Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Boeing 737 Replacement  
User currently offlineJDD1 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 94 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

Boeing will not replace the 737 family

There are two reasons for this:
1- Brazil, Canada, Russia, China, Japan and perhaps India are all going to be making airplanes in the 125 seat category and they will probably all be fly-by-wire. With four or five new entrants in this category nobody is going to make money and therefore Boeing could never justify investing some $8b.
They are likely to let (encourage) Japan build the "7J7" and will license the 787 cockpit and fly-by-wire to them. Boeing will perhaps build the composite fuselage for the Japanese on a fixed price contract.
This way, for very little investment or risk an airplane will be available that fits into the Boeing fly-by-wire family. And Boeing will be laughing all the way to the bank.

2- Recent studies show the warming of the planet is getting steadily worse. Airplanes have a large responsibility for this. (3-4% extra cloud cover due to water vapour etc etc) Within the next ten years legislation will stop shuttle flights of small airplanes and enforce large ones three or four times a day. This is one of the reasons that Boeing is proposing the 747Adv. Big airplanes and hubs will be forced on the travelling public for their own good.

(Reason 1 - The reason why the A320 family will not be affected so quickly is because it is already fly-by-wire. With a good update ( 737NG style,) at a fraction of the investment of an all new airplane, the A320NG will be able to compete easily on price and technology for some years, until it also has to be replaced.)

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3659 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4700 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Recent studies show the warming of the planet is getting steadily worse. Airplanes have a large responsibility for this.

Hogwash. Yearly volcanic activity spews out more co2 than man has ever made.

Have you calculated the amount of energy it will take to keep people happy while they wait for their whalejet connection?

And please explain how there will be 4-5 manufacturers of small planes (Reason 1) when they are "illegal" (Reason 2)

[Edited 2005-06-13 10:43:48]

User currently offlineAerlingus330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Within the next ten years legislation will stop shuttle flights of small airplanes

Will this ban be European, United States, G8?

And what about filling these Aircraft?...Lets have the A380 on a LHR-MAN route...They would maybe be half full or Quater Full. These Big Aircraft are designed to be more efficant on Long Haul Routes with Lots of people using them. Not Short Haul and Maybe 150 people using them at one go.
Somehow, I do not see it working in My lifetime...and Im 14.

AerLingus330



Aer Lingus Airbus A330-300
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2961 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

The chances of a Japanese, Russia, Chinese or Indian plane that can be marketable throughout the world are about ZERO within the next ten years.
Beyond that who knows. Japanese companies will play an integral role in aircraft component manufacturing, but will not do final assembly.

Embraer's 170-190 design is maxed out with the 195, anything larger would require a totally new design.

Bombardier is still assessing the 100+ seat market, but it will have to come-up with additional risk-sharing partners. Japanese/Chinese manufacturers could be these partners but would they risk angering Boeing when the 737-replacement design comes-up for work bidding. No European company in their right mind would sign up.


User currently offlineAMSGOT From Sweden, joined Jun 2005, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4595 times:

Nja, I don't really see this happening. Isn't the 737 (and it's possible replacements) the cash-cow for Boeing? And aren't the most experienced in this field?

You're saying Brazil, Canada, Russia, China, Japan and perhaps India are all going to be making airplanes in the 125 seat category in remark 1, but at the same time you say you expect a ban within the next ten years? That sounds quite contradicting to me...



Please remain seated!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25328 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4579 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mham001 (Reply 1):
Hogwash.

Hogwash?

GE doesn't agree with you. They are planning to spend $1.5 billion a year to investigate solutions.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...al-warming-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4475 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Boeing will not replace the 737 family

There are two reasons for this:
1- Brazil, Canada, Russia, China, Japan and perhaps India are all going to be making airplanes in the 125 seat category

Most 737's are in the 150-200 seat category..


User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 947 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 3):
The chances of a Japanese, Russia, Chinese or Indian plane that can be marketable throughout the world are about ZERO within the next ten years.

Some of these countries will be assembling A & B designed aircraft. It's quite possible there could be 2 production lines for each, in 2 different countries.

A & B want risk sharing partners & commonality with their larger models, but at the same time, recognise small aircraft = small margins = lowest-cost manufacturing.


User currently offlineJDD1 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 94 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

In reply to some of your comments.
Aerlingus 330 and Carpethead. Until deregulation we had wide bodies on one-hour routes and passengers got there just in time and the L1011s, A300s/A330s had 45min turnrounds. There was no waiting around. I don't expect to see A380s on MAN-LHR but a wide-body every two or three hours, yes.

Mham001, AMSGOT. The countries mentioned have already got projects launched, flying or projected, with the exception of India. Japan has publicly stated that their ambition is to build their own airplane. It is a strategic objective for these countries to have their own industries, and who says their airplanes will automatically be on shuttle flights. These countries, excepting Japan, are so large that thousands of new routes can be opened up with daily services.

Bombardier and Embraer are building families in the exact same way as A and B did. It is logical that airlines with large fleets of regional airplanes expand with larger versions of these (provided there is commonality) rather than cut down versions of bigger airplanes which are always more expensive.

Keesje I don't believe that these countries will feel limited to 125 seats.

I tend to agree with Planesmart in reply 7.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4231 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
This is one of the reasons that Boeing is proposing the 747Adv. Big airplanes and hubs will be forced on the travelling public for their own good.

Weren´t they always claiming they will go point to point with the 787 and the A380 has no future. If true this statement has the same credibillity as"4 engines 4 long haul".
I still believe that there will be a 737 replacement maybe not in the size of the 737-600 but an airplane that covers the size of the 737-700 (being the smallest version) till a 757-200 sized plane.

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
They are likely to let (encourage) Japan build the "7J7" and will license the 787 cockpit and fly-by-wire to them. Boeing will perhaps build the composite fuselage for the Japanese on a fixed price contract.
This way, for very little investment or risk an airplane will be available that fits into the Boeing fly-by-wire family. And Boeing will be laughing all the way to the bank.

They won´t give away their knowledge of making planes. They will likely take Japan as a partner again like they did with the 787. Btw it would be easier to sell a 737 replacement which is based on the Boeing 787 and carries the name Boeing then to say to an 787 customer and for a smaller aircraft for your fleet pease visit Kawasaki our partner in Japan.

P.S. Did you ever read "Airframe" by Michael Crighton it deals with a similar topic.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1889 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4178 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 3):
The chances of a Japanese, Russia, Chinese or Indian plane that can be marketable throughout the world are about ZERO within the next ten years.

China and India, yes, but you're wrong about Russia. They are already working on RRJ, which will be the most economical plane ever designed by Russian aerospace industry, and its fuel consumption and operating costs should be on par with its Western counterparts. So it will me marketable, the question remains if the West will finally get over its mantra left over from the Iron Curtain era and overcome its prejudice against superior Russian product.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2818 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4149 times:

This post is particularly illucid.

Apparently there will be some kind of ethnic cleansing of aircraft without FBW. For crying out loud, there's more to an aircraft than FBW! The 737NG has lower fuel burn that the A32S, which makes it more environmentally friendly than the A32S and yet despite the most ludicrous of all ludicrous doomsayings, the A32S is the one to survive.

The narrowbody market is so huge, a couple of extra competitors will not prevent Boeing or Airbus from seeing good results from pursuing it. Of course, apparently the jackboots are coming down and a new totalitarian state will be created to dealing with an impending crisis (where have we heard that before?) and so the narrowbody market will be crushed but no mention of the other forced luddism practises, despite the fact that aviation is only 4% of anthropogenic emissions, which are 5% of global emissions, hence aviation contributes 0.002% of the greenhouse effect, due to carbon dioxide that is, which is only about 5% of the total greenhouse effect, so aviation is really 0.0001% of the total greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, that won't stop a number of other competitors from pursuing. Isn't it going to stop or isn't it?

The Japanese are apparently going ahead with the 7J7, which was a still born concept because, while the idea was interesting, it wasn't practical.


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4078 times:

Quoting Glom (Reply 11):
Apparently there will be some kind of ethnic cleansing of aircraft without FBW. For crying out loud, there's more to an aircraft than FBW! The 737NG has lower fuel burn that the A32S, which makes it more environmentally friendly than the A32S and yet despite the most ludicrous of all ludicrous doomsayings, the A32S is the one to survive.

There is a reason for "ethnic cleansing" of all non-FBW aircraft...the plan is, as I stated earlier on another thread, to finally replace all the older planes with those that can be easily converted to full-cockpit automation. First pilots will love all the new gadgetry....and will sing it's praises....then the inevitable willl occur.

Sorry pilots and crew, management HATES you and is planning on long-term replacments...those which will not complain or go on strike. The moment they can fill those expansive cockpits with computers and the aisles with robo_FA's....is the moment they will start to make big profits again, or so they think. Think I am crazy....give it a few years and see for yourselves.  redflag 


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Holy @#$%!

Boeing would be insane not to continue in the narrowbody market. It represents almost 40% of the aviation market value wise!

As for your arguments:

1- You are severely underestimating the barriers to entry in the commercial aviation market. For China and Japan to develop and certify an airliner marketable in Europe and the USA would be a huge investment in time and resources.

China has stated the intent of developing a 150 seater however I sincerely doubt that it will a) be competitive with Boeing (and Airbus for that matter) products from a commercial point of view; b) obtain FAA and EASA certification in a timely manner; c) have and adequate support network for airlines outside of China.

And lets not start to discuss the fact that any airliner developed essentially with Chinese or Japanese government funding would mean an immediate WTO challenge should it be marketed worldwide.

Canada (Bombardier) certainly has the expertise and experience to conduct such a project however BBD Aerospace's financial situation is so dire that obtaining the funding and supplier commitment (particularly engines) is effectively killing the C-series. I do not expect this project to go forward, and even if it does, expect the 700 million US$ in goverment money to be challenged by all parties involved (USA, EU, Brazil).

Russia has the technical expertise and experience, however western certification, support network and financing are all hurdles they have yet to leap. Should the RRJ go forward, maybe in 10 years they will be in position to start a project in the 737/A320 class.

Brazil (EMBRAER) is in the best position to challenge Boeing and Airbus, in my opinion. They have aquired experience with their last project and have secured enough orders to pay back the investment made and begin thinking about the future. The limiting factor here, IMHO, is risk. EMBRAER does not have access to the (financial) resources available to Boeing and Airbus. B and A could effectively dump narrowbody airliners on the market and kill EMBRAER altogether without losing more then a couple tenths of a percentage point in their profit margins. I am unsure if EMBRAER will have the "guts" to take the risk.

2- Technology will continue to evolve to meet the challenges of efficiency and environmental regulation. As an engineer, your statement that "there will be no more airplanes because airplanes don't meet environmental rules" is downright offensive. What do you think engineers and researchers at GE, RR and Pratt do? Your statement is almost Malthusian.

mrocktor


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3960 times:

JDD1,

I'd get away from the exhaust fumes if I were you.


User currently offlineKeta From Germany, joined Mar 2005, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
3-4% extra cloud cover due to water vapour etc etc

I don't know where you read that, but just a point here: water vapour plays a major role in the Greenhouse effect, but clouds don't. Even more, clouds help decrease temperature. During the Viking mission (I think it was that one) a storm in Mars helped measure climatic changes due to sunlight-blocking (it seems like these missions are somewhat useful). If the earth was covered by clouds, the temperature would fall down to -115 ºC (-240 ºF). Of course this is not feasible, but helps see how the clouds interact in the environment.
Airplane contrails actually help decrease temperature. After September 11, 2001, a study showed that local temperature increased 1 ºC because for three days no airplane was flying.
But the problem is that when the fuel burns, obviously, polluting gases are formed. That's really the biggest problem.

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Within the next ten years legislation will stop shuttle flights of small airplanes and enforce large ones three or four times a day. This is one of the reasons that Boeing is proposing the 747Adv. Big airplanes and hubs will be forced on the travelling public for their own good.

I don't see any sense in this. The only way it can make sense is that bigger planes burn less fuel per passenger. Which may be true. But modern airplanes like the 787 or A350 claim that the fuel burn per passenger is less than, say, the 747. So, if you have to take the same number of people from one place to another, if the smaller plane burns less, then no matter how many trips it has to make, it will burn less fuel than the bigger plane.



Where there's a will, there's a way
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3764 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Airplanes have a large responsibility for this. (3-4% extra cloud cover due to water vapour etc etc)

Actually... contrails are contributed with cooling the planet, as the high-altitude clouds reflect quite a bit of solar radiation. For the several days after 9/11 when *all* commercial traffic was suspended in the U.S, there was measurable increase in ground temperature across nationwide (i.e. it wasn't a localized phenomena)

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
With a good update ( 737NG style,) at a fraction of the investment of an all new airplane, the A320NG will be able to compete easily on price and technology for some years, until it also has to be replaced.)

What's so special about FBW? Composites are the future (massive weight reduction) and you can't do that without redesigning the A320 tube. New engines are completly incompatible with A320 systems, and from indications from engine OEMs, they wouldn't even *fit* on the A320/737NG.

Airbus is in the same boat as Boeing... an "A320NG" isn't very probable.

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
1- Brazil, Canada, Russia, China, Japan and perhaps India are all going to be making airplanes in the 125 seat category and they will probably all be fly-by-wire. With four or five new entrants in this category nobody is going to make money and therefore Boeing could never justify investing some $8b.

# 1. Narrow bodies don't cost $8 billion dollars, Dill. The entire 787 will cost $8.5 billion, the A350 will cost about $5 billion. A 737 or A320-like airplane usually run about $2-4 billion.

# 2. Any new entrant faces the same problem that Tuploev and Sukhoi face: credibility. The Airbus/Boeing duopoly makes it very difficult for a new manufacture to wiggle into their territory in much the same way U.S. politics has been two-party based for decades. To secure blue-chip airlines, you must have near perfect systems integration, something Airbus and Boeing have established.

WN-type customers aren't going to something made in India anytime soon.


User currently offlineHighliner2 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Yeah, I'm sure the FAA will have no problem signing off on an airworthiness certificate for an airplane with no pilots, and I'm sure the general public will have no problem filling an A380 with no cockpit windows and just a stack of black boxes in the front. Not anytime soon bud, computers still break, airplanes in general still break. Know who flies the airplane then? The pilot. I'm sorry, but I drive, hell, I'll even take Amtrak, before I let a computer control my fate without any way of human intervention all the way from pushback to park. We may be close to taking the person out of the cockpit of our military aircraft, but we are a long way away from seeing such a thing in commercial service.


Go Cubs!
User currently offlineMd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3463 times:

I hope you're right brother. Airliners are the only thing in the world I still love.

User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1460 posts, RR: 44
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Count me in as "not flying if it's got no pilots." I love automation. I love technology. I'm an engiener, and I trust good engineering.

BUT... gotta have pilots, or I'm not going.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineGQfluffy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3294 times:

JDD1. Um....  rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Dude, Pot is bad for you, UMKAY????

Get up off your chair, back away from the computer, go OUTSIDE, and do something exertive.

fluffy

Still laughing  Silly


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting JDD1 (Thread starter):
Boeing will not replace the 737 family

Source or opinion that you happen to be sure of?

BTW, #2 flys directly in the face of #1, no pun intended, while competition is nice, more companies can mean more planes. But it also means more choices so the decision is not obvious anymore, with any luck regular people might have to be able to know the difference between them.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineBabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

If Boeing were to scrap the 737 family it's only because the market has been well and truely mopped up by the A320 family.

The A320 is not only highly popular with passengers but is also a firm favourite of airline accountants.

The 737 family, prior to the new generation stuff, are some of the most beautiful aircraft around.

I presume this thread is just a wind-up, so well done.  boggled 


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3152 times:

Boeing will not replace the 737 family

I have some swamp land available. Dirt cheap! What you offering?


User currently offlineBCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

I can affirmatively, positively, 100% tell you that we are absolutely doing the opposite. Not only WILL we replace the 737 eventually, it's already in work... can't give you any details; obviously. But I have seen some of the internal stuff about it.

Let's put it this way.. a brand new (read: clean sheet) design is in work, it's being kept pretty quiet, and they're going to start the engineering on it 4Q this year. They're already well into the product concept phase, and will be going into product definition/engineering at the end of this year.

So nice try son. Go back to the pipe and see what else you can conjure up..

Steve


25 GQfluffy : Don't give him that chance. This last one was a real doozy... fluffy
26 FriendlySkies : Without reading any of the replies...what the hell are you smoking? Do you honestly think Boeing would just hand Airbus the single largest aircraft ma
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing 737 Replacement As Early As 2012? posted Fri Dec 30 2005 12:41:53 by Sq212
Boeing And Lockheed Martin JV On 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 22:56:32 by Lumberton
Boeing Firms Up 737 Replacement Studies. posted Thu Mar 2 2006 14:03:31 by WINGS
New Boeing Jet: 737E For SWA 737 Replacement. posted Wed Aug 11 2004 18:53:29 by DIA
Boeing Working On A 737 Replacement posted Wed Apr 21 2004 02:14:30 by Teahan
Boeing Says No To A SST Replacement posted Thu Oct 12 2000 18:26:24 by B757300
KLM To Buy Six Boeing 737 posted Mon Nov 13 2006 19:44:56 by AeroPiggot
Boeing 737-900ER And Lion Airlines posted Tue Oct 31 2006 16:45:47 by W3ndytj4n
Rear-engined, 5-abreast Low End 737 Replacement? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 22:38:12 by 1337Delta764
Boeing 737-800 Vs Dehavilland Q400 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 10:50:50 by Cumulus