Boeing NMA is DOA
 

https://www.flightglobal.com/air-tra...136296.article

'Boeing is taking a fresh look at the design of its so-called New Mid-market Airplane due to changes in the global aviation market and heightened focus on pilot-aircraft interactions.

“We are going to take, probably, a different approach,” Boeing chief executive David Calhoun says on 22 January in response to questions about the NMA. “We are going to start with a clean sheet of paper, again.”'

DOA must mean something different to you than me. This article says that they are still working on it.

The current version is dead. Yes, they're still working on it, but this reset will add a couple of years at least.
To be honest, the title is more about rhyming than accuracy.

737-UltraMax?

Too early?

Another Max casualty, although it was challenging to make the business case all along. NMA will probably involve into SOMETHING. Eventually.

The XLR is flying ff the shelves like hotcakes, exceeding even airbuses' expectations. The United order was probably the nail in the NMA coffin.

The 321XLR is the same tech as the neo but with added tanks, deceased payload iirc. It's obvious that airlines want an airframe they can deploy on a wide vsriety (up to 4700NM) of routes with reasonable load factors and to be able to redeploy if a particular route isn't profitable. Long and thin. I think there is definitely a case for a 5000NM plane with 210-240 pax and 25 percent lower burn but who knows.

757MAX

Oh there's a case in that niche all right. But is it a big enough case to pay for the R&D, especially squeezed between Max 10 / XLR on one end and 787 / 350 on the other?

Part of the problem is that the original NMA was intended to squarely fit the 757 niche, but it doesn't look like many folks will hang on to their 75's long enough now... by the time an NMA arrived, they'd already be replaced.

If they could offer an NMA right now, I'm sure it would sell just fine.

Never made since to me, Boeing 75 and 76 launched as a pair for this exact purpose. 78 launches to replace the 76, but with no pair, and now that's exactly what would sell.

The problem with the 787 is that with its extra long range it burns the same amount of fuel on a 767 route as a 767 does. Airlines actually do want a 767 replacement, which the 787 is not really if you want to take advantage of better fuel burn.

May I introduce....(drumroll )

757 NG