Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28490 posts, RR: 84 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13643 times:
Well this is probably one area where JL is not blowing smoke because "he's got nothing" to respond to a 737RS.
The 787 and A350XWB both sold on more than just their better engines, but those benefits (less maintenance, less cycle fatigue effects) are probably going to become clearer next decade, which is when Boeing and Airbus can successfully market those benefits on their "clean-sheet" designs and have airlines want those new designs because of those benefits.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4706 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13584 times:
Quoting art (Thread starter): He also has some interesting advice to Boeing - Don't launch a brand new 737 replacement if we re-engine the A320.
If I were to bet on these things, those comments make me think it's more likely that Boeing will introduce an all-new aircraft...
JL says the new plane would be a mistake for Boeing because it wouldn't last 20-30 years. But it would still have a concrete advantage over the A320 -- especially if Airbus commits to this re-engining, which will extend the life of the A320 for at least a decade -- for long enough to do considerable damage to Airbus.
I expect Airbus to launch this re-engining program before Boeing does anything. Boeing's next move after the Airbus announcement will be very revealing.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15062 posts, RR: 26 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 13589 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2): If I were to bet on these things, those comments make me think it's more likely that Boeing will introduce an all-new aircraft..
I doubt it. It seems that they just don't have the technology to provide the efficiency jumps airlines are looking for yet. I'd say that Boeing will probably make upgrades to the 737, maybe stand pat, and I would be very surprised to see them announce an all new 737 replacement this year.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2): I expect Airbus to launch this re-engining program before Boeing does anything.
I am sure that Boeing is weighing their options as we speak. (or type)
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
hawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 404 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 13079 times:
Will it go like this
B737 re-engine not competive (75-80inch fan too difficult/expensive)
A320 re-engine not competive
will it end here....
B797 not competive enough
B797 propfan/open rotor
A360 (turbofan) not competive enough
A360 propfan/open rotor.
This game of chess is going to be amazing to watch.
Boeing and Airbus are slightly aware that if they have a pretention of lasting 50-60 years in the NB market without major updates, then the Brazilians and even the Canadians will simply eat their lunch.
Either Boeing and Airbus will update their NBs, or this will be a 4 way market in 10 years. From there, the widebody market is within striking distance. It all depends on their arrogance. IMO hitting 20 years production on one platform is just that, arrogance. The A320 may be the *only* narrowbody platform Airbus is to produce. If so, Airbus will end up like Fokker.
Delta763 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 287 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12751 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 5): Boeing and Airbus are slightly aware that if they have a pretention of lasting 50-60 years in the NB market without major updates, then the Brazilians and even the Canadians will simply eat their lunch.
Either Boeing and Airbus will update their NBs, or this will be a 4 way market in 10 years.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12639 times:
I think this process is predictable.
Both Airbus and Boeing protecting their cash cows, engine OEMS translating their R&D programs into engines, Bombardier, Comac and the Russians not holding back and adopting new engines.
I have the feeling there a factor that is underestimated. It's the folks that pay all the engine R&D, all the aircraft being delivered, pay all the salaries at Airbus, GE, Boeing and Bombardier, they decimate backlogs and spend billions the next day.
Their CEO's have spoken out, even publicly, they want much better aircraft for the next 30 years. The AF/KLM and Delta CEO's have dinner with McNerney and tell him some of their their SkyTeam collegaes think so too. Now you can explain to them they see it all wrong twice, but then things can get rough.
The Chinese will get there, but 20 years after Brazil and Canada. The Russians I have no faith in. The Americas have 3 modern airliner manufacturers ready to go. Europe has several possibilities but only Airbus is currently producing. In Asia, Japan and Korea both have the technology to enter at any level. But perhaps not the desire. Only China is poised to build airliners, but they do not have the technology yet to go toe to toe with Boeing and Airbus. It will take at least 20 more years.
Bombardier is ready now. And I believe in Embraer as well. Their E190 proves they could build an A320 replacement today, here and now.
This is why it looks so self satisfied and indulgent for A+B to sit around with 1980s or 1990s products, and here we are in 2010, looking at 2020. The future is going to happen, and that's not up to A+B.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2162 posts, RR: 12 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12435 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): Quoting hawkercamm (Reply 4):
B737 re-engine not competive (75-80inch fan too difficult/expensive)
I doubt that. That myth was debunked in another thread by someone who would know:
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 36):
Why some people think the 737 cannot be upgraded is beyond me. I assure you, it can, and I believe, it will.
Well, it may be correct that the 737 can be upgraded [and I believe it can be], but it has not been established on those threads that it can be really competative against an upgraded/re-engined A320. Even Leahy is now getting nervous and possibly seeing an all new Boeing NB as a bigger challenge to his upgraded A320 than a 737NNG . . . :
BoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 319 posts, RR: 34 Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12355 times:
Quoting PW100 (Reply 10): Well, it may be correct that the 737 can be upgraded [and I believe it can be], but it has not been established on those threads that it can be really competative against an upgraded/re-engined A320.
This is exactly what I don't understand on here. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious?
The 737 and A320 are fiercely competetive against each other. So much so it's often hard to tell which is better for the mission. So put new engines on the A320 and new engines on the 737, and suddenly the 737 isn't competetive now? Why?
I'll concede there are additional challenges to putting new engines on the 737, but no challenges that we've found can't be surpassed.
PW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2162 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12290 times:
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11): This is exactly what I don't understand on here. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious? . . . . I'll concede there are additional challenges to putting new engines on the 737, but no challenges that we've found can't be surpassed.
Well, if I may offer an uneducated guess . . . it would be that the A320 has much more opportunity and much less enigneering and development [=cost] required to fit the bigger fan.
Now, I'm aware of the fact that the fan doesn't have to go bigger, [smaller core] to get an efficient engine, but one only has to look at the C-series to understand how big modern [efficient] fans are going to be. The C-series [as currently offered] are considerably smaller than an A320 or 738, both in terms of payload and in terms of range. Fitting such an engine rated at 30.000 lbs+ under the 737 will probably be much more engineering compromises than under the A320.
Then again, I would definately expect that a LEAP-X could somehow be fitted under the 737, but the engineering compromises might reduce the benefit compared to the A320. I also definately expect the fan diameter for this engine on the A320 to be a couple of inches larger than on the 737 [never mind a GTF]. The larger fan will produce a more efficient engine, but may also add engine weight.
The trade-off could very well be that the 737NNG will be more efficient on the shorter stretches, where the A320NG would really excell on somehwat longer stretches [relatively speaking].
The closer Airbus and Boeing get to the PNR for the upgrade, the more clearer the trade-offs become visable to them.
[Edited 2010-03-15 16:00:37]
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
Not now, if they can't get the kind of efficiency jump they and the airlines are looking for, which seems to be the case.
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11): The 737 and A320 are fiercely competetive against each other. So much so it's often hard to tell which is better for the mission. So put new engines on the A320 and new engines on the 737, and suddenly the 737 isn't competetive now? Why?
Exactly. I have yet to see a compelling case as to why two planes which are evenly matched now would not be evenly matched if both received similar upgrades. So, they go back and raise the landing gear. It takes some effort but probably wouldn't fall into the category of a "challenge." For that matter, I bet that Boeing probably already has some idea of how they would do it since a) it isn't like the idea of a 737NNG just came about yesterday and b) they probably at least considered how to do it when designing the 737 Classic and NG before deciding that flattening the nacelles was a better idea.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
CFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12029 times:
Flightblogger said both would achieve 10-15% with a re-engine. JL is nervous that his early announcement gives Boeing all the cards and he knows the last time he called them they ended selling >800 787's. The airlines, now knowing the Airbus move, have time to wisper in the ear of Boeing and maybe give enough commitments to make a clean sheet more attractive. You get WN, DL, AA, CO, AF/KLM, GOL, and to a lesser degree ANA and JAL to say they'll place orders and Airbus has a real mess on their hands. For an airline, this is the perfect time to force the hand because they have options to eat into either of the major's NB share. China is going with their NBs, and just like everything they do, the price is going to be cheaper. And, if they can get the discussion to be around their strong point (price) the NB business will be a thing of the past.
JL knows his move could have signaled the beginning of the worst fight in aerospace, and when it's done A+B could be down to splitting the remaining 50% or less. And who wins the lion share of the other 50% will be on equal ground dictating market direction. It's happen in many markets and China's domestic market is big enough to make a major dent into both A+B. This issue is for real and little Qatar forced Airbus to play. Why, because of the C-Series.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28490 posts, RR: 84 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11976 times:
I'm not sure a bigger fan by default will allow the A320 to comprehensively out-class the 737NG. I mean if it was that easy, you'd think Airbus would have done this five year ago, as opposed to five years hence.
I mean the CFM56-5A on the A320 has a higher BPR and lower dry weight than the CFM56-7 on the 737NG, and yet CFM launched the CFM56-5B which lowered the BPR and raised the weight to more closely match the -7 and yet is still a better engine than the -5A. And both models offer a higher BPR than the IAE V2500 family.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3513 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10719 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): I'm not sure a bigger fan by default will allow the A320 to comprehensively out-class the 737NG. I mean if it was that easy, you'd think Airbus would have done this five year ago, as opposed to five years hence.
I don't think it's just the bigger fan. There is a new generation of NB engines appearing, like the LEAP-X and the GTF which promise more efficiency thanks to the application of various new technologies. However, the general trend for fan diameter / engine thrust ratio seems to be going up.
The real dilema here is that airlines are crying out for more efficient NB aircrafts because they feel they are taken advantage of by the dual monopoly 737/A320 situation, where sales are so good that neither A or B seem willing to invest a lot of money to offer a better product. On the other hand both manufacturers feel that the current engine and aircraft technology level is not enough to justify costly development or redevelopment programs just yet.
Let's see who holds his breath the longest...
But if the next generation of engines inevitably include larger fans, Boeing will naturally be more enclined to go for a clean sheet design first, since it would cost more to re-engine the 737 (than a similar job on the A320), they have a lead over Airbus with regard to CFRP fuselage and wings design, manufacture and, soon, operation, and currently a slightly less busy design and development team.
But would it be too soon?
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
ReuschAir From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10333 times:
These things are 10-20 years into the future before they are actualized, and as much as we can say A or B will do X and Y with their existing products, or even come up with something new, remains pure speculation. That they will do something is clear and that they will do it well, I have no doubt. They will remain competitive if not for the innovations that they may devise, then on some level for those innovations they have already produced.
The unclear thing, I think, is based on a point made earlier in this post and that is what Canadair and Embraer will do. I think it is safe to assume that they are watching B and A before they jump wide into the puddle with something extraordinary that will indeed allow them to eat A and B's lunch. If in fact they can pull off something so revolutionary that it makes A and B run for their money, well I'm not so sure of that. Perhaps 20-30 years from now C and E will be positioned to compete with all of A and Bs product line, not just the 737 or the 320.
Independent of what A or B or C or E all may do, what I am curious to see in the next 10-15 years is how the public's flying habits will change as a result of high fuel costs, as one of MANY examples, and how that impacts future aircraft design and manufacture. Take the disillusionment and disgust with the mystique of flying when you have to cough up $10 for a "snack-pack" of highly-processed and questionable food products, or $!0-$30 for baggage fees and $20 for a window seat. I think we have it in us to pay more for flights if we can be assured consistency and quality and comfort and when that filters down to economy class. As one example, not only am I happy when I can jump on a reasonably priced flight, but when I am on a nice, semi luxurious E190 taking me to my destination. I'll pay the extra $100 to fly them who fly an E190 vs. a CRJ200! We need to change flying back into the enjoyable enterprise it once was. I think airliners can re-conceptualize their products so that they will be highly desired by the flying public, and dare I say, redesign for the masses in mind as much as the bureaucrats who actually buy the goods. How those factors unfold in the next 10 years will be the MORE interesting story than engine redesign, or new plane manufacture. The engineering and development story is a good one, too. But what is going to be the most compelling element is how prices, fuel costs, safety and confidence in the TSA and world security as well as pilot experience and aircraft maintenance, etc. etc., all affect consumer behavior in 10 years and how that may call for a new or overhauling design in aircraft. I am watching that elusive human element.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 3153 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9897 times:
Note that Airbus has said the current A320 will stay in production and the re-engined version (I'll term it NE) will be an option.
I presume that an operator with 10 A320's needing 2 more will not order the A320NE. However, if the A320NE does not cost a great deal more than the A320, would we see large numbers of A320's being sold prematurely for replacement by A320NE's? If that happened, there would be a large number of used A320's appearing on the market and I guess sales of new A320's would fall heavily due to the availability of cheap used A320's.
Any thoughts on how that would pan out? Would the availability of the A320NE perhaps decimate sales of new A320's?
Quote: During an interview with ATI and Flightglobal at the Istat conference in Orlando, Florida, Boeing Commercial Airplanes VP of marketing Randy Tinseth explained, "We've talked in moderate detail about what has to be done. What we think we're going to have do is we'd have to have a new pylon, a new nacelle, strengthening of the wing and potential strengthening of the wingbox."
Tinseth explains that Boeing "doesn't really want to touch the main landing gear and we don't have to. We've looked a little bit around maybe some minor modifications around the nose landing gear, still yet to be determined."
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21312 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9418 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21): Tinseth explains that Boeing "doesn't really want to touch the main landing gear and we don't have to. We've looked a little bit around maybe some minor modifications around the nose landing gear, still yet to be determined.
they can pull an airbus and add a bump a la the A330F
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
sirtoby From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 319 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8894 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 13): My translation: We do not see the business case for an A320 redo, I doubt Boeing wants to spend billions on a new plane.
A and B are, without (probably) talking directly to each other, agreeing that a clean-sheet design does not make sense now, as they both do not have the (financial) capabilities. Also, if they do the re-engining, their products will be as good if not better than the newcomers from Russia and China - and they have an (international) customer base, Russia and China don't...
So what's the risk to do a re-engining? Nothing! They will both do it!
25 keesje: I think the issue is we are discussing two overlapping segments. Above and under the market sweetspot at around 150 seats. I think the A320 and A321 w
26 JoeCanuck: With the engines so far ahead of the wings, raising the nose gear would provide quite a bit of clearance.
27 epa001: IIRC both OEM's have hinted that a total new design would be best introduced in about 10 years time with an EIS at 2024 or so. Until that time we wil
28 epa001: Within this last hour www.flightglobal.com posted another article about the possebility of re-enginging the B737 and the A320. So the issue is getting
29 parapente: I agree with Keesje on this one.Without wishing to overcomplicate things or have another discusion on replacing the 1,000 757's that were built.There
30 pitingres: I'll believe in open rotor when I don't hear it. Noise is still a real NIMBY hot button, even with today's much (much much) quieter airplanes. Maybe
31 BMI727: In my opinion, Boeing and Airbus should both try and focus their efforts on the larger end of the spectrum. I would say start at around 150-160 seats
32 A342: I'm 99% sure the A319 and 737-700 would also be included in the re-engining plans, since the result would be ideal aircraft for long and thin routes.
33 lightsaber: I think both will re-engine. However... there is a risk. A 're-engine' is less deadly to the C-series. (Which needs more orders...) There are efficie
34 BMI727: I don't think that the CSeries is as big a threat to the 737 and A320 as Bombardier would like us to believe. About 3/4 of 737NGs are -800s or -900s
35 CFBFrame: Many of you think reengine is a done deal, clean sheet is too expensive, and customers will be satisfied? Well the customers are no where near satisfi
36 planemaker: Yes, the residual values will obviously be very high... which will make financing easier and balance sheets look better. People on here just don't re
37 Flighty: By replacement, I meant EMB or BBD could use 2010s technology instead of 1980s technology for a mid range NB. Either a stretch CSeries (out to M90 si
38 planemaker: Which will be at a serious disadvantage with an an A & B clean sheet in 2020... I have used the term 'obsolete' in the past because there will be
39 Stitch: Coupled with their erroneous belief that EMB and BBD somehow do have these efficiency jumps already in hand and ready to deploy in the next two to th
40 PW100: This time we are talking really big changes in By-Pass Ratio [BPR] and fan diameter. It is not like going from 6.0:1 tot 5.5:1. The proposed LEAP X w
41 sirtoby: Still the V2500 has a lower SFC as it features a 2 stage HPT - fan size and BPR is indeed not all that counts, module efficiencies play the bigger ro
42 Stitch: Well Pratt have been talking about an 80" fan with a 96" diameter for a 737NG / A320 class GTF. In the case of the GTF, it can be mounted higher on t
43 keesje: If you plot the long and thin routes up to 150 seats into the graph I posted in reply 25 you can see it's a small niche. If it means adding a lot of
44 A342: Yes, but for the manufacturers, it's probably a profitable one. Just think about Privatair and ACJ/BBJ users. Beside that, I can imagine it would mak