Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing: Engines For 737RS Ready By 2011-2012  
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12800 times:

According to an interview conducted by IAG with Geoff Thomas, senior editor of Aviation Transport World, Boeing has revealed that engines necessary to enable a 737 replacement may become available as early as 2011. The audio (available online) discusses how an unnamed engine supplier has discussed with Boeing their intention to formally offer an engine option in 2011 with a second supplier following in 2012.

If true, I believe there's a distinct possibility that a 737 replacement could enter airline service before 2015.

The whole interview covers a range of topics, with the 737/A320 replacement being discussed in the last 3/4:

http://www.iag-inc.com/pods/thomas.mp3

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12697 times:

I would think this is something Airbus does not want to hear.

Right now they have a lot of money tied up in projects and the concept of doing an A320 upgrade rather than a clean sheet is basically predicated on there not being new engines out there to make the 737RS worth doing. If things line up and Boeing is doing a new 737 type plane with highly efficient engines then Airbus is almost forced to compete. I am just not sure they have the money to do it right away with A350, A380 and other projects over their head already.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12683 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Thread starter):
If true, I believe there's a distinct possibility that a 737 replacement could enter airline service before 2015.

It seems that the 2012-2015 time frame would be about correct for the 737RS, given that the first two generations of the 737 lasted for roughly 15 years each, and the 737NG will celebrate the anniversary of the first 737-700 delivery to WN in late 2012. I would imagine that in time for a launch in 2008-2009, Boeing and its industrial partners would be able to apply lessons learned from the 787 program to the development of the 737RS. It's also my understanding that Boeing has been able to be aggressive on price with the 787 since it's less expensive to build; if this extends to the 737RS, they'd have a triple-threat: competitive acquisition cost, market-leading efficiency, and lower maintenance costs. (Of course, all this assumes they'd be able to deliver, but their track record is good so far.)

From a market timing perspective, it might well be difficult for Airbus to respond with a competitive product for several years. The A350 will consume development resources (and R&D cash) through 2012 or 2013. Would a re-engined A320 family be enough to compete (aside from on the basis of available delivery slots)?


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12667 times:

Yes! There is a God! A replacement to those cramped 737s/320s! I for one can hardly wait seeing as the 737/320 are about the only airplanes I get to fly out of SAN these days.

User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12610 times:

This marks another fairly major bit of talking about the 737rs by Boeing. I am looking for a product launch 08 or early 09 now with an EIS 3 years after that.

This is really going to put a LOT of pressure on Airbus. The announcement alone is going to cause them issues and with the 350XWB appearing to be slipping (still no committed funding for example) they really need to figure out what they are going to do.

My guess is the supplier in question for engine is probably PW. Call me crazy, but little birdies like chirping interesting things sometimes.

If this pans out (and frankly I don't see any major reasons it won't) folks on the Airbus side need to figure out what they are going to do.

(Before anyone slams me for being negative on Airbus here, look at the situation unbiasedly and they are in a bad spot. I'm trying to figure out what I would do if this comes to pass and I were them. Something drastic may be required, such as getting a Russian partner to designa 320RS frame completely. Maybe Putin can be of some use afterall)



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12592 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 3):
Yes! There is a God! A replacement to those cramped 737s/320s!

Well dont bet on them being spacious! The latest widebodys (787/A350) will only be equal or even less spacious than the best stuff flying today.

We presume that Y1 will be new everything, including fuselage diamater. But I wonder what is broken on the A320 that will need fixing. Looking at the 787 and old A350, where did the A350 fall down? Well fuselage width is the obvious one, but then I cant see anything wrong with the A320 width, both these planes will be six abreast anyway. The main stumbling block seems to me to be the fuselage material.


User currently offlineGbfra From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12586 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 1):
I am just not sure they have the money to do it right away with A350, A380 and other projects over their head already.

There is really no shortage of money in the world. Just ask banks, pensions funds, private equity firms or countries like China, Russia and some Arabians. The only trick is to attract this money.

I think the Airbus people are more worried about their development and engineering capacities than about money. That would be easy enough to find.

[Edited 2007-02-27 00:34:39]


The fundamental things apply as time goes by
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12559 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
(Before anyone slams me for being negative on Airbus here, look at the situation unbiasedly and they are in a bad spot. I'm trying to figure out what I would do if this comes to pass and I were them. Something drastic may be required, such as getting a Russian partner to designa 320RS frame completely. Maybe Putin can be of some use afterall)

I agree you are being unbiased. Airbus would want new engines to come out in the 2015-2020 area rather than the 2007-2014 region. Basically Airbus really needs to finish one thing before the next starts, especially considering that a new composite narrow body would incorporate lots of lessons learned from the A350 project.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12522 times:

Quoting Gbfra (Reply 6):
There is really no shortage of money in the world. Just ask banks, pensions funds, private equity firms or countries like China, Russia and some Arabians. The only trick is to attract this money.

While that is true it is only if those people can expect a reasonable return on their investment in a reasonable amount of time. Speculative investors are one thing but I doubt you will find a ton of private banks wanting to get in line to finance an A320 replacement while the A350 still is not finished since their repayment would be threatened by both a failure of the A350, against which they would likely have no recourse, and then a failure of the A320 replacement.

Not to mention Airbus is still in the middle of Power 8.


Sure there is lots of money out there, the question is can Airbus get it at a price that allows them to be competitive.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12469 times:

@EI:

Well that depends on what Boeing does. Lots of talk of twin aisle 737 replacement.

@gbfra:

You nailed it. Bodies are a problem much more than cash in so far as this little problem goes. Especially with them trying to cut bodies via attrition now. Hence why I suggested a Russian tie-up might be a good solution. Lots of talent in Russia.

@bigjku:

Well I agree with your time frames that would be ideal for Airbus. However I would add about 3 years to that before I considered them on par with Boeing as far as CFRP knowledge goes.

Remember Boeing chose CFRP and CFRP forced itself on Airbus. That suggests a lot of ground work done on Boeings side and learnings already in the bank, while Airbus still need to undertake that work, unfortunately for them, in tandem with development of the 350.

Finally a spun barrel is even more import in the NB market place for cost reasons alone. This is an area that under the current plan Airbus will have no experience come 2012.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5822 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12468 times:

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 4):
My guess is the supplier in question for engine is probably PW.

Me too.
They've been squawking GTF for the last twenty years, but lately have really been making noise. Apparently they're ready to re-engine the A320 with it, and if they tweaked it even more, you just might have a 737RS engine candidate.
Meanwhile, CFM has said their LEAP56 project won't be ready for more years, and is Roller still trying to shove a scaled-down three spool RB-211 down our throats? Hmmm.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12450 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 7):
I agree you are being unbiased. Airbus would want new engines to come out in the 2015-2020 area rather than the 2007-2014 region

2007? They wont be out until at least 2011 according to the thread starter! Many of the big 737 customers like Ryanair have their current order & delivery schedules running until 2012-14. The 737NG is selling as well now as it ever has been, so whats the rush? Boeing needed the 787 when it did because the 767 sales had gone down the toilet, and they were loosing too may sales to the A330. If I were boeing I would look at their traditional strategy of improving the 787 over the next few years with enhanced models. This may of course depend on when we see the A320E and the effect it has on the 737NGs sles.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12387 times:

@ei:

As to why now: you have your competitor struggling, NOW is when you bury them.

All the BS about Boeing wants a competitor is just that. Fewer companies making credible competitors makes for more cash.

It's the killer instinct that lead Boeing to the top of the pile in the first place. It's also the killer instinct they lost in the 90s.

I for one would love to see the return of that ability to truly finish a competitor, not out of spite for Airbus, but more for the long-term health of Boeing.

Afterall Boeing is all that's left of so many great aviation companies. They have a torch to carry.

Besides I have a sneaking suspicion the "Russians are coming"



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12376 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
2007? They wont be out until at least 2011 according to the thread starter!

I was not saying it would be ready now. I am saying Airbus wants the engines to come out later than Boeing. I honestly think Boeing could start on a 737 replacement as soon as they know what engines are around that will make it worth while.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
The 737NG is selling as well now as it ever has been, so whats the rush?

Depends on how you are looking at business. Boeing may just want to get the jump on Airbus knowing that they cannot react right now and put pressure on the company. Also I suspect that if you use CFRP barrels in a 797 construction that you would cut your cost per airframe substantially. While there will be higher sunk cost than a traditional frame it would not surprise me if Boeing could have a lower relative airframe cost than either the 737 or the 320 with the amount of labor they would be able to save. Only they know but they might be able to make a killing on them if that is the case. You could sell it for equal or more than a 320 and have a huge profit margin for a while.

The details of the finance are something we are not really going to get access to. But if Boeing pushes the issue its because they think they can make more money by replacing the 737 than they can by keeping longer before replacing it.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6536 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12375 times:

I personally think it would be a big risk if Pratt & Whitney decides to work alone without IAE. Remember that P&W lost to GE and RR on the 787, and I wouldn't count on Boeing offering three engine options on the 737RS. If RR goes alone, they may be a viable competitor to CFM and their LEAP56, but I wouldn't say the same is true for P&W.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31000 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12257 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 14):
I personally think it would be a big risk if Pratt & Whitney decides to work alone without IAE.

Pratt may not want to share GTF technology with IAE.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12248 times:

After 11 posts, the subject has quickly shifted to "Will Airbus be ready, Boeing and engines will be". I will limit my speculation to the potential outcome on engines and Boeing.

2011-2012 powerplants being ready usually mean time for flight testing with the airframe. This can give Boeing the option to launch the 737RS as early as this year. But they will ride it out as the 737NGs are a cash cow, the 777s are becoming another herd of cash cows, while cash wont be coming in for the 787s until another 2-3 years, and the 748, another 4 years. Considering the recent disasters on their space programs, therefore at the earliest, they will start spending large sums of cash on a "true" 737RS development not before 2009-2010.

Meanwhile no engine manufacturer or consortium want to be left out. Just because PW is ready wont be good enough. In all likelihood there will be two engine choices for Y1, which means at least three offers must be available. Therefore PW, GE, RR, IAE, CFM will find a way to get at least three offers to Boeing. 2 engine choices will be made with 787 type interchangeability for greatest market liquidity (attractive to lessors, financiers, etc.)

As for fuselage widths. The recent statements made by Boeing that 2 fuselage widths make sense for the environment mean that they are going for it. They are basically telling Airbus that we will invest heavily, we have the human bodies, and we will demonstrate our green policies by coming up with a 90-140 and 150-220 seat two family replacement covering from the 737 Classics to the 757-200 capacity range. This puts greater market confusion if Airbus will be able to respond competitively, tells Bombardier and Embraer to back off, and tells the engine manufacturers that a smaller class of engines with commonality across the 90-220 seat range must be sought.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12235 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 13):
Also I suspect that if you use CFRP barrels in a 797 construction that you would cut your cost per airframe substantially. While there will be higher sunk cost than a traditional frame it would not surprise me if Boeing could have a lower relative airframe cost than either the 737 or the 320 with the amount of labor they would be able to save. Only they know but they might be able to make a killing on them if that is the case. You could sell it for equal or more than a 320 and have a huge profit margin for a while.

 checkmark 

I think that's the real reason that would drive Boeing to move on the 737RS, even if the 737NG is selling as fast as they can make them (which it is, currently). If they can drop the production cost per airframe, they can be even more competitive on price while simultaneously improving margins. Otherwise, it might make more sense to wait and see what Airbus puts into the market.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12161 times:

So how much of a drop in operating costs over the 737NG are we looking at here?

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12153 times:

whats really funny has been the year or so that people have sworn up and down that the engines would not be available till 2015 or later so Airbus had some time to do its thing.

Since GE itself said it would have the 737RS engine done around 2012, announced shortly after Boeing admitted it was doing the 737RS studies


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21531 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12124 times:

I've been saying for 2 years at least that it will be 2012. All the signs point to 2012. Boeing has a gap in flight testing commitments after Q2 2011. They will be freeing up many engineers by 2009, and even more by 2010. Their 737NG may be selling well, but the A320 is taking away former Boeing customers. And as for engines, they become available when manufacturers commit to them. I'm sure Boeing has gone to the engine companies long ago stating what they want and when they want it: 2008 launch commitment, 2011 for flight testing, 2012 for EIS.

I believe the 797 will be launched once 787 certification is complete, summer 2008 at an airshow. This way they can get maximum impact and be certain of the 787 technologies and which ones are of most benefit for a smaller jet.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 12079 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
2011-2012 powerplants being ready usually mean time for flight testing with the airframe.

As Geoff mentioned, Boeing would be hard-pressed to deliver in 2012. IMO, a schedule that aggressive would mean proceeding with a single engine partner, which I suppose is a possible. However, I suspect Boeing will wait for two engine partners and an EIS of 2013-2014.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
This can give Boeing the option to launch the 737RS as early as this year.

I wouldn't go that far. If Boeing does anything in 2007, it will likely just be occasional talk about what could "hypothetically" replace the 737NG. Remember the 7E7. In 2002, there were maybe 3 press releases total about the new aircraft in consideration once the Sonic Cruiser was shelved. Then Boeing hit the ground running in 2003, with a launch in 2004.

We may hear a few more things in 2007, but the telling years (IMO) will be 2008-2009.

One final reason Boeing would be crazy to do anything major this year: it doesn't take Boeing longer than 4 years to develop a new airplane. For an EIS in 2013-2014, that means a launch in 2009-2010.


User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11920 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
while cash wont be coming in for the 787s until another 2-3 years,

I question this statement as Boeing will gein shipping 787s next year (actually a mere 15 or so months from now)

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
2 engine choices will be made with 787 type interchangeability for greatest market liquidity (attractive to lessors, financiers, etc.)

I suspect you will see a common pylon design that engine manufacturers are to design to. I see no reason to limit the RS to 2 engine suppliers as it is a huge market in terms of units and can easily support the development costs for 3 or more engine variants.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
As for fuselage widths. The recent statements made by Boeing that 2 fuselage widths make sense for the environment mean that they are going for it. They are basically telling Airbus that we will invest heavily, we have the human bodies, and we will demonstrate our green policies by coming up with a 90-140 and 150-220 seat two family replacement covering from the 737 Classics to the 757-200 capacity range. This puts greater market confusion if Airbus will be able to respond competitively, tells Bombardier and Embraer to back off, and tells the engine manufacturers that a smaller class of engines with commonality across the 90-220 seat range must be sought.

This I agree with fully  Smile

Quoting EI321 (Reply 18):
So how much of a drop in operating costs over the 737NG are we looking at here?

Boeing has stated a goal of AT LEAST 10% reduction in fuel. That coupled with CFRP maintenance savings could lead to operational savings of 15-20% annually.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
I believe the 797 will be launched once 787 certification is complete, summer 2008 at an airshow. This way they can get maximum impact and be certain of the 787 technologies and which ones are of most benefit for a smaller jet.

Agreed, but I expect a good deal of work is already done on these replacements (I think there will be 2 families, see above). The entire point of yellowstone was shared R&D across an entire platform of next-gen aircraft. Every day that goes by on Y2 (787) is contributing to Y1.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
As Geoff mentioned, Boeing would be hard-pressed to deliver in 2012. IMO, a schedule that aggressive would mean proceeding with a single engine partner, which I suppose is a possible. However, I suspect Boeing will wait for two engine partners and an EIS of 2013-2014.

Disagree with you here. Boeing has publically committed to shorter dev cycles than they have had historical with a goal of 3 years announce->EIS. I can't see Boeing announcing Y1 later than 2009 which makes 2012 EIS. I honestly see Boeing announce in 2008, making EIS late 2011 early 2012 depending on just when and how much slack they give themselves.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
Remember the 7E7. In 2002, there were maybe 3 press releases total about the new aircraft in consideration once the Sonic Cruiser was shelved. Then Boeing hit the ground running in 2003, with a launch in 2004.

Also remember what the purpose of Yellowstone was (see above) and further more that the 7E7 needed more groundwork to be laid than would the 737RS aircraft. The 7E7 was 'the first' of it's generation. The 737RS will merely be refinements of that techonology. Easier, faster and cheaper for Boeing. Additionally with all the squaking from Boeing in the last 1-2 years on the replacement, they seem to have a pretty damned good idea what customers want from the frames and that will make life even easier on them.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
One final reason Boeing would be crazy to do anything major this year: it doesn't take Boeing longer than 4 years to develop a new airplane. For an EIS in 2013-2014, that means a launch in 2009-2010.

You're assuming that Boeing doesn't want to EIS in 2012 or 2011. As another poster pointed out GE is ready to rock in 2012, and PW is ostensibly good to go now, if rumours are to be believed. Why would they wait and give their competition any breathing room at all. Heap the pressure on them while you can.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
User currently offlineTangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 929 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11779 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 21):
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
This can give Boeing the option to launch the 737RS as early as this year.

I wouldn't go that far.

Please read my entire post.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
But they will ride it out as the 737NGs are a cash cow,



Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
the earliest, they will start spending large sums of cash on a "true" 737RS development not before 2009-2010.



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 22):
Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 16):
while cash wont be coming in for the 787s until another 2-3 years,

I question this statement as Boeing will gein shipping 787s next year (actually a mere 15 or so months from now)

Cash trickling in is not the same as large flow of cash generation. This wont happen until the 787 production goes past the ramp up transition.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 22):
see no reason to limit the RS to 2 engine suppliers as it is a huge market in terms of units and can easily support the development costs for 3 or more engine variants.

The more engine choices you feature, the greater the development cost, after sales support requirements etc. But the best reason to limit it to two is to have the best negotiation outcome as at least one player will have to lose out. Boeing will lose its negotiation leverage by having too many winners and too few losers.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 20):
but the A320 is taking away former Boeing customers.

Isn't this more to do with who can find a plane quicker than which is better (A320 or 737NG)? In the 80's what you say is true as the Classics did not have the payload range of the A320 and Boeing lost many clients to Airbus.



Only the paranoid survive
User currently offlineOsiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11752 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 23):
Cash trickling in is not the same as large flow of cash generation. This wont happen until the 787 production goes past the ramp up transition.

Boeing does have a fairly agressive ramp scheduled for the 787 production (if my memory hasn't failed me). I don't think it's a trickle even initially as the deliveries (again I believe) are supposed to ramp fairly quickly. Either way Boeing has good cashflow right now as it is and it's only going to be getting better.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 23):
The more engine choices you feature, the greater the development cost

Some of this is mitigated by the whole common pylon concept where Boeing specs for the manufacturers of the engines.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 23):
after sales support requirements etc. But the best reason to limit it to two is to have the best negotiation outcome as at least one player will have to lose out. Boeing will lose its negotiation leverage by having too many winners and too few losers.

There are ostensibly 5 'players' in the market for next gen narrow-body engines, GE, PW, RR, IEA and CFM. You could easily select 3 and still have 2 on the outside (yes I know IEA and CFM are JVs, but they will still fight hard). I agree on the after sales support side of the equation though.



I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
25 Flyabunch : Is everyone convinced that Boeing will insist on more than one engine mfg. being ready? They only have one supplier on the 737. I think that the situa
26 DfwRevolution : I am afraid that you are still flat wrong when you said "this can give Boeing the option to launch the 737RS as early as this year." Boeing isn't lau
27 SirOmega : Didnt boeing try the common pylon with the 787 and it didnt work? It had to be the engine + pylon? I though I remember them abandoning the common pylo
28 Post contains images Stitch : To my knowledge, Boeing is still doing it, however the process for physically swapping a GE for an RR (or vice versa) still requires a few days of ha
29 Ikramerica : Boeing has a history recently of one engine supplier: CFM - 737NG GE - 777 Longer Range GE - 748I/F It's only the 787 that was launched with more tha
30 SirOmega : Maybe thats what it was then, Boeing promised 1 night turnaround on the engine swap and then they came out and said a few days. Which still isnt bad.
31 Osiris30 : Frankly, you're wrong, at least as far as maintenance aspects are concerned. Given that short-hault AC accumulate even MORE cycles, the maintenance s
32 Lemurs : To be fair to Boeing there, it's worth noting that the 737 was single-source since day 1 in 1965, (though it changed between the orignals and the cla
33 RoseFlyer : I've heard rumors and expectations of a 737RS entry into service date in 2012 and a A320 NSR entry in to service date of 2013. I think they are somewh
34 XT6Wagon : not possible for Airbus to have the A320NSR done before 2020 or so. The A350XWB will eat all the R&D for new aircraft till 2015 minimum, possibly lon
35 Luke7e7 : " GE, PW, RR, IEA and CFM " - since CFM is a 50% GE, why would they both be a player in this game?
36 BigJKU : It may not be that the plane is that much more efficient for airlines right out of the gate but if Boeing can build it more efficiently than the 737
37 DfwRevolution : I hate to confront you, but you do not know what you're talking about. The greatest advantages of CFRP is weight reduction, and smaller aircraft do n
38 Osiris30 : If I'm not mistaken they are joint ventures and run independantly. CFM may bid one engine, GE something more proprietary. No reason to not bid from b
39 DfwRevolution : It isn't crass at all, and it's another excellent point that should be listed well before the maintenance advantages that some are beating around. Co
40 BigJKU : I think this is probably the "Holy Grail" of airliner construction. A one piece would be ideal but if you could get it down to 3 pieces you would hav
41 Osiris30 : Just where exactly did I state anything to the contrary?! Let me quote what I said again to clarify: Furthermore, on a shorthaul frame, maintenance a
42 SSTsomeday : Prior to clean sheet replacements of the 737 and 320 families going into production at some point, I understood that there was a new engine variant be
43 Osiris30 : I believe the engine you are thinking of a PW Geared Turbo Fan engine. Search the forums for PW GTF and it should turn up some good information. Last
44 Grantcv : Airbus is being caught in a trap of simply reacting to Boeing's every move. With sales of the A330 still strong, wouldn't it have been better for Airb
45 JAAlbert : Not necessarily, as tangowhisky points out: It "could" be an opportunity for boeing to make the most widely used size aircraft much more comfortable,
46 797charter : Some good points, - make sense for me.
47 XT6Wagon : I disagree, the main savings in a short haul with lots of cycles in comparison to hours flow will see the biggest advantage from CFRP construction fr
48 Post contains images Ikramerica : You just want to agree so you can charter that 797 sooner... But really, Boeing can't sit around and wait as Airbus slowly takes away customers with
49 Post contains images AndesSMF : IMHO, the engines are but a part of the overall package for higher efficiencies required for a short haul airliner. Has anyone made a study, for examp
50 Parapente : Interesting discussion. I think that the concensus is "around 2015". I guess many would like to see it earlier-well just because they would. However a
51 XT6Wagon : While the 737 fuselage is still made in Wichita, there is no reason why the 737RS would be made there in part or whole. I certainly see them winning
52 Post contains images MCIGuy : Get the customers to convert their orders to "797's"? I think 2011 is a little ambitious. The eingine OEM won't be ready till then and then the new e
53 Post contains images EI321 : If you say so Airbus cant complete design & certification of the A350XWB, A380F & A320NG between now and then but Boeing can finish the 787, Do Y1, Y
54 XT6Wagon : currently Airbus is a couple years slower to bring a new aircraft program from conception to EIS, and they have the A350XWB currently blocking the ti
55 Post contains images Keesje : Oh now what about always meeting stuff    CFM is a giant french/US milk cow, I feel there is a mutual feeling between GE & Snecma not to kill it th
56 Post contains links EI321 : Quoting Grantcv (Reply 44): Airbus is being caught in a trap of simply reacting to Boeing's every move. Which came first? The chicken or the egg, the
57 Post contains images SEPilot : It would be silly for Boeing not to start on the 797 once resources are freed from the 787; what are they going to do, lay a bunch of engineers off a
58 SuseJ772 : I was really hoping for GE on this one. If this is as successful as the 737 (which I don't see why it wouldn't be with the increase in LCCs out there
59 DAYflyer : I agree, especially since Airbus has it's hands full with internal turmoil, the A-350XWB, and the A-380 issues. However, it is also good news for Air
60 Osiris30 : Why not, they've done exactly the same thing with the 787 and the 767. There will be orders on the books for the 737 regardless of whether Boeing lau
61 Eisman : At a 1994 employees meeting, Ray Kroc (founder of McDonald's) appeared with a garden hose and exclaimed "What do you do when your competitor's drownin
62 SSTsomeday : Whereas the latter makes sense, the former must not be motivated by mere "fuselage-envy," but rather by sound market research that ensures there is a
63 EI321 : The A340 was launched in 1987, after being in decelopment since 1982. The 777 was launched in 1991, after boeing dropped plans for the 767-X. The A34
64 Phollingsworth : Would have been an interesting meeting considering he had been dead for 10 years in 1994. If PW can get the GTF kinks worked out, and that is a big i
65 Stitch : Of course, even if the engines will be ready to go by 2011, that does not mean Boeing and Airbus must therefore have the 737RS and A320RS ready to go
66 Osiris30 : @susej722: As badly as GE might want the next gen NB market, PWs need is infinitely larger. If PW don't get a piece of that market they are basically
67 Ikramerica : First, there are not hundreds of orders on the book with set delivery times between 2012 and 2014. Despite the huge backlog, most of the jets are sti
68 EI321 : 2014 strikes me as the time when several major 737 operators will need more deliverys that are currently not ordered or optioned. For example, Ryanai
69 EbbUK : And to the rest, why should Airbus worry? traditionally they have been second to the market to Boeing and there is no reason why they can't be on thi
70 Osiris30 : @ebbuk: It was ok when Airbus was the 'new kid' to be second to market. To be taken as a serious primary supplier they are going to need to do less fo
71 Dakota123 : Absolutely! Right on the money. Based on what? Respectfully, as a 21-25 year old (from your profile) even if you work for Boeing, I seriously doubt y
72 Stitch : Why? As long as they deliver a product the market wants, what does it matter when it gets there? The widebody twin market is said to be 5000 units. W
73 EI321 : Sorry but this stuff really annoys me. Age does not make his opinion any less relevant. With nearly 7000 posts and 3 yrs membership DfwRevolution doe
74 1337Delta764 : Apparently, CFM is commited to developing future technologies, and does not currently show any signs parting ways. CFM currently has the proposed LEA
75 Osiris30 : It's all about mindshare and perception. Airbus did a fantastic job with the 320 series of aircraft. That earned them a reputation as not only a viab
76 EI321 : You are totally right about the 787 being better than the old A350 that AC was offered, but dont forget that there are more Boeings being replaced at
77 EI321 : Its also likely that had the A340 been launched around the same time as the 777 (1987 Vs 1991) that it would never have been a quad as they would hav
78 Post contains images Osiris30 : Oh I agree. But I would be willing to bet Airbus would love to replace those Boeings with Airbi I agree COMPLETELY. I also see that as another reason
79 SEPilot : Not necessarily; Boeing was really pushing the ETOPS envelope with the 777; up until then it was acceptable to fly the Atlantic with 2 engines but th
80 Eisman : Thanks, I forgot to mention where the meeting took place.
81 Areopagus : The Sonic Cruiser was shelved in November 2002. But I suppose you may be referring to Boeing's references to a tradeoff reference design they had bee
82 Okie73 : excellent observation, and I think right on the money. Of course, I do wonder whether it was by luck or design that Airbus hit on the right size/perf
83 Ken777 : While there is a tendency to look at A&B when talking about engine availability in 2011 I tend to think it is just as important to look at the 737 ori
84 BlackKnight : Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 26): Boeing isn't launching a 737 replacement this year just because they want to ride the 737NG longer. They couldn't la
85 XT6Wagon : the 737NG and the 737RS will be produced side by side for a few years. The same happened with the 737classic and the 737NG.
86 Post contains images Osiris30 : Agreed. Even though we disagreed on the issue at hand, I cannot deny that DFW has contributed to this site far more than many other posters in terms
87 PlanesNTrains : The difference this time is that they probably won't even be built in the same location (how do they get the fuselages to Renton if not by rail?). Y1
88 XT6Wagon : Its possible to upgrade the rail system near renton far easier than the couple thousand miles of track currently used. Also short haul movement by shi
89 Post contains links N328KF : GE won't do this. They have a firm contract with SAFRAN on this engine class, and not an actual specific engine such as the CFM56. It's the same cont
90 SSTsomeday : Actually I disagree with you. The 787 is a new class of A/C that replaces a previous class (767/330/some 777s, etc). I see the 787 as different from
91 PlanesNTrains : The short stretch in Renton shouldn't really pose any problems at all for a wider aircraft movement. It is once you get out on the mainline that beco
92 Stitch : I've been through the Ballard Locks and they can probably take a barge large enough to ship the 737RS fuselage. I'd be interested to know how large a
93 Tangowhisky : Boeing was forced by Eastern Airlines and British Airways to make the 757 what it is today. Initially it was conceived to have the payload range capa
94 Revelation : Modern sailplanes fuselages are made from two molds, a left half and a right half, that are bonded together. It'd be the Airbus "shell" concept, with
95 Revelation : It's wings are not strong enough to support winglets. One wonders how they will do with GTF (PW) and triple spool (RR) engines that are going to be s
96 KSUpilot : I know there has been some talk about a wider fuselage for Y1. I believe I read speculation about an aircraft with a similar configuration to C-5...h
97 Post contains links and images KSUpilot : Here is a quick render of some ideas:
98 PlanesNTrains : Per the Renton website: "The Airport is a rectangular area, generally 1,200 feet wide by 5,500 feet long, covering approximately 170 acres. The eleva
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 Orders For 2/14/2007 posted Thu Feb 15 2007 17:08:02 by NYC777
Boeing Orders For 2/6/2007 posted Thu Feb 8 2007 16:55:46 by NYC777
Randy's Blog: "Twin Engines For The Long-Haul" posted Fri Jan 12 2007 22:49:27 by Leelaw
Boeing Orders For 12/19/2006 posted Thu Dec 21 2006 17:39:11 by NYC777
Boeing Orders For 12/13/2006 posted Thu Dec 14 2006 16:22:29 by NYC777
Boeing's Orders For 12/6/06 posted Thu Dec 7 2006 17:07:40 by NYC777
A Boeing 727 For $650,000? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 02:08:30 by Jawed
Boeing's Orders For 11/15/06 posted Thu Nov 16 2006 17:00:24 by NYC777
Boeing Orders For Nov. 7, 2006 posted Thu Nov 9 2006 17:03:04 by NYC777
Boeing Orders For 10/31/06 posted Thu Nov 2 2006 16:31:57 by NYC777