Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8319 times:
(Dow Jones) CHICAGO -- Boeing Co. (BA) will use new technology developed for its popular, fuel-efficient 787 aircraft on new single-aisle aircraft, but not right away, James Bell, chief financial officer, said Tuesday during a Webcast of Lehman Brothers' Industrial Select conference.
...Soon after Boeing gets confident in the reliability of technology on the 787, Bell said that will be used for designing new narrow-body craft.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8263 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter): Soon after Boeing gets confident in the reliability of technology on the 787, Bell said that will be used for designing new narrow-body craft.
"It's better to be right than first," he said.
I think it is pretty clear that he means they want to optimize the technology and not they have lost confidence in it. The 787 is just the starting point and is where they can find and solve technical issues before applying the technology to another airplane.
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 8223 times:
Here's my take on Mr. Bell's statement. Boeing wants to be able to show airlines that the all-composite aircraft does meet performance targets, both in terms of operating costs and maintenance, before it tries to sell a narrow-body using the same technology.
For instance, AA will eventually need to replace well over 300 MD-80s. It's not about to commit to replacing that large of a fleet, if it isn't certain that operating costs are significantly lower.
IIRC, the 707 went into service in late 1958, but the 727 didn't go into service until 1964, nearly 6 years later. Boeing wanted to prove the reliability of jet aircraft, before it tried to sell a short-to-medium-range plane.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8124 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter): Boeing Co. (BA) will use new technology developed for its popular, fuel-efficient 787 aircraft on new single-aisle aircraft, but not right away
"It's better to be right than first," he said...
I think this is nessesary for any new aircraft design, narrowbody or widebody.
I also think the VP Market Communications will not congratulate James Bell with these remarks.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8089 times:
Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 1): Maybe a bit too much of reading in between in the lines - but is Boeing no longer confident in their 787 technology? First time I read that they are cautious about what they are building.
I read this as Boeing is being cautious...they are entering into a new technological dimension...and they would be smart to get the tech right the first time. Confidence in the new tech? Yes, they have it...they just need to make sure the tech is used properly.
Looks like the beginnings of the 797...the 737 replacement. I guarantee you Airbus will do the same for their A32X replacement series of a/c.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5834 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8057 times:
Boeing has always been conservative about things like this. It's just their policy. No they have not lost confidence in the composite technology. They are working with composites on a very large scale for the first time and they want to take a look at what they did right and more importantly, what they did wrong and apply lessons learned to future composite airliners.
FLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8057 times:
Quoting N79969 (Reply 2): I think it is pretty clear that he means they want to optimize the technology and not they have lost confidence in it. The 787 is just the starting point and is where they can find and solve technical issues before applying the technology to another airplane.
I agree! As A-net member, Gigneil has stated in another thread, it remains to be seen if the weight savings benefits of going to all-composite airframes will successfully scale down to narrow bodies. The RAM (reliability & maintainability) issues of exposing all-composite fuselages to high daily cycles, possible (frequent) hard landings and inexperienced rampers are the biggest hurdles to using 787 build technology in a 737-like plane.
That being said, composite technologies are advancing on a daily basis - and getting cheaper to incorporate.
N1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 16
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7980 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): I also think the VP Market Communications will not congratulate James Bell with these remarks.
Sure, let's look and see what Randy has to say about this instead of speculating:
From today's ST:
< snip >
Baseler said the speculation about an early launch is fueled by the sales success of the 787 and the expectation that Boeing could simply transfer that jet's technology breakthroughs — its light composite airframe and fuel-efficient engines — to a smaller jet.
Not so fast, said Baseler. He said the main advantage of the lighter 787 airframe is an extra 2,000-mile range, a huge advantage for an intercontinental jet. But 737s are used for shorter routes and simply don't need more range than they have now.
That leaves fuel consumption, operating cost, production cost — and therefore price — as the key areas for gains.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31991 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7973 times:
Also remember that the 787's mission parameters are very different from the 737's.
Composite structures allow the 787 to fly close 2000nm more then a 767, in addition to lowering fuel burn (a claimed) 20%.
The 737 does not need to fly 8000nm, and is already very efficient. So composite structures will not have as pronounced an effect on the 737 airframe as they do on the 787. So the economic benefits from just them will not be as compelling.
Engines will be what really makes the Y1/ANG programs something special, and will be able to leverage the composite and LiAl structures more effectively.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7902 times:
CFOs tend to be more conservative, as their responsibility is safeguarding the financial well being of a company.
Anyway, the most significant effect composites might have on short haul aircraft is with regards to maintenance and life time of the airframe. If the airframe lasts longer, that will certainly have an impact on airframe's value and thus operating costs.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 7804 times:
Well, there is a large difference between the narrow body segment and the widebody segment, just remember the 5000 737 is now getting into service.
The 787 is in the market for range, where weight is an issue. The short range market is different, where many other issues matter. So the 787 technology has to mature more to see where the benefits can come to the short range market.
I'm always reminded how the aviation market has developed with no good guesses to what the future may hold. After all, the reasons for the beginning of the jet age are solely economical. 1) kerosene cheaper than 100 octane gas 2) faster jet means fewer airplanes to service the same route; fewer airplanes = fewer employees 3) turbine engine time on wing and time to overhaul a lot cheaper than piston engine.
I'd read it as "our composite engineers are busy, once their workload relaxes, we'll switch them to another project then."
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 10): Anyway, the most significant effect composites might have on short haul aircraft is with regards to maintenance and life time of the airframe. If the airframe lasts longer, that will certainly have an impact on airframe's value and thus operating costs.
While I agree with you, I would think one of the more significant aspects on a short haul aircraft is going to be take off performance (short field operations). For example, WN flies out of SNA, MDW, SAN, and other airports where improved short field performance adds value.
I also have a dream of a trans-Atlantic 150 seater. As a big fan of "pont to point, avoid the hub," I would think there would be enough demand... But obviously A & B would know better than this armchair CEO... While I see no point in a 8000nm Y1/ANG, I do see a market for a 4,000 to 4,500nm airframe. Perhaps a later increased MTOW version? A la the recent 73G with the 738 engine/wing?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9): Engines will be what really makes the Y1/ANG programs something special, and will be able to leverage the composite and LiAl structures more effectively.
This I totally agree on. First of all, the Y1/ANG will probably be designed to be a quiet Stage 4 noise airframe. While the CFM/V2500 are very reliable engines, new technology is required to cut noise. I also see a demand for 12k+ takeoffs between overhauls. Also, much of the fuel savings will come from the engine. I wonder what the MTOW will be for these airframes... I'm expecting it to be a bit less than the current designs (say 10+Metric tons less with more cargo and range).
Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
Rlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7450 times:
I do not really see the end of the 737 at all. The new plane will look just like the old one and will still be called the 737. Maybe startback at -100 or -15 or whatever. 737s will be flying after we are long gone.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7223 times:
Here's the thing:
Boeing is in no hurry for a number of reasons.
First off, the words coming out of airbus recently have made it appear they are only going to overhaul A320, much like how they are overhauling A330 to create A350. It won't be a cleansheet aircraft. Airbus seems a little arrogent at times, but that might just be me. Boeing will be coming to market with a clean sheet aircraft. That is attractive to a lot of airlines. It likely will offer a chance to build in more features to improve performance and economics.
Secondly, as much as people on A.net like to bash the 73G as being an inferior aircraft, it's simply not true. Yes, it shares a fuselage with the old 737s, but that's it. It's interior is atleast as modern as A320s, and in my opinion, well nicer. It's economics are equal to A320s in every dimension, and the 73G family on the whole has longer range. A 737-700 with the winglets could make an atlantic crossing. With an auxillary center tank or two (ala BBJ), it would have easily 757 equivalent range. That's attractive. The 73G is every bit the aircraft A320 is, and in some aspects, more. A320 is a very nice aircraft, make no mistakes, but Boeing learned a lot from it, and the 73G represents this well. They are in no hurry to change things up. They are too tied up getting 787 and 747-8 off the ground. Why fix what isn't broken. Airbus is in no hurry, with A380 having issues, and having to develop A350 at breakneck speed.
AA and Southwest will be replacing HUGE mainline fleets in the next decade. I'm not sure if I see them waiting for 797. It depends how much better they could make a mainline jet. I don't know if all the things that make dreamliner great translate. Yes, more composites and aerodynamics are good, but the mainline game is more difficult than that.
Both AA and SN have 73Gs in their fleets, I wouldn't be surprised to see them both go that direction.
It will easily be 2015 before we see a 797 or A32X fly, I think. I don't think 737-500s and MD-80s will remain economical for that long.
AA however, could easily retrofit their MD-80 fleet with the IAE V2500, which was fitted to MD-90, and vastly improve fuel economy. It would not be cheap, but if it gave them another 10-12 years with their MD-80s, which are paid for, it would be worth it.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7223 times:
One more likely feature of Y1/ANG not mentioned above is the ability to carry LD3s single-file.
I think Lightsaber is absolutely right with respect to range. While the A350/B787 seem destined to further fragment the transpacific market, Y1/ANG seem destined to further fragment the transatlantic market.
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7140 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16): AA however, could easily retrofit their MD-80 fleet with the IAE V2500, which was fitted to MD-90, and vastly improve fuel economy. It would not be cheap, but if it gave them another 10-12 years with their MD-80s, which are paid for, it would be worth it.
Could they? The reason why MD stretched the -90 was (supposedly) because the engines weighed more. The stretch was entirely ahead of the wing. I think an updrated, uprated BR715 is more likely.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 6 days ago) and read 7130 times:
Neither the 737NG or A320 families are in urgent need of overhaul; both will likely continue in service another decade or so before their successors come to market. Obviously, new tech from the respective 787/A350 families will trickle down into the single aisles but, as stated above, the need is not as pronounced in this segment. Although Boeing will almost surely replace the basically older 737 for an all-new design, Airbus probably can get away with am extensive mod of the A320 and still remain competitive. The current Flight International espouses on the future possibilities from both airframers in commemorating the 5000th 737. The current airplanes aren't quite ready to be put out to pasture just yet, however.
Georgiabill From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6739 times:
I believe there was a thread within the last few weeks which indicate both Boeing and Airbus said the key to any replacement of the 737 or A320 family of aircraft was improving the engine performance and savings. Without new engines the savings wouldnot justify the costs. As stated both the A320 and 737 families still have life in them.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6675 times:
Quoting Leelaw (Thread starter): ...Soon after Boeing gets confident in the reliability of technology on the 787, Bell said that will be used for designing new narrow-body craft.
"It's better to be right than first," he said...
The actual quote is:
"Clearly we're not looking at introducing a new single-aisle today," Bell said when asked about a replacement. "We will look at it soon after we understand the ... 787 technology and how it can be best leveraged in a single-aisle. It's better to be right than first."
I'm not sure where the reliability thing came from.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
BAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2030 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 6410 times:
I couldn't agree with you more. One point however, and this is a big one in favor of Airbus; the extra six inch width of the cabin allows for an 18 in wide seat in Economy. Without a staggered arrangement on the 737, it is not possible to achieve a six abreat configuration with an 18 in seat. The best that can be hoped for is 17.5 inches with narrow arm rests; but the vast majority of carriers flying the 737NG use 17 inch seats with the slightly wider arm rests.
It may be a nit (1/2 to 1 inch of width), but given that most 737s operate with 31 to 32 in seat pitch, seat width becomes a big deal, especially in the USA where we are, shall we say a slightly heavier society than other areas of the world in which a 17 in seat is completely adequate. The 18 in configuration does work in a staggered configuration (about a six inch forward per seat from aisle to center to window.e.g.); however:
There is only one seat manufacturer that has this type of configuration in prototype and so far, it hasn't been a big seller. The cost of changing to this type of scheme would be wickedly expensive. There are one or two airlines who have the all business class scheme with the staggered bed seat; it remains to see if it will catch on (on a 757).
When Boeing builds their 737 replacement, I suspect that there will be a slightly wider cabin (especially if composites are used) which will allow for the 18 in seat and some new type of seating scheme that will improve the flying experience while maximizing space on the aircraft. One thing is certain: Boeing is a pioneer and an innovator. It is also very conservative. It will not put a product in the air that doesn't perform better than it advertises. This cannot be said of Airbus. This is not to say that Airbus does not build quality airplanes. The A320 series is a fantastic aircraft. That said, Airbus tends to market themselves ahead of the product, whereby Boeing lets the product performance speak for itself. This is more a philosophical difference than a factual one.
The true excitement lies in the possibilities that may come from the technologies that are being developed in connection with the 787. It very well might change the economics of entire airline industry.
Here's to hoping the guys down the street from me get this right.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
DistantHorizon From Portugal, joined Oct 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5639 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 16): Secondly, as much as people on A.net like to bash the 73G as being an inferior aircraft, it's simply not true. Yes, it shares a fuselage with the old 737s, but that's it.
Funny. Why don't you accept the same principle concerning the A350 and A330?
: The PW6000 would also be worth a look, depending on the thrust and weights. It's certainly more compact than the V2500. There was a thead discussing
: When did Boeing ever claim that the B737NG is not a B737?
: I'm sorry, I was probably not clear enough. What I meant was "Why don't you also admit that, as much as people on A.net like to bash the A350 as bein
: The A350 doesn't even share the A330's fuselage anymore. N
: Thanks for the FI article Kalakana! There are good points in the article: 1) BA & Airbus are still waiting for a new, narrowbody-suitable engine. 2) P
: The 767 and 757 both had the same cockpit, even though the 757 was a narrow-body so it seems logical that Boeing would want to use it's 787 technology