Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mike Boyd On A380 And 737 Successor  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14056 times:

He lowers his forecast on the A380 from 450 to 350, which if correct, would be below Airbus' own break even point. Curiously, he opines that Airbus might be able to make money on the project....

More interesting to me is his discussion on Boeing being able to leverage the 787 technology into a 737 successor and the risks involved. The largest risk would be killing the current 737 line, as airlines wait for the "latest and greatest". Read all about it here:
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 14036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I know many (myself included) are focusing on the engines as the key to making a realistic 737/A320 replacement, but I wonder if the fatigue-performance of CFRP might be even bigger.

It is claimed that CFRP fuselages will reach a "fatigue floor" at which point they no longer degenerate. Boeing is pushing this to 787 customers as meaning the 787 requires less intensive maintenance overhauls and offers more time between them. This will allow 787 operators to keep their planes longer.

Would this not be a significant advantage to short-haul, high-frequency operators? Would not WN or FR be thrilled to have a "797" that could serve them for six-figures worth of cycles with fewer out-of-service overhaul periods to boot? An airframe that could serve for three or four decades, constantly adding new, more efficient engines thanks to a standard pylon and bleedless systems?

Could Boeing launch Y1 even without the latest and greatest engines by offering a platform that will serve them not only through the next generation of those engines, but the third, fourth, even fifth generations?

[Edited 2006-10-31 18:45:10]

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13938 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
The largest risk would be killing the current 737 line, as airlines wait for the "latest and greatest".

Ah, yes. The Osborne Effect. Hype up your next product too much, nobody buys your existing stuff, and the company folds.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Could Boeing launch Y1 even without the latest and greatest engines by offering a platform that will serve them no only through the next generation of those engines, but the third, fourth, even fifth generations?

I think the key here is the interchangable engines. Even if it does take a week or more (as some claim Udvar-Hazy has stated), I think this is less important from the standpoint of being able to switch engine vendors than it is in relation to the ability to upgrade to the next generation of engines. Get to the point where the 787s are fifteen years old and RR/GE/etc make an SFC jump? Voila...mount the new engine on there, flash the computer, and call it a day.

[Edited 2006-10-31 18:45:48]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13894 times:

Looking at the pie chart on that site, Embraer must be pretty pleased. Sure the RJ demand is non-existant, however look at the demand for 81-100 and 101-125, this is the exact market for the E-Jets. Put them together, that's a good chunck of the chart that Boeing and Airbus do not have covered (let's just count the A318 and 736 out of the picture)

The E-Jets tap out at around 118 seats...maybe Embraer will look for one more stretch of the E-195 to get up to the 125-130 seat range.


User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1619 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13846 times:

Seems to me he spent a day reading A-net and didn't really come up with anything new.

Based on orders, anyone with a lick of sense could come up with the realistic figures for the A-380. While I think it's cool and neat and all that stuff, the market demand for something of that size is not there. Not to mention, the 2 operators of jumbo jets in the U.S. and the demand for the passenger 744 diminishing over the past few years, even with Asian and middle eastern operators.

Not to down the A-380, that's not what this is about, but, market conditions. It does have its very limited niche.

Personally, I think he is wrong about a 737 replacement. I think that will be announced the moment the 787 is flying. How many 737 production lines are there over at Boeing?

M


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13805 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
The largest risk would be killing the current 737 line, as airlines wait for the "latest and greatest".

Though times are very different now, this did not happen with the 727 and 757. Despite the 757 being more efficient, quieter and having only a two man crew, the 727Adv sold and delivered very strongly up through 757 first flight, and the F version delivered strongly past 757EIS.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 5):
Though times are very different now, this did not happen with the 727 and 757. Despite the 757 being more efficient, quieter and having only a two man crew, the 727Adv sold and delivered very strongly up through 757 first flight, and the F version delivered strongly past 757EIS.

And it is likely Boeing would work on "bridging" the 737NG to Y1 production programs just as they did the 744F to 748F, adjusting orders as necessary to ensure that the 737NG line remains "sold-out" until they are ready to switch-over.


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 13506 times:

Perhaps another way for Boeing to tackle the issue of canibalizing their own 737 market with a replacement is to split the market and go after the smaller frame first. A number of news outlets reported comments by Randy Baseler regarding a two-plane approach:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2006-09-18-boeing-737_x.htm


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13393 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Ah, yes. The Osborne Effect. Hype up your next product too much, nobody buys your existing stuff, and the company folds.

There's a huge difference between an off-the-shelf consumer product and a long-lead contractual order. Boeing has the luxury of locking customers into contracts, Osborne didn't.

I disagree with Boyd here:

1) Boeing typically has at least 12-18 months of 737 production sold-out, with 18-30 months of production booked. Today, you can't get a 737NG before 2008 and many contracts extend into 2012. In addition, Boeing has substantial orders for non-commercial 737 that will keep the line busy through 2015.

2) Boyd states that: "Since the 737 is the manufacturer's current cash cow, even a Wharton MBA could conclude that there's a very real and dangerous minefield that Boeing would need to navigate in bringing out any new-generation 737 platform."

Yes the 737 is extremely valuable to Boeing's cash flow. But when a 737 replacement would be considered in 2012-2015, Boeing will be cranking out 787 at the rate of a narrow-body. That revenue will exceed the 737 line and provide sufficient cash flow for BCA.

In conclusion, Boeing just needs to ride the current 737NG wave and launch the 737RS when it's technologically viable. Of course Boeing doesn't want to kill-off the 737NG any sooner than necessary, but sending customers away is far worse than prematurely replacing a selling product.


User currently offlineYVRtoYYZ From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13339 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Hype up your next product too much, nobody buys your existing stuff, and the company folds.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

And it is likely Boeing would work on "bridging" the 737NG to Y1 production programs just as they did the 744F to 748F, adjusting orders as necessary to ensure that the 737NG line remains "sold-out" until they are ready to switch-over.

My comment is going to be much too simplified to be reality, but I am curious about it nonetheless.

Assuming Boeing offers the 797/Y1 for an EIS of 2011 and airlines flock to order it now, thus leaving the 737NG with no new orders. The current NG production line will continue to produce airplanes for the next 1.5 - 2 years because of the backlog (and conversions to the 797/Y1) it has for current orders.

In the meantime, between 2009-2011 (assuming the backlog is eliminated by 2009), there will only be very few 737NG orders because of airline's needs to fulfill capacity immediately (similar to the aforementioned 727Adv./757 or the current 767/787 line). Yet, to keep the line going and to avoid completely losing out on 2 years worth of orders from the NG line, could Boeing not offer the NG as interim lift until the 797/Y1 was delivered - similar to what Airbus is doing with the A330 in the A380 debacle?

-YVRtoYYZ


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13260 times:

I hope I didn't misunderstand your questions, but I'll give it a try.

Quoting YVRtoYYZ (Reply 9):
The current NG production line will continue to produce airplanes for the next 1.5 - 2 years because of the backlog (and conversions to the 797/Y1) it has for current orders.

Yes, but there's a risk the customers would scramble to convert those orders to the newer aircraft.

Quoting YVRtoYYZ (Reply 9):
Yet, to keep the line going and to avoid completely losing out on 2 years worth of orders from the NG line, could Boeing not offer the NG as interim lift until the 797/Y1 was delivered - similar to what Airbus is doing with the A330 in the A380 debacle?

They could, but on what terms? Would they guarantee resale value, or take them back in trade? The OEM would be loathe to assume ALL the risk.

All considerations aside, if Boeing doesn't build it, Airbus will. Being first here will confirm a tremendous advantage IMO. The mother of all market segments!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13233 times:

Yes, and yes.

And just like with the 757, there will be "side by side" production.

The car industry has this same delimna now that it is so international.

You can't just switch a model over to the replacement worldwide very easily. Puts everyone out of a job for a while, costs money. So they phase it in, delivering the new model to some countries, the old to others. Or the new sedan while the old coupe version is produced for 12 more months.

With the high volume of the 737, you'll have the same thing. A period where the NG is still being built to meet contracts and even as final "top up" orders for carriers who are not in line for 797s for a while. The 797 will be built along side during testing to have a large number available for delivery in a short time.

For example, an airline with no legacy aircraft isn't necessarily going to start adding 797s right away. FL would likely continue to take NGs for a while, postponing the choice of the fleet replacement aircraft (A320NG or 797) until they really HAD to make that choice.

In addition, AA, WN and CO (and maybe DL) will have taken up a huge number of initial 797 slots. Assuming that the 797 also covers the 757 family, these 3 airlines will account for 300+ initial deliveries and many, many options. If DL chooses the 797 to replace the 737classics and MD80s, we are talking another 100+options order. That means that other carriers may not have delivery available until 1-2 years after EIS, if not later. If they already fly the 737NG, why wouldn't they still want a few to replace their oldest planes?

Just like the 757 and the 727, the 797 is not a replacement for the 737NG in the sense that carriers are going to junk their 5 year old NGs for the 797, just like they didn't junk their new 727s for 757s (it took until the 90s to junk the 727s, and the replacement aircraft was more often the 738 and A320).

The 797 is a replacement for 20 year old 757s, 737 Classics, early A320s, MD80s/90s, etc. After 5-10 years of deliveries, THEN you'll see carriers begin to actually replace 737NG and later 320s with the 797 and A320NG.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1623 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13208 times:

I am no professional aviation analyst, but it seems that the airlines often purchase a certain aircraft for interim capabilities while awaiting the new best thing coming down the road. There is such a steady demand for the 737/320 sized aircraft among the world's airlines, I just can't believe the airlines would suddenly suspend all purchases while they await the 737/320 replacement.

Orders for long term replacement might decrease, but I think we'd continue seeing enough 737 orders to keep Boeing in business and with a profit.

(Jeez, this sounds sort of authoritative. I wonder if one of these analyst companies would hire to state my opinion?)


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13192 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 7):
Perhaps another way for Boeing to tackle the issue of canibalizing their own 737 market with a replacement is to split the market and go after the smaller frame first. A number of news outlets reported comments by Randy Baseler regarding a two-plane approach:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...x.htm

The following quote is from above mentioned article:
...
"It could end up being it doesn't make any sense for us being in the 90 or 100-seat market," Baseler said.

But if Boeing goes that way, Baseler said it will have to have two models to also satisfy airlines that want more than 200 seats.
...

What if Boeing went for the 757 market first with a Y1+? I'The plane would not have a direct competitor and hence using state of the art engines instead of the 'next big step up' wouldn't hinder it.

IN addition to thin transatlantic routes, I can just imagine EK ordering 200. Big grin Maybe then they'd even up their A380 order...  Wink

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 10):

All considerations aside, if Boeing doesn't build it, Airbus will. Being first here will confirm a tremendous advantage IMO. The mother of all market segments!

With the right product, definitely. Better not do a Taurus.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13172 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 7):
Perhaps another way for Boeing to tackle the issue of canibalizing their own 737 market with a replacement is to split the market and go after the smaller frame first.

It would seem that Boeing would go after the upper end of the market first. Here are some reasons, and I am sure others can come up with more:

- The composite advantage scales porportionately lower as the size of airframe decreases. A composite narrowbody would have a greater performance % advantage over a 757, A321 and 739 than over a 73G or E195, for example.
- International P2P growth.
- Obviously, the 757 will require replacement sooner than the 73G or 738.
- Potential replacement for some aging 762s and A310s.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
In conclusion, Boeing just needs to ride the current 737NG wave and launch the 737RS when it's technologically viable. Of course Boeing doesn't want to kill-off the 737NG any sooner than necessary, but sending customers away is far worse than prematurely replacing a selling product.

Boeing has the luxury of limited competitive pressure to take its time in deciding when to kill the 737NG. As I have mentioned on other threads, the longer than Boeing takes in introducing the 737 replacement, the more that bleeding edge tech can be incorporatated into the design.

Quoting YVRtoYYZ (Reply 9):
Assuming Boeing offers the 797/Y1 for an EIS of 2011 and airlines flock to order it now

There won't be an engine ready for a 2011 EIS.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Just like the 757 and the 727, the 797 is not a replacement for the 737NG in the sense that carriers are going to junk their 5 year old NGs for the 797

Since most NG flights are not long range and would thus marginally benefit from being replaced by the 797. The other thing to take into account is that there is a real possibility that oil prices could be in the $30-$40/bbl range and that would reduce the cash operating advantage of the 797 on the majority of domestic flights.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13156 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 4):
Personally, I think he is wrong about a 737 replacement. I think that will be announced the moment the 787 is flying.

I agree. And I think both Delta and AA are waiting in the wings to jump in as launch customers for a 737 follow on.


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13091 times:

Quoting Bucky707 (Reply 15):
I agree. And I think both Delta and AA are waiting in the wings to jump in as launch customers for a 737 follow on.

This along may be worth ending the life of the 737. It will go on for a few more years, however, AA and DL are going to replace their large MD-80 fleets and any 737s they have as well. These are two huge orders.
You also have to assume that CO will order the Y1 as well. You have several airlines doing well enough that they could buy replacement aircraft, and airlines like AA and DL that are just getting back on their feet and will be ready soon. Boeing needs to jump on this.


User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12984 times:

I dont think he is wrong at all. What he is saying is that Boeing has got to be careful because Y1 could be so much better that current 737 sales could dry up. Remember that the 757 was dead and the 767 almost dead when the 787 announcement was made. And the last two years have proven that the 737 is far from dead and a current cash cow for Boeing.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12946 times:

Quoting KSUpilot (Reply 16):
This along may be worth ending the life of the 737.

Not if there isn't a dramatic increase in efficiency...

Airbus NSR Phase 1 results, for example, are believed to have indicated that if all the advanced technology (available and considered mature and sufficiently low-risk for entry into service in 2012) was poured into the aircraft, the best specific fuel consumption reduction would be 4%, the best operating cost reduction 3% and the best emissions reduction would be 5%. The numbers are also said to be within 0.5-1% for all parameters for the initial phases of Boeing’s RS/Y1.

Engines therefore remain the key, as acknowledged by Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president sales Scott Carson who says “right now, there is no engine. To build a 737 replacement without a next-generation engine would be a dreadful mistake for us to make.”

The engine technology required to give the “step change”, at least a 15% efficiency gain, to justify a successor is unlikely to emerge until the 2013-15 time horizon.

“Both Boeing and Airbus will need an all-new engine, which the engine manufacturers say will not be ready until 2013-14, so the possible entry into service of such an aircraft could be possible around the middle of the next decade,” he says.

(Source: ATI 2006)


Now add in...

- narrowbody interim improvements such as Airbus' planned "A320 modifications available by 2008 that will offer efficiency gains from a new winglet design, aerodynamic improvements and a revamped cabin interior. Even if a replacement was able to provide 10% greater efficiency than today’s models, the net gain would only be 5% after the modifications.

- "engine manufacturers are working on upgrades aiming at improving intervals between engine overhauls, with CFM International claiming its ‘Tech-Insertion’ package will offer maintenance cost, fuel burn and nitrogen oxides emission reductions, while International Aero Engines is offering ‘V2500Select’ which also claims maintenance and fuel burn savings."

- oil prices going down

- industry consolidation

- economic recession

- etc, etc,

... and thus there is no need to "end the life of the 737" before 2015.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1372 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12835 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
The Osborne Effect.

To help combat that, I suspect Boeing will formally announce the project when it is farther along in its development than usual. They'll hide its budget in publicly announced increased development costs of the 787 and 747-8I.  spin 


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12823 times:

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 19):
To help combat that, I suspect Boeing will formally announce the project when it is farther along in its development than usual. They'll hide its budget in publicly announced increased development costs of the 787 and 747-8I.

Well, two things would come from that: 1) The shareholders would revolt for not being told the truth. The SEC would probably get involved. 2) Airbus would shit their pants. Imagine if Boeing said "We have this new 737 replacement ready to ship in six months."



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12772 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Areopagus (Reply 19):
To help combat that, I suspect Boeing will formally announce the project when it is farther along in its development than usual. They'll hide its budget in publicly announced increased development costs of the 787 and 747-8I.



Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):
Well, two things would come from that: 1) The shareholders would revolt for not being told the truth. The SEC would probably get involved. 2) Airbus would shit their pants.

I admit I don't read all the proxy statements and stuff Boeing sent me when I owned their stock, but do they actually line-item their commercial R&D spend by family and model? Or do they just note "we're spending $X billion this year on research & development, including the 787, 747-8I, and other projects".

If the latter, neither the shareholders nor the SEC have anything to complain about, as Boeing has disclosed the amount of money being spent and they can see how that money affects immediate earnings and could influence future earnings (assuming the monies generate new products to sell).


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6341 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12728 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 20):
Airbus would shit their pants. Imagine if Boeing said "We have this new 737 replacement ready to ship in six months."

But, as you know, is an impossibility since the replacement design hinges almost entirely on new engines.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 22):
But, as you know, is an impossibility since the replacement design hinges almost entirely on new engines.

Yet I wonder if it has to. If Boeing can offer the airlines a CFRP Y1 that will last them 100,000 cycles, they may be willing to wait for the engines to come, knowing they can put multiple generations of new engines over the forty-year life of the airframe.

Of course, in such a case, being first would be even more important since, like the 787, you're selling planes that will last perhaps twice as long as the ones you are selling now and can "easily" accept new engines over their life.

Kinda puts a crimp on the future replacement market.  Smile


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12650 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
they may be willing to wait for the engines to come, knowing they can put multiple generations of new engines over the forty-year life of the airframe.

Engines can last forever, you just have to replace more & more parts.. Interesting trend in the engine world; to make engines more fuel efficient you can tweak up the temparatures, shortening the time between overhauls..

Aerospace is always a trade-off between conflicting requirements such as weight, costs, efficiency, reliability etc. You can always improve one but..


25 Planemaker : Absolutley. The composite airframe benefits on their own do not justify the costs. Even now, the cost of a 737 (minus engines) over its lifespan is e
26 Osiris30 : You missed what he was saying: If I (an airline) could buy a frame today and know that on the same frame I can simple plop in a new engine every 10-1
27 N328KF : I liken aircraft engines to those perpetual stews. Some of those been around for 100 years. It's doubtful any of the original matter is left over, bu
28 Dw747400 : Besides the ethical issues associated with a publicly traded company doing something like that, it could hurt the product. Boeing needs as much input
29 DAYflyer : So, where are the engine manufacturers in all of this?
30 Post contains images Stitch : Of course, if Boeing's sales folks keep chatting with current and former 737 and 757 operators to ask what they'd like changed... Seriously, neither
31 Planemaker : Many people do not realize that when Boeing unveiled the 7E7 that Boeing had not yet decided on CFRP fuselage and wings.
32 Supa7E7 : Don't forget mighty WN. 737 factoid from wikipedia: "...at any GIVEN TIME, there are over 1,250 737s airborne worldwide." Wow..... that's a lot of fu
33 Dougloid : When I worked for Douglas they bought back the fourth ever DC9 from Republic to see how it was holding up. This was shortly after the Aging Aircraft
34 Ikramerica : This is my thought as well. The hole in their product is the plane between the 739ER and the 783, and that accounts for 1000 previous sales. Now the
35 Stitch : I worked for Boeing at that time and we planned to use a heavy amount of composites in the Sonic Cruiser program, so when it came time to bring forth
36 Ken777 : Is the delay in engines because the engine companies have not designated them a high priority? Would moving some of the best brains onto the program
37 Post contains images Stitch : The engine companies no doubt consider it important, but much of the fuel savings on the "new-gen" engines come during the cruise phase, so 5000-8000
38 Planemaker : Yes, but one has to look at the competitive scenario in which those 1000 sales ocurred. The 739ER will take most of those. Japan, perhaps... consider
39 Post contains images Zvezda : I think what you mean is: "The benefits of a CFRP airframe on their own do not justify the development costs of replacing an otherwise fine aluminium
40 Jush : That sounds thrilling indeed. Regds jush
41 Post contains images N328KF : I bet you're a real downer at parties.
42 Baroque : And still produced an airframe that was lighter IIRC than either of 737NG or the A32x at equivalent sizes.
43 Hamster : Do we have any pics or drawings of the 737 replacement?
44 Zvezda : No, it's too early. I don't believe the cross section has been decided yet.
45 Supa7E7 : 5-abreast offers tremendous weight savings from 110-150 seats vs. the 737 and A320. The new 737 might by 5-abreast IMO. The 757/767 had different cro
46 Post contains images Planemaker : Yes. I was responding to a query about the concept of a new 737 airframe without new engines. That is the exact point that I made in an earlier reply
47 Zvezda : Is that really correct? The shape which maximizes volume/weight is the sphere. A 6 abreast fuselage seating 110-150 is a nearer approximation to a sp
48 Dougloid : Far be it from me to take issue with such an elegant thesis-and I know I'll never feel the same about water, even if I choose to drink water exclusiv
49 Ikramerica : No, I don't see the 739ER replacing most of the 752s flying. Nor the A321. Maybe combined they will replace 1/2. But the 752 is a bit bigger, and has
50 EDDB : Why would they be so stupid? Where would be the business case when there is no need for replacement anymore? Only engine manufacturers and interior d
51 Rheinbote : How did you figure that one out?
52 Osiris30 : Why do you think they have the whole Gold Care thing man?!?! Stop and think about it for half a second.
53 Stitch : EDDB does bring up a point I myself thought while typing my response. I believe Osiris30's idea that maintenance and training contracts could be lucra
54 EDDB : Aaaaaaand.....Done! Actually I gave it a whole second to think it over twice, just to make sure! And I came to the conclusion that Boeing calls itsel
55 Shenzhen : Boeing have been trying to break into the maintenance (service) arena for years and years. Unfortunately, their cost base is simply too high to be co
56 Post contains links Areopagus : One possible place is a Composites World article from July 2003. The company announced on June 12 that the 7E7, first introduced in 2002,will be the
57 Planemaker : Interesting. In manufacturing a scrapped part is destroyed or rendered inoperable by QC. The OAG shows that over 85% of 752 flights can be replaces b
58 Post contains images Osiris30 : I think you will see that the only way you can slap new engines on your aging 787 will be if you are part of the gold care program (or pay an upgrade
59 Shenzhen : This isn't anything new..... Airline management would love to run a virtual airline. However, unions tend to spoil their dream (along with the flight
60 Post contains images Osiris30 : LOL.. well done (thank's for taking that as light-hearted as it was meant) See my point before this post. You'll see how it all ties together. With a
61 N328KF : I don't see why. Boeing will certainly be involved, but more to the extent of working with the engine manufacturers. Really, why would Boeing care if
62 Post contains images Planemaker : We are not talking about today but the future... particularily in light of a "possible" 40-year airframe lifespan as was suggested by Stitch. One jus
63 Shenzhen : Boeing aren't in the business to sell GE or RR engines. With that being said, I doubt that they would pay for any certification of a new engine type
64 Shenzhen : Why would I go to Boeing for a new TCAS installation when I can get the same thing from Collins for half the price. Collins will out source the engin
65 Post contains images EDDB : I don't know..... I find it hard to believe that this could become a win-win-win situation, Boeing wins and earns money just by offering a maintenance
66 AirbusA6 : Regarding the engine manufacturers GE (via CFM) have all the 737 and half the A320 market, so no great incentive to spend a fortune now on a new engin
67 N328KF : GE and RR would have a couple of incentives to develop newer engines. The first is that their customers are starting to demand it (WN). The second is
68 Shenzhen : P&W have already stated they are working on a new engine for the next generation narrow bodies. As you stated, they are in dire straights in the comm
69 Post contains images EDDB : "Hefty hefty fee? Well then I'll go and buy Airbus....." And the most profit is where there's little competition and where you're best at! Look at ho
70 Post contains images Planemaker : You are confused. Your statement doesn't have relevance to the quote... nor my posts. No where did I say that Boeing was going to get into any other
71 Post contains images Shenzhen : OK...sorry for the confusion I had a reply written about Boeing's attempts / failures to enter the lucrative service market and since you replied to
72 Post contains images Osiris30 : Boeing isn't going to just give away all their profit and revenue. In order to upgrade the engines you'll need new flight control software. This will
73 Shenzhen : Boeing provide the type certificate, but anyone can get a supplemental without even talking with Boeing. The common engine mount was driven by the fi
74 Osiris30 : If the plane won't start without something from Boeing not a lot of certificate is going to help. Legally it's easy for Boeing to step in and say tha
75 Post contains links Shenzhen : Don't know if this link will work, but if it does, you can see some of the STCs that have been issued by the FAA, which has nothing to do with the or
76 Stitch : That I will not deny, but a CFRP 797 may be less "uneconomical" after 20 years then a 737NG thanks to not having to worry about continual maintenance
77 AirSpare : Of course it is, but with the small sphere, comes limited overhead luggage space, and whatever one chooses to put in the belly. A oblong cross made p
78 Post contains images Planemaker : Yes, a CFRP 797 will have a longer useful life than the 737NG - we have no debate about that. And one only has to look at the tech insertion packages
79 Zvezda : Progress in computers in exponential. We're now in the midst of a revolutionary step change in structural efficiency. However, progress in aerodynami
80 Post contains images Astuteman : Blasphemy!!!! Indeed! (And Airbus too..). Technology will make that happen anyway. Cutting edge economic viability in a 40 year-old frame CFRP or oth
81 Supa7E7 : That is a good point. You convince me that 5-abreast does not always save weight. A 2-abreast 150 seater would be way too heavy for example. True. So
82 Zvezda : Did you forget that the whole A320 family share the same wing? On the A318/319 that wing is far heavier than need be. That has nothing to do with fus
83 EDDB : "$15M is your fee, plus $30M for my new engines! And since your plane is not as outdated as former metall planes I can get a pretty good deal when I
84 N328KF : No, but look at the energy efficiency of engines as they exist now; There's a lot of room for improvement, especially if new radical technologies are
85 Zvezda : I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in propulsion efficiency. However, in the long run it's a logrithmic curve, not an exponential cu
86 Ikramerica : So the OAG says an airline is willing to cut pax capacity by 10% on 85% of current 752 flights to replace it with a 739ER? And OAG also tells you tha
87 Planemaker : You are again getting your airline seating wrong. CO which is the only US airline at the moment with both the 739 and 752, has less than a 3% seating
88 Areopagus : Given the shallow intersecting angles, and natural reinforcement/thickening at the join to support floor loads, a design can be double bubble on the
89 Stitch : Not interested in the debate about seating capacities, but the US majors are seeing very high load factors at the moment. While not 100% systemwide,
90 Post contains images Osiris30 : A) Why would you buy elsewhere. It's not like Boeing is bending their customers over the barrel in this situation. They are just offering them anothe
91 Boeing7E7 : At some point a replacement is inevitable. Who's to say carriers aren't holding off already for a replacement? Granted, the financials of many majors
92 Planemaker : Unfortunately only a few people have access to detailed flight data so we can't know specific details as to time of day, day of week, month of year f
93 Ken777 : I believe that Boeing will have some advantages in competing with some "cheaper" maintenance companies. Say they went with AA for the program. AA's m
94 Ikramerica : In the same configuration (DOMESTIC F) on a 752, the CO plane has 24 seats, not 16F. You can't say the 739ER can replace a 752 but configure them wit
95 Ikramerica : You made this claim. You provided no facts other than the OAG says the routes are the same length. That is not how airlines choose aircraft. I pointe
96 Boeing7E7 : More than 2,000'. About 3,600'. It's 11,000' for a 737-900ER on a hot day with a 27k engine vs. 7,400 for typical 752 operators.
97 Supa7E7 : The Look IKRA, the guy is right. Specialized 757 ops are well known - ETOPS to Europe, EGE, Hawaii ops. Some ANC stuff. But those special ops are inde
98 Planemaker : Please go to the CO website to see that their 752s have only 16 in F while the 739 has 18 in F. Yes, I made the 85% claim but you made the 50% claim.
99 Art : In a report I read last month I saw a figure of $18M cited as the cost of Trent 900's to power an A380. That's less than $5M per engine. $35M for new
100 Post contains images Osiris30 : Those were just ballpark numbers I was pulling out of my rear for demonstration purposes. Exactly. Unprecidented in the commercial space, but clearly
101 Zvezda : The requirement for a variety of airliner sizes follows from two facts: 1) Different routes have different demand curves, and 2) Larger aircraft tend
102 EDDB : You forgot that I sold my used plane, so I can't back you up on your calculation there...
103 Osiris30 : Wow you're just hell bent on being a difficult CEO.. you running EK? LOL. I never said it would be for everyone or every situation and the numbers ar
104 Post contains images Planemaker : But what if the new airplane and the used airplane were approx. the same value?
105 Post contains images Osiris30 : Ask EDDB.. he sold his
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...
Mike Boyd On A380 (Again) posted Tue Feb 8 2005 00:35:53 by DfwRevolution
Mike Boyd On The A380 posted Mon Jan 24 2005 04:19:00 by OPNLguy
Mike Boyd On USAirways Debacle And "Seth" posted Mon Dec 27 2004 22:51:27 by OPNLguy
ANA CEO Comments On A380, A320, 737 And 7E7 posted Sun Nov 9 2003 00:56:34 by Teahan
Mike Boyd On Allegiant posted Mon Sep 18 2006 16:52:03 by FATFlyer
Doors On A 727 And 737 posted Tue Mar 7 2006 13:53:06 by Mats
Mike Boyd On DFW's Recent Poll posted Mon Jul 11 2005 18:06:46 by OPNLguy
Mike Boyd On Why Wharton Is Probably Not For You! posted Mon Jan 31 2005 17:16:24 by SHUPirate1
Mike Boyd On USAIR/UAL/FLYI posted Mon Dec 13 2004 05:32:40 by OPNLguy
Lufthansa´s Mayrhuber On A380, 747-8 And B787/A350 posted Wed Sep 27 2006 10:54:16 by Keesje