XLR give, and I believe that's where this NMA should answer. Either that, or Boeing just give up on that market segment.

There are talks to give HGW version for 737 Max 10 to give it more range. Still even with 737-10ER, it won't be enough to face A321XLR. It is their own calculation that has to determine whether want to challenge Airbus on that market portion.

Agreed to a point but the critical thing here is Boeing’s 737 has been the top seller of airliners until it was eclipsed by the A320 earlier this year.
If Boeing doesn’t have an entry level aircraft they loose a substantial market share and more critical potentially give their most loyal customer base to Airbus. The budget and regional airlines are going through a shake up but they are some of the most loyal customers.
That is why I said Boeing needs both. The 737 Max can’t really compete with the A321XLR for range. But then again are you going to get Southwest or Ryan to buy something that doesn’t meet their requirements? Sure you could fly a short hop with an A321XLR but it’s not the hyper efficient model many of these airlines live on.
The 757 line is so dead that any attempt to resurrect it has to start from nothing and ends up a brand new aircraft.
The 737 Max is a dead end. It’s taken the aircraft as far as it can go on milking the potential for it. A follow on from the Max automatically becomes such an extensive redesign it’s a a new aircraft.
Simply Scaling down the 787 isn’t a solution either the 787 though a wonderful plane has a number of solutions that were chosen for it that Boeing probably won’t use again. Some materials and manufacturing methods are just too much trouble and though Boeing uses them on the 787 family they are unlikely to follow up.

 

[Ananda]

The 757 line is so dead that any attempt to resurrect it has to start from nothing and ends up a brand new aircraft.

On the context of NMA, it is brand new aircraft. The rendering whether it is 787 Baby Brother or 757 derivatives design don't mean they are not brand new design. It is basically are common from any manufacturers to give their new brand new design derive from their previous designs.

Boeing very clear that NMA is entirely new design, so they are not going to resurect older production line. However what they have in stable to handle A321 LR/XLR ?

They have 737-10 same capacity but 1500-1800 miles or 2500-3000 km shorter range (depends on configuration). That's the niche market that Boeing has to decide whether to let Airbus has it or they have to respond.

This is where NMA coming, their rendering and media talk shown either 787 baby brother or 757 derivatives just shown that Boeing aware there are two potential design that they can 'offer' to see market reaction.

In the end back to Boeing business calculation whether that part of market segment worth it to fight on, or it is too much trouble to answer for with their own brand new design. I do believe that it is not only 737 that already reach their design limitation, but also A320 family.

 

[Terran]

On the context of NMA, it is brand new aircraft. The rendering whether it is 787 Baby Brother or 757 derivatives design don't mean they are not brand new design. It is basically are common from any manufacturers to give their new brand new design derive from their previous designs.

Boeing very clear that NMA is entirely new design, so they are not going to resurect older production line. However what they have in stable to handle A321 LR/XLR ?

I mostly am fighting against the term “Baby 787” the time for such a thing was a decade ago. Any NMA or NSA would be so dramatically different from the 787 as to make the 787 like the 767. The 757 is a unique aircraft because if its combination of narrow body with wide body engines. Even the A321XLR doesn’t exactly match it. Because that engine class isn’t on the market.

They have 737-10 same capacity but 1500-1800 miles or 2500-3000 km shorter range (depends on configuration). That's the niche market that Boeing has to decide whether to let Airbus has it or they have to respond.

This is where NMA coming, their rendering and media talk shown either 787 baby brother or 757 derivatives just shown that Boeing aware there are two potential design that they can 'offer' to see market reaction.

In the end back to Boeing business calculation whether that part of market segment worth it to fight on, or it is too much trouble to answer for with their own brand new design. I do believe that it is not only 737 that already reach their design limitation, but also A320 family.

Again I think Boeing Needs both. Even more than Airbus. Airbus has not one single Asle aircraft but two the A320Neo and the A220. Boeing has only the 737 Max. Yes the A320NEO is also a dead end. Yet Airbus could prioritize and stretch the A220 even offer a Neo to gap fill till a clean sheet A320 replacement. Boeing doesn’t have that option.
Boeing needs a New Small Aircraft that it can sell to replace the 737. The 737 line is old far older than the A320.
Yes Boeing has let the position of the 757 slip. It needs a New Midsize that it can use to edge out the A321XLR and fill the long range direct flight model. A position it pioneered.
Because the two aircraft would both be the same diameter They have an opportunity to spiral develop.

 

[Ananda]

mostly am fighting against the term “Baby 787” the time for such a thing was a decade ago. Any NMA or NSA would be so dramatically different from the 787 as to make the 787 like the 767.

Will see on this, anything that's too much different with Dreamliner, 777X, 737Max on flight experiences means also too much rating adjustment training. Neither Boeing or Airbus ever done it. All always work on gradual changes, because that's what market wants.

Airbus has not one single Asle aircraft but two the A320Neo and the A220. Boeing has only the 737 Max.

What's done is done, Boeing stupidity toward Embraer deal just compounding all the problem they are facing. However I doubt Boeing will have capacity in near and mid future to develop two different Airliners for overall segment below Dreamliner. So either this NMA or Max Replacement.

Since Max still new, I do suspect they are in calculation toward that middle segment. Either build one or abandoned part of the market toward Airbus. If they see 737-10 is enough toward A321Neo, and let go LR/XLR market to Airbus, then there will be no NMA.

 

[swerve]

First, Boeing attacked Bombardier, & drove it into the arms of Airbus, thus making it a far more effective competitor. Then, it acted equally stupidly towards Embraer. I wonder how many Airbus shares the Boeing directors own.

 

[swerve]

Agreed to a point but the critical thing here is Boeing’s 737 has been the top seller of airliners until it was eclipsed by the A320 earlier this year.

The 737 has been on the market for 20 years longer than the A320, but the A320 has overtaken it in sales - & Boeing doesn't have a replacement on the way. That should be ringing deafeningly loud alarms at Boeing.

Boeing has only the 737 Max. Yes the A320NEO is also a dead end. Yet Airbus could prioritize and stretch the A220 even offer a Neo to gap fill till a clean sheet A320 replacement. Boeing doesn’t have that option.
Boeing needs a New Small Aircraft that it can sell to replace the 737. The 737 line is old far older than the A320.
Yes Boeing has let the position of the 757 slip. It needs a New Midsize that it can use to edge out the A321XLR and fill the long range direct flight model. A position it pioneered.
Because the two aircraft would both be the same diameter They have an opportunity to spiral develop.

The bolded parts are crucial, I think. The 737 is 20 years older than the A320, & was conceived in the days of rather narrow turbojets. Boeing's been forced into some rather painful engineering compromises, things they'd never have designed in from the start, to keep it selling - & it's still losing heavily. For Boeing, replacement of the 737 is far, far more urgent than replacement of the A320 is for Airbus.

 

[John Fedup]

Boeing is no longer Boeing. Recent C-Fs are proof of this. Can a NMA offer enough significant advantages over the A321XLR for the market to jump onboard? That is what Boeing is wrestling with at the moment. It might be better to concentrate engineering efforts on the F-47 (and F/A-XX, assuming it proceeds and Boeing gets the contract). Oh….and get KC-46 sorted!

 

[Terran]

Boeing is no longer Boeing. Recent C-Fs are proof of this. Can a NMA offer enough significant advantages over the A321XLR for the market to jump onboard? That is what Boeing is wrestling with at the moment. It might be better to concentrate engineering efforts on the F-47 (and F/A-XX, assuming it proceeds and Boeing gets the contract). Oh….and get KC-46 sorted!

Perhaps Dausault or Airbus should focus more on FCAS and cancel the next Falcon Buisness jet or Helicopter or cargo plane or airliners?

Boeing and Airbus have divisions. Basically separate entities under the same corporate banner. Boeing’s Phantom works may move back and forth on projects but overall the resources for its defense side are not so constrained as to need to rob the commercial side. It’s true Boeing hasn’t had a nice couple of decades yet as @Ananda said “What’s done is done”.
The KC46A’s issues are primarily on the conversion side of the aircraft. RVS 2.0 is on the way and should begin implementation next year. There have been reports of issues with the APU but that’s not necessarily on Boeing as the APU is manufactured by Honeywell. There have been issues of Boom binding that’s under work by the USAF and Boeing. Improperly sealed fuel lines that’s on Boeing’s conversion they have implemented a flex seal system. Solutions are being generated and it’s already more Kc46 built than A330MRTT. These are issues and it is costing Boeing no denial.
The VC25B is delayed however that’s not on the design desk. In part this is as the USAF kept making design changes. Slated delivery at this point is still 2027 for testing. In other part is the degree of security demanded for work on the plane intended to fly the POTUS. You have to have a security clearance: Yankee White with a background check so complete even Santa Clause is impressed. The FBI dig so deep they basically have an account of you on par with St Peter. They know about that F you got in third grade on that pop quiz. They know… To pull that off isn’t easy. It requires an army of FBI agents with their own clearance to do it and a polygraph machine and everyone even the guy who lays the carpet has to pass.
——————

Now then can an NMA offer enough to entice away from A321XLR?
Probably. Remember it’s atleast 8 years probably closer to 10 from now.
The XLR is a range extension of the A321NEO as such it’s basically trading on additional fuel but otherwise the same A321Neo.
An NMA would be a clean sheet. Every generation of airliner has been getting more fuel and cost efficient, comfortable with a bonus of environmental impacts. This comes from three aspects. More efficient aerodynamic design, newer stronger lightweight materials, better HVAC systems more baked in modcons and most importantly newer engines.
An NMA would automatically have all of these. For the pax a roomier cabin with all the latest toys, for the weight new alloys, composite and materials manufacturing methods and design aspects. For the bean counter more fuel savings by more efficient wing and lifting surfaces drag reducing techniques. For the pilots… The existing engines on the A321XLR are about 30,000lbf class the same as those on the A321NEO despite a higher weight.
That’s a bonus to the bean counter but means that Airlines have a harder time in high temperatures or high altitude airports. Quebec to London in the fall no problem The Middle East, Las Vegas international, Phoenix, Mexico City, in the summer ? issue. 757 is somewhat of a hot rod. An airplane that is well liked by pilots for its hot and high performance its packing twin 40,000 lbs class engines.
Any NMA is going to roll out with brand new engines under or maybe over the wings. Probably RR Ultra fans that’s going to offer a power boost that the engines on the A321XLR. Boeings 2011 NLT called for a 737 replacement with 37,000lbf engines their NMA scheme wanted 50,000 lbs engines.

Will see on this, anything that's too much different with Dreamliner, 777X, 737Max on flight experiences means also too much rating adjustment training. Neither Boeing or Airbus ever done it. All always work on gradual changes, because that's what market wants.

The 777X doesn’t look it but a number of technologies in materials have been done to it same for the 747-8. They ported that from the 787 but also other aircraft outside of Boeing.
Also unlike Airbus the 737 max is still mechanical flight controls. The 787 and 777 are both FBW but the 737 never made the transition. NTL or NMA would both be FBW from day zero. Farther the longevity of the 737 and A320 mean that Boeing’s next generation airliners are likely to be the basis for derivatives with at least 30 years of production. So well they are likely to fork successes from the 777X and 787, they are also going to have to future proof the design.
The 737 design is at its developmental end game. To try and modernize beyond the max would require newer engines and every new engine keeps getting bigger. With the Max already all but scraping its nacelles as it taxi any larger engine would demand longer gear leading to changes to the fuselage any new engines would also demand new wings and as the Max’s issues on flight control proved a new FBW system to replace the Computer augmented mechanical system. In addition airlines want more room the cabin and 737 doesn’t offer what the A220 does in that department so again redesign to the fuselage meaning it’s not a 737 anymore.
However an issue on the 787 fuselage composite is that it doesn’t like large cargo doors and that’s part of the market for both a New Middle Airliner or a New Light Twin class.

What's done is done, Boeing stupidity toward Embraer deal just compounding all the problem they are facing. However I doubt Boeing will have capacity in near and mid future to develop two different Airliners for overall segment below Dreamliner. So either this NMA or Max Replacement.

Since Max still new, I do suspect they are in calculation toward that middle segment. Either build one or abandoned part of the market toward Airbus. If they see 737-10 is enough toward A321Neo, and let go LR/XLR market to Airbus, then there will be no NMA.

I am not sure Embraer could have helped Boeing in this case. The largest Embraer is 120-142 seats. The A220’s two existing versions are 135-160. The 737 Max starts at 153 and goes to 204.
*All single class configuration in reality airlines will differ based on business plan and seating will vary based on classes and seat models.*

The Max as a product is fairly new yes and will likely be supported for decades.
However the Rub is that the second Airbus starts designing the replacement for the A320 they by default also start designing the replacements for the A318, A319 and A321. The A321XLR is a fork of the A321Neo, The A321 Neo is a rewinged/reengined A321 a stretch of the A320.

Boeing when they designed the 757 did so in tandem with the 767, long after the 737 had entered service. With the 767 entering service in 82 the 757 in 83.
With the 777X being so new and the 787 being so popular and young. Boeings gap is the age of the Max and the premature death of the 757. The largest Max variant overlaps the 757 200 at 200 seats well the longest 757 the 300 is 243 seats pretty much the same for the A321XLR 244 seats. Since Boeing is going to have to replace both anyway might as well go for a conjoined family of NLT to NMA. It’s a challenge and in all likelihood the two will be launched separately with NMA probably a few years ahead of NLT but if you will probably have commonalities. A fat narrow body in common with both, common cockpits and avionics.

Going just NMA probably the “skinny” widebody route means a longer development cycle and more cost when the NLT does roll around and cedes Airbus the bottom of the market as the 737Max series ages and Boeing delays its replacement to the bottom of the 2030s. Boeing looses more ground in the bottom of the market with long term “Proudly All Boeing Fleet” customers start shopping around. Especially if Embraer launches a larger new aircraft, something they have apparently been studying. If Embraer rolls out an “E3 Jet” equivalent to the A220 family in the 100,300, (theoretical)500 class with transatlantic flight possibilities that’s not just a shot across Airbuses bow. For Boeing it’s a direct hit into the C suite. Not a rival to the widebody duopoly but a deep wound into the foundations of one of them.

 

[John Fedup]

At the end of the day, which company, Boeing or Airbus, is better shape to launch a new commercial jet? Which company can await new technology prior to committing to a new jet?

 

[Terran]

At the end of the day, which company, Boeing or Airbus, is better shape to launch a new commercial jet? Which company can await new technology prior to committing to a new jet?

At the end of the day neither is going to launch a full new product. Any new product in the commercial space NMA or NTL isn’t going to make it into production for a few years. Airbus just got the A321XLR into service. Boeing is fighting to get the 777X through certification. That’s their near term.

Which company can await new technology prior to committing to a new jet?
Survey says:
EVERYBODY!!
Seriously though Airbus, Boeing, Comac, Embraer, Yak. They are all banking on engines. Airbus and Boeing can’t move ahead on replacements for the A320/A321 or 737/757 until a new generation of engines. You could put the Leap series or the PW GTF under the wings of a new aircraft but it’s only going to fly like the existing ones with a higher price tag and a harder sell. To make a NMA you need new engines. To make a NTL you need new engines.
Comac needs new engines and for China preferably domestic before they can move to a C929. C939 or even just an C919 ER.
Embraer needs new engines before it can move ahead to its next product whether a new C390 version or a commercial airliner or a private jet or a turboprop.
Yak needs new engines before it can start modernizing the Il96 or Tu214. It needs to get the PD series certified before it can move ahead with any of its ambitions.
It’s not a mater of “can they await” it’s a matter of not having a choice. The engines justify the plane. They design the plane based on the available engine. The engine sets so much of the performance and flight dynamics it’s not a plug and play.
The green light to transition from power point presentations to actual hardware starts not in the HQ of Boeing or Airbus but in the engine test stands of Rolls Royce, General Electric, Pratt and Whitney, CFM, Safran, ecta ecta.
That is why Boeing is sitting that is why Airbus is sitting. Both are awaiting the results of new engine development cycles.
That is why I keep mentioning Rolls Royce Ultra Fan.

By the way have I mentioned Rolls Royce Ultra Fan? Well now I have.
RR plans to scale the Ultrafan for both a widebody and narrow body platforms. With a 2028 narrow body engine demonstration program announced.
That program is the starter pistol. When that engine goes to market that is what will make a successor to the 737/A320/A220. Ultrafan is also the starter for the NMA and the full sized is starter for the next generation of 787/777X successor and A350. If not the Ultrafan than whatever GE or PW launch to counter it.

 

[Ananda]

am not sure Embraer could have helped Boeing in this case. The largest Embraer is 120-142 seats. The A220’s two existing versions are 135-160. The 737 Max starts at 153 and goes to 204.

I'm still see if Embrear deal goes through, E Series will be beneficial to Boeing. Now it is just a lost opportunity. Bottom of the market is what every others manufacturer try to include in their portfolio.

Airbus has A220 then move to A320 family, A330, then A350 (forget A380). COMAC has C909 (ARJ21 previously), then C919, working now to C929 and planning C939. UAC/Yak have SSJ, then MC-21 and plan working on new wide bodies.

Boeing used to have 717 (something that ironically become base for COMAC C909), and E series should fill that slot. Now they have to work two airframe development, which I don't think they can. So one segment of the market one way or another will have to be abandoned by them.

Seriously though Airbus, Boeing, Comac, Embraer, Yak. They are all banking on engines.

Agree on this, which is why I still see Russia and China has to work together, if they are seriously want to have chance competing with Airbus and Boeing and Western Supply Chain.

Even NMA has to wait for new engine, something in the class of RB211 or PW2000. It will be back to engine manufacturer to see potential demand on that segment. Looking all of this the challange for NMA conception is seriously questioned. Will it better for Boeing to build 737 replacement or 757, knowing having build both increasingly difficult for Boeing.

For that the challange that I see for Boeing is to make this 797 design that flexible but still cost competitive enough to play 160-250 seat market. Means this 797 has to take the mantle of 2 airliners. In mean time to face A321neo family challange they have to rely only with 737-9 and 10, and make the best of it, until replacement come along.

With this strategy means Boeing abandoned bottom/regional market. If they can get E Series before, then they have something that can be streach for 90-150 seat market. Something that Airbus has, and even COMAC and Yak have. Again what's done is done, and Boeing only can see the lost opportunity.

So I just don't see how Boeing can regain it's first place ever again, and watch their back to see COMAC does not come closing in. They simply can not get complete portfolio as Airbus can do. 777X, 787 and future 797 are the best portfolio of commercial business that once mighty Boeing can hope forseable future.

 

[Terran]

I'm still see if Embrear deal goes through, E Series will be beneficial to Boeing. Now it is just a lost opportunity. Bottom of the market is what every others manufacturer try to include in their portfolio.

Airbus has A220 then move to A320 family, A330, then A350 (forget A380). COMAC has C909 (ARJ21 previously), then C919, working now to C929 and planning C939. UAC/Yak have SSJ, then MC-21 and plan working on new wide bodies.

Boeing used to have 717 (something that ironically become base for COMAC C909), and E series should fill that slot. Now they have to work two airframe development, which I don't think they can. So one segment of the market one way or another will have to be abandoned by them.

As you yourself said what is done is done. Embraer is highly unlikely to entertain a Boeing partnership or buy out again. The centerpiece of the Embraer Boeing deal was the C390 partnership. Something that would have given the USAF/Lockheed Martin C130J a run for its money. Yet Embraer has shopped selling the C390 of the U.S.A.F. They did so with L3 Harris. The E Jet series is impressive yet the E1 line is old. The E2 has run into Scope laws and in Boeing’s current state by the time they may be ready to move a revisit of the merger proposal it would be time for a replacement.

Agree on this, which is why I still see Russia and China has to work together, if they are seriously want to have chance competing with Airbus and Boeing and Western Supply Chain.

Russia’s situation for the foreseeable is that it’s going to be struggling to maintain second place in any relationship with China. Well Russia might be able to assist in supply chain. China has the more dominant economy of the two and the better potential industry base. Given the deepening entrenchment of both east and west in a revised new Cold War scenario, Russia’s weakened aviation capabilities with its airliners either being warmed over Soviet leftovers, or now being redeveloped former western joint ventures. and Comac’s upstart nature. I don’t see them in the foreseeable able to actually breakdown the duopoly.
Nor do I see Comac as having a need to use PD series engines.

Even NMA has to wait for new engine, something in the class of RB211 or PW2000. It will be back to engine manufacturer to see potential demand on that segment. Looking all of this the challange for NMA conception is seriously questioned. Will it better for Boeing to build 737 replacement or 757, knowing having build both increasingly difficult for Boeing.

For that the challange that I see for Boeing is to make this 797 design that flexible but still cost competitive enough to play 160-250 seat market. Means this 797 has to take the mantle of 2 airliners. In mean time to face A321neo family challange they have to rely only with 737-9 and 10, and make the best of it, until replacement come along.

With this strategy means Boeing abandoned bottom/regional market. If they can get E Series before, then they have something that can be streach for 90-150 seat market. Something that Airbus has, and even COMAC and Yak have. Again what's done is done, and Boeing only can see the lost opportunity.

The A321 Neo has more in common with the 737 Max than the 757. Remember the XLR isn’t a new design. It’s a revision of the A321 its self an A320 Stretch with added fuel tanks.
When Boeing originally conceived the 757 they were looking at a replacement for the 727. Early on in the 757 program Boeing even considered a 757 100 which would have sat where the Max 7- Max 8 does today. So it’s not impossible.

So I just don't see how Boeing can regain it's first place ever again, and watch their back to see COMAC does not come closing in. They simply can not get complete portfolio as Airbus can do. 777X, 787 and future 797 are the best portfolio of commercial business that once mighty Boeing can hope forseable future.

I am not as Bullish on Comac especially if they partner into Russian supply chain. There current products are heavy and short range vs the Airbus equivalent. There planed models are reliant on new engines and technologies for China that at best gives them an equivalent to the 787/A330Neo and 777X/A350XLR but years after those models have taken strong positions and with a whole new generation of western engines in the works that give A&B ground to eclipse.

Airbus is in the stronger position however the Duopoly’s history is where the two companies rise above and then fall below each other. Airbus is fully capable of making mistakes. See the A380 in example. A case where hubris blinded Blagnac to a change in the market direction. They then had to play catch up as Boeing rightly targeted the 787.
The two companies are almost siblings. Highly competitive sibling but codependent simultaneously. Airbus needs Boeing as they cannot hope to cover the high demand of civil aviation and Boeing needs Airbus for the same reasons. The two also have similar supply chains.
Boeing’s 777X, 787 and potential 797 cover much of the meat and potatoes of the Airline industry. Look at Airbus’s line up again.
A350 XWB is Airbus’s answer to the 777
A330 Neo Airbus response to the 787
A320 Neo Airbus answer to the 737 Max. The A321XLR a decades late response to the 757 and not a true NMA. It’s a better Max 10.

A220 wasn’t an Airbus plan it was the C series a response by Bombardier to the Ejets and A318/A319.
Also again Engines. Neither Boeing or Airbus are moving until the next generation of engines are on the market. Those won’t drop until the end of the decade. Without firm design specifications Airbus Boeing and the rest can’t design their planes for them.

 

[John Fedup]

What level of performance enhancement for future jet engines is required for Boeing and Airbus to move forward with new designs and what do airlines expect above and beyond compared to their current fleets?