Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Easyjet: Re-engining A320/737 Not Good Enough.  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 32159 times:

“If the CSeries does what it is supposed do, then a re- engined 737NG or A320 isn’t a good enough response,” said Hal Calamvokis, strategic planning manager at EasyJet Plc, which flies mainly Airbus A319s.

Not something Randy Tinseth and John Leahy fully agree with probably.


.
While EasyJet is having “ongoing discussions with Bombardier,” the CSeries’ current maximum capacity of 145 passengers is too small to meet the airline’s needs and its range is greater than the Luton, England-based company requires, Calamvokis said. .... If Montreal-based Bombardier stretches the CSeries and expands its seating to accommodate about 165 passengers, its range would decrease and the aircraft might work for EasyJet.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...nces-in-engine-upgrade-choice.html

Easyjet knows both the Airbus and Boeing NB families very well. Likely they had a very good look at reengining and CSeries proposals.

Somehow they think reengining the 737/A320 isn´t good enough to compete against the new CSeries. Bombardier would have to offer more capasity though.

Giving up range for more capasity doesn't worry them obviously. A straight forward stretch of the CSeries, maintaining the CS-300ER MTOW etc. doesn't seem to pose an enormous risk / investment for Bombardier.

143 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10751 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 31948 times:

Its odd that while the A340 and likely the A330, launched in the early 90s, is going to be replaced quite soon, the A320 and the 737 keep on running, the first even without any update worth to mention since 20 years! How can airlines be seriously happy with such old technology?

User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 31908 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NA (Reply 1):
How can airlines be seriously happy with such old technology?

Well compared to the 737 the A320 is still high-tech and remember that production and product enhancements are happening all the time (new engines, flight decks, cabin interiors, ER's etc). It's not like a car where a new model comes out every 5 years ago or so.

Both aircraft have received interim updates along the way. The 737 is testament to that!

Sandyb123



Member of the mile high club
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 31645 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 1):
the first even without any update worth to mention since 20 years!

A 2010 vintage A320 is a lot more advanced/better than the first one that flew, but i agree with your point.

I think it's got to a state where both A and B are content with their market share and with the amount of revenue the products both bring in, that it's almost become a stalemate - neither want to rock the boat.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31061 posts, RR: 87
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 31186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
I think it's got to a state where both A and B are content with their market share and with the amount of revenue the products both bring in, that it's almost become a stalemate - neither want to rock the boat.

I expect the real fear is if one jumps, and trips, it will seriously upset the apple cart and allow the other to break the duopoly.

The A320 and 737 families are the foundation the Airbus and Boeing commercial operations are built on. They really make everything else possible through the sheer number of sales each family books year after year.

Bet wrong, and you could conceivably give up many thousands of orders worth many tens of billions over the 15-20 year life of the program to your competition.


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 31183 times:

The danger of reengined A320 and 737NG, is that they end up as modern day MD90s, overtaken by a brand new competing plane, in the same way that the MD90 was left behind by the A320, despite both using V2500s...at the moment such a plane doesn't exist (certainly not at the upper end)

A prospective order for 50-100 CS500s from U2 would certainly be a tempting carrot to launch a 150 seater stretch though.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31061 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 31110 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 5):
A prospective order for 50-100 CS500s from U2 would certainly be a tempting carrot to launch a 150 seater stretch though.

That's the trick, isn't it?  

Talk is cheap. It's easy for WN, or FR or B6 or U2 to tell Airbus and Boeing "we want a brand new narrowbody", but it's a bit harder for them to put down a billion dollars on a 100-frame order to prove that they're committed to a full fleet replacement with that model and give Airbus and Boeing the confidence to invest many, many times that to bring said models to market.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 31041 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 1):
Its odd that while the A340 and likely the A330, launched in the early 90s, is going to be replaced quite soon, the A320 and the 737 keep on running, the first even without any update worth to mention since 20 years! How can airlines be seriously happy with such old technology?

The age of the technology is irrelevant; what matters is does it do the job it is intended to do at the least possible cost? After all, the wheel is pretty old technology but nobody is complaining about it. The 737 soldiers on because there has not been a technological leap that has rendered it obsolete; most new advances have been able to be applied to it. The fundamental construction of jetliners from the 707 to the A380 has not fundamentally changed; the 787 is the first major change, and it remains to be seen whether or not it will render aluminum airliners obsolete (I believe it will, but that must be proven.) FBW is the main advance that has not been applied to the 737, but that has only minor effect on the bottom line for airlines, and obviously is not a major factor in driving purchase decisions. If it was, Boeing would have put it in the 737NG's. There is no reason why they couldn't; the fact that they didn't says to me that it would have cost more to do so than it was worth to the airlines. The same goes for the 748. I think from reading between the lines that Eazyjet really is looking for a shorter range plane, which the C-series would provide, but is not what a lot of other airlines require. A short range airplane will be more efficient than a long range one when used within its range, but Boeing and Airbus cannot afford to develop it, as most of their customers need the flexibility that longer range provides, and you cannot simply take a long range plane and strip the structural weight out that the long range capability requires. This does open a niche for the C-series, as if they offer a light, short-range plane that is more efficient on short ranges than Boeing or Airbus can provide, it will be attractive to operators like Eazyjet that do not need more range. But most A320 and 737 customers who also fly longer range routes will not be attracted, as it is more economical to suffer the inefficiency on short routes than add another plane (and manufacturer) to their fleet



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 30966 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
This does open a niche for the C-series, as if they offer a light, short-range plane that is more efficient on short ranges than Boeing or Airbus can provide, it will be attractive to operators like Eazyjet that do not need more range. But most A320 and 737 customers who also fly longer range routes will not be attracted, as it is more economical to suffer the inefficiency on short routes than add another plane (and manufacturer) to their fleet

I agree with most you say. Apart from that shorter range is a niche. It's the vast majority of flights http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...llRRNButilization.jpg?t=1269266521 . I foresee a scenario where Airbus reengines the A320, A321 and maybe A322) which lowers CASM significantly and caters for longer, more populated flights (e.g. US trans continental) but puts their money where their mouth it for the bulk of 737/A320 series replacements.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/4729494

[Edited 2010-03-22 07:03:29]

User currently offlineflyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 30770 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
A 2010 vintage A320 is a lot more advanced/better than the first one that flew, but i agree with your point.

That is of course true, but more importantly, how much less does the modern day A320-200 consume than the early 90's A320-200?


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 30651 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 8):
I agree with most you say. Apart from that shorter range is a niche. It's the vast majority of flights

That is true, but it seems airlines are not willing to buy aircraft to service only short ranges when they have long range routes as well; they want the flexibility of using as many of their planes (and crews) on as many routes as possible. Each additional type imposes huge costs in training, spares, and capital; it is no coincidence that the most financially successful US airline is Southwest, which only flies one type. JetBlue is also quite successful with the same strategy, as are many others. But if you are going to do that, you must have a plane that will fly the longest route you have. The fuel penalty of flying a long range plane on short routes is not enough to justify having an additional type in the fleet, as I do not know any airline that does it deliberately. From what I see airlines look first at what passenger capacity they need, and then at what the maximum range they need and buy aircraft accordingly. Where there are different variants with different ranges (primarily the 777 family) they may buy different variants for different routes, but it is still the same family with the same crews able to fly them.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 30395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 737NG is very capable and a new 787 Junior would not be so much more efficient as to justify an investnent of so many billions of dollars or Euros. By 2020 the 737 will be nearly 60 and the A320 slmost 40, by then a new technolgy engine might kill them off. By the time the last 737 retires from service it may be 75 years since its launch.

User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1102 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 30009 times:

I think the incremental updates to the 737 have been more pronounced than the incremental updates to the A320 since inception. I don't know which one I'd consider more modern but probably the 737NG. The main issue in my opinion is that the A320 needs a new wing. I don't know how much of a redesign of the wing the 737 got other than the addition of winglets though. Either way, if you want a decent upgrade to either frame I think it requires some kind of wing improvement plus engine upgrade. The alternative is to try and strip out weight. Weight savings are a great way to improve CASM and range simultaneously.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 29729 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 1):
How can airlines be seriously happy with such old technology?

Because new technology does not provide enough upside at the moment to justify the investment.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 3):
that it's almost become a stalemate - neither want to rock the boat.

Neither can build a boat that is that much better to be worthwhile. You can update the boat you have though, for a pretty reasonable cost.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 5):
is that they end up as modern day MD90s, overtaken by a brand new competing plane,

Which is exactly what could end up happening to the CSeries during the 2020s.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 29202 times:

I think Boeing and Airbus can build something much better, but will only do so if forced by the market.

If Bombardier, Comac and UAC didn't launch new aircraft with clearly better engines/ economics, Airbus and Boeing would promote the 737/A320/IAE/CFM combi as the ultimate performance champions for another decade, instead of reengining ASAP.

I think Boeing will realize a 737 mk4 will have very moderate market attraction compared to revamped A302s, CSeries and MS21's and see their narrowbody research program growing into something entirely new. Advantage is that they will probably have a large number of launch orders, disadvatage is they'll have to find out the hardway / know Airbus is taking lessons learned and pushing out large numbers of "next best" A320s, following with a slightly enhanced competitor a few yrs later. Similar to the 767, A330, 787, A350 story we saw during the last decade.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13161 posts, RR: 100
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
“If the CSeries does what it is supposed do, then a re- engined 737NG or A320 isn’t a good enough response,” said Hal Calamvokis, strategic planning manager at EasyJet Plc, which flies mainly Airbus A319s.

That is quite a telling quote. Now, I agree with others that 'talk is cheap,' but U2 was one of my 'forelorn hopes' for the C-series.

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
While EasyJet is having “ongoing discussions with Bombardier,” the CSeries’ current maximum capacity of 145 passengers is too small to meet the airline’s needs and its range is greater than the Luton, England-based company requires, Calamvokis said. ....

I thought 150 seats would squeeze into the C300 at U2's density. That seems ideal for them. Even at 145, the per flight cost savings should pay for the transition. But U2's CEO would know better than I their cost estimates.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 5):
A prospective order for 50-100 CS500s from U2 would certainly be a tempting carrot to launch a 150 seater stretch though.

It would be very tempting. Bombardier could launch a 2,300nm range version and then work on improving the performance.

So this still leaves unanswered who are the most likely customers for the C-series?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28632 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15):
the CSeries’ current maximum capacity of 145 passengers is too small to meet the airline’s needs and its range is greater than the Luton, England-based company requires, Calamvokis said. .

Actually the first time I see an airline confirm he thinks "the range is greater than .. required". Supports the case for optimized shorter ranged aircraft.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28504 times:

Can anyone provide an actual basis as to why a 787mini couldn't do to the current breed of narrowbodies in efficiency what the big 787 did to the A330 (the extent of which is still up for debate) or are people just saying that?

I don't see why they couldn't unless composites were just a lot of hype afterall (well i never!)

A and B know full well that any new programme will have a counter progamme launched shortly after. But both are busy right now. It's a curious situation, almost as if they've secretly signed the WAW pact.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13161 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 28369 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 16):
Supports the case for optimized shorter ranged aircraft.

I've posted before that the European market does far better supporting shorter missions than the US market. The TSA has effectively killed off the sub-250nm flights.

I can see a stretch, but what would the range be? After thinking about it, 2,000 to 2,300nm is about all U2 would require.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
I don't see why they couldn't unless composites were just a lot of hype afterall (well i never!)

Composites could reduce the weight in a narrowbody, but the issue is going to be engineering costs and volume. Yes, volume. Composite to composite joints are much tougher to design than rivits. We know how to rivit 100 different ways. I think there would be tremendous improvement with a composite narrowbody. But the engineering costs would be 50% higher than an all new aluminum airframe. Neither A nor B seems inclined to pay for a new airframe much less a new composite airframe.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 28224 times:

As for all the talk about the A32X and 737NG being stale...well nobody else is offering anything that can compete, especially with the A320/321 and the 738/739ER. If a re-engine of both planes brings in 10-15% lower SFC, then that makes the replacements for the two that much harder to build. The nice thing about the re-engine plan is that a re-engined A32X or 737NG will fit nicely in the fleet with the current A32X and 737NG fleets. I think U2 is (rightfully so) pushing A & B to build a new narrow body. It just won't be in the cards for a while. Not with Airbus' hands tied with their A350/A380/A400M and Boeing's hands tied with the 787/748/777EW.


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 28056 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Composites could reduce the weight in a narrowbody, but the issue is going to be engineering costs and volume. Yes, volume. Composite to composite joints are much tougher to design than rivits. We know how to rivit 100 different ways. I think there would be tremendous improvement with a composite narrowbody. But the engineering costs would be 50% higher than an all new aluminum airframe. Neither A nor B seems inclined to pay for a new airframe much less a new composite airframe.

So how does this differ to the 787/A350 go decision? Or is this with hindsight knowledge?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13161 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 27545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 20):
So how does this differ to the 787/A350 go decision? Or is this with hindsight knowledge?

A widebody is larger and thus opportunities to position joints is easier. If you will, more 'free space' where one can turn a wrench. Some is 787 'lessons learned.'



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15749 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 27095 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
I think Boeing will realize a 737 mk4 will have very moderate market attraction compared to revamped A302s,

Why? This same tired argument has been posted here many times by different people and none of them have a good argument as to why and Boeing engineers have said the opposite. The 737 and A320 are almost dead even in almost every respect right now. If two very similar aircraft get very similar upgrades, why would they not still be very similar?

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
Can anyone provide an actual basis as to why a 787mini couldn't do to the current breed of narrowbodies in efficiency what the big 787 did to the A330 (the extent of which is still up for debate) or are people just saying that?

The short answer is that it just doesn't work that way, though I'm sure that someone else could probably give a more in depth answer. The case of composites is one where the returns diminish on smaller planes. Taking all of the 787 tricks and applying them to the 737 would yield a better plane, but apparently that plane would not be "better enough" to justify the investment. Give them a few years.

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 19):
As for all the talk about the A32X and 737NG being stale...well nobody else is offering anything that can compete

There are actually a fairly small fraction of 737s that could be realistically replaced by the CSeries. I suspect that something similar would be true for the A32x.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31061 posts, RR: 87
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 27068 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
I think Boeing will realize a 737 mk4 will have very moderate market attraction compared to revamped A302s, CSeries and MS21's and see their narrowbody research program growing into something entirely new.

The market seems to be pretty attracted to the 737 based on the sales it does...

This might be why Airbus is pursuing many of the upgrades Boeing has incorporated over the 737NG's lifespan.  scratchchin 



Quoting RJ111 (Reply 17):
Can anyone provide an actual basis as to why a 787mini couldn't do to the current breed of narrowbodies in efficiency what the big 787 did to the A330 (the extent of which is still up for debate) or are people just saying that?

If you want a narrowbody with TATL or even TPAC range, CFRP should do wonders for that by supporting higher TOWs with lower MWEs as the 787 and A350XWB can. That way you only have two joins versus the multiple ones the 787 and A350XWB have shown.

But if you want a low TOW and a low MWE for short-haul, Al seems to still have the advantage at the moment, based on familiarity with the material, if nothing else.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18):
Composites could reduce the weight in a narrowbody, but the issue is going to be engineering costs and volume. Yes, volume. Composite to composite joints are much tougher to design than rivets.

If they could do it, I'd make the next narrowbody in three sections - wingbox, forward fuselage and aft fuselage. The wingbox would have the same dimensions across all models, with the forward and aft fuselages scaled to length as necessary.

[Edited 2010-03-22 10:48:47]

User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 26797 times:

It's not just the technology that has changed (over the past 20 or so years).It's the whole marketplace! Easyjet and Ryanair "own" Europe and that they don't - they soon will (or the vast majority of it).I do not know the N American market well (or indeed else where) but from what I have read it's the same story over and over again.

IE The LCC market is THE market.It did not even exist when the present 2 planes under discussion were being planned.

The LCC's (Southwest?) started with the best and most affordable plane that there was (old 737's) at the time.That did not make it the right plane -just the best there was -then.But this is now.This time it is THEY that will be designing the plane not A or B!

As kkkejse says, there may well be a market for a re engined 737/320 as there is the large 757 market and longer distance existing markets too address.But.... If that's not what they want ,then it is not what they want - and they will be calling the shots I feel.


25 lightsaber : That makes sense. Seriously, once all the 'details' are stuffed into the wingbox, a CFRP narrowbody then becomes a *very* easy aircraft to produce. T
26 planemaker : No they can't! Something better but NOT much better! It is a chicken-egg argument you are trying to fit into your perspective. Leap-X is still 6 year
27 Post contains images Flighty : Yeah, but other companies can build newer, better stuff. If Bombardier beats the 738 by a large margin (and they probably will), Boeing will have to
28 BoeEngr : Both the 737 and the A320 are very good, efficient planes. Boeing has looked hard at a replacement plane that can give the airlines a large jump up in
29 Stitch : It's because they're looking at one part of the market, and extrapolating that across the entire market, ignoring that those competitors offerings ar
30 XT6Wagon : If its required, they could also do two wingboxes and wings for a split in MTOW classes. I don't know that it would be required but this is the area
31 SolarFlyer22 : Amen. All the more reason for us to build high speed rail in this country. I would expand that radius to 400NM if you have to deal with weather or ru
32 BMI727 : But what sort of compromises would have to be made to stretch what started as a 120 seater to that size? And the C300 could replace 73Gs and A319s if
33 Post contains links lightsaber : The prop fan is a bit too far out for U2. In general, it will probably do well. But an in service engine is not going to happen before 2020. However,
34 SSTsomeday : I would suggest that "world circumstances" have dictated what the TSA needs to do to keep us somewhat safer. If U2 wants the C-series, wouldn't other
35 Hirnie : LH already ordered a bunch of CSeries. I agree a 100%.
36 Post contains links keesje : A few yrs ago a bunch of engineers / pilots assisted in configurating such a machine. Other goodies included APU powered taxi, direct lift control ht
37 SEPilot : The required skin thickness for damage resistance is greater than required for the pressure and load capacity on narrowbodies, so much of the weight
38 keesje : I thought this is more a theoretical problem on large fuselage cross sections, that are inherent more efficient (strenght/ stifness per volume). For
39 pitingres : Indeed. I think that answers part of the question as to why a weight win is harder on a narrowbody. The other part is simply that you need structure
40 Stitch : Mounting the engines on the tail would allow either an open rotor or a turbofan with a very large BPR to be fitted.
41 Post contains links and images planemaker : The above is why a 2024 EIS is so attractive to both A & B as manufacturing technologies will be significantly further advanced, along with mater
42 JoeCanuck : BBD has orders for the two of its CSeries models which it is currently offering. Which means that they would have to offer a third model to satisfy Ea
43 web500sjc : great, so when does easyjet start building them? U2 can only buy the planes that manufacturers are selling, if enough people want what U2 wants then
44 Post contains images planemaker : Did you not see the "wink" in my sentence? Try and convince others of that nugget... starting with Keesje!
45 Post contains links flood : "Bombardier Expects China, Qatar CSeries Plane Orders This Year" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=a8JTf4GN2uJU
46 frmrCapCadet : I think it is safe to say that the major flyers of the 320/737 have very good technisions and engineers and know what the lastest technology could bri
47 Post contains images SSTsomeday : What are the noise issues for such an engine? I would think that recent advances in reduced engine noise require an cowl around the rotating and thru
48 Centre : "Technology" is a broad definition... Kindly define the hurdles of a new sheet design
49 LAXDESI : EasyJet's A319 has 156 seats--18" wide at 29" pitch. CS300 can be configured at 145 seats at 30" pitch(as per BBD), and perhaps at 150 seats at 29" pi
50 XT6Wagon : and have absolutely no utility in any airlines fleet. Planning a plane design around a 500nm mission as its optimum is going to get you to a max rang
51 Post contains images keesje : The energy advantage of very high bypass engines such as the open rotor, creates issues because from a structural standpoint mounting the engine unde
52 rheinwaldner : It is not a question of technology but ....! The C-Series in many places would not have more modern or efficient technology than A320/737. Therefore i
53 keesje : Fully agreed. It's about the optimal design point. Even the Embraer 170-195 series and CSeries have limitted overlap. The CS100 will be more capable,
54 parapente : Eastjet could be described as the World's expert in standard narrow bodied jets.Who has more experience of both 737's and A320's? They know everything
55 BoeEngr : The next "Technology" that is needed is as yet undefined. Sure we can do a clean sheet design. We can incorporate all the latest in airliner tech. We
56 Stitch : That last one should not be overlooked, especially for LCCs like FR who tend to sell-off their planes while still young. You almost can't give away a
57 Post contains images Baroque : That seems the most likely. Al though as parapente writes: but what RR openly state and what they are actually doing could even be two different thin
58 lightsaber : Eventually. But U2 seems to be #1 in line in terms of fleet replacement times as well as interest. As already noted, they ordered the C-series for LX
59 rheinwaldner : That is a bluff. Airlines have prooved time and time again that as few as 5% justifies adding new planes to the fleet. If there are two options just
60 Post contains images BoeEngr : Okee dokee.
61 lightsaber : Actually, 7% has traditionally been the number to have a few defect. 15% obsoleces a previous design. I know, a nitpick. Exceptions of course for fle
62 LAXDESI : 500nm was one mission length I used to compare a hypothetical CS500 to A319. The hypothetical CS500 should easily beat A319 on GSM(gallon seat mile)
63 Post contains links keesje : Not sure, the CS300 (compared to 737-700) is longer and a passenger less per row. Being in the business for 20 yrs, I've seen the routine. Customers
64 Revelation : Close enough for high speed rail to have its impact. It won't kill off EMB, BBD, etc programs but it'll make the business case that much more difficu
65 Stitch : Exactly. As air travel becomes more inconvenient (due to traffic to the airport and security hassles at the airport), "ground travel" becomes more ap
66 SEPilot : From what I have read it is simply the fact that with a larger diameter pressure vessel a thicker wall is required to retain the pressure (greater su
67 Post contains images lightsaber : Somewhat due to payload/range but more so due to economics. U2 picked the A319 due to the excellent economics (for them). They didn't even choose the
68 EnviroTO : The C919 is larger than the CSeries and the two would only overlap if the CS500 becomes reality. I'm sure that Bombardier's experience building a mut
69 Post contains images Stitch : The US Transportation Department has allocated a few billion for high-speed rail development, but that's about enough to maybe pay for the paper used
70 Post contains images planemaker : You can lead a horse to water... Unfortunately, there are going to be too many to count that just won't to understand you. What is funny is that easy
71 Post contains images Stitch : And you'd think the CRJ-1000 would be the most desirable member of the CRJ family since it can easily carry 100 people and their bags within that 500
72 alangirvan : Remembering back to the early 80s, Flight International used to have their annual airliner directory, where they had pages of performance charts, show
73 Stitch : Which is why airlines like JL were demanding a 50% improvement for the next-generation narrowbody.
74 Post contains links Revelation : I agree, it'll just make the business case that much more difficult Seems Europe does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
75 keesje : In my experience business travel 300-400nm is ok with speed trains between big places. Further takes away too much time. High speed trains work betwe
76 BMI727 : I think that WN and U2 are two of the relatively small number of airlines that might be able to actually replace their 737 fleets with the CSeries. T
77 planemaker : But why then does BBD not follow your lead and build the 1000nm jet that would surely take the "bulk" of the shorter NB routes? Why does BBD not list
78 XT6Wagon : No, WN in fact is far more likely to go larger next time they pony up for a new fleet type. They have hit some rather harsh gate restrictions in many
79 BMI727 : I never said I wanted or thought that Southwest would go with the CSeries, considering their routes, it would be possible from an operational standpoi
80 Post contains images planemaker : If the "harsh gate restrictions" was truly an issue they could easily use the 738 without having to wait, already... just like Westjet does. The CS30
81 Post contains links and images keesje : Southwest will ditch the Boeing 737. Nobody knows when. From the article in the opening post : “We would like to know what choices are available to
82 Rheinbote : I guess that's the reason why the 737NG burns less fuel per seat and is more reliable? ...if at all. That's what many seem to ignore: The turboprop b
83 Stitch : I still fully expect WN to place a 200 frame 737NG order this year.
84 lightsaber : I could only wish for such projects.. Interesting Is this like Herb Keller dropping the Airbus matches? Of course WN has to look at their options, ot
85 JoeCanuck : Ditto. WN will stay Boeing. With the lower fuel burn of a 737NNG, they will upsize to the -800 for a moderate increase in upfront cost per plane but
86 Post contains images planemaker : Nobody knows when 'cause it just ain't gonna happen!! That isn't me that wrote that.... I just copied it from easyJet's site. But, if you look at the
87 alangirvan : The 727-300 could not cut it, so Boeing had to build the new 757, and the 787 is here (almost) because airlines did not really want the 767-400ERY. S
88 XT6Wagon : I think the only reason that they do not currently have a 738 is that the 737RS was supposed to be taking orders before 2015, then the 787 delay hit
89 planemaker : RJs are a red herring. Freight typically always cubes out. And for WN's routes, the CSeries has tons of cargo payload. A simple glance at their route
90 vctony : The CS500 is a direct MD-80/MD-90 replacement. I don't believe it would be a good 737-800 or A320 replacement though.
91 Post contains links and images keesje : I think a CRJ or ERJ is out of the picture. The CSeries300 is not an RJ though. It has similar capasity then a 737-700 or A319 and Bombardier promise
92 Post contains images Rheinbote : Yes, apologies. That's a pure technical quote - I wouldn't expect you to do a statement like that The Easyjet configuration with the props on top emb
93 Stitch : It's always been explained to me that WN prefers the 737-300 / 737-700 is because they do not wish to seat more than 150 passengers, both to reduce c
94 Post contains links and images mandala499 : Well, comparing the fuel burn figures of an A320-200 with CFM56-3A with one powered by CFM56-3B, there's quite a difference. Here are the Long Range
95 JoeCanuck : I think Boeing may have learned from that lesson. I think they got a bit cocky and didn't put up a very good fight for the business. U2 may also have
96 planemaker : I think not. It is already debateable just how much of an advantage the CS300 has... trip wise, likewise CASM as with the same seat pitch and monumen
97 b767 : If you realy can put new engine technology on the A320 AND 737 and save another 15 to 20 %, fuel then the aerodynamic drawbacks compared to newer desi
98 SEPilot : I wish I knew what these numbers represent. I really would like some real world figures, but I do not know how to interpret these.
99 XT6Wagon : Why I think it has to be 800 length is that doing a model with just 149Y and WN seatpitch ends up not that much shorter than a 738, but alot longer t
100 planemaker : It just might be when reduced maintenance is factored in but it will still be hauling 7k lb more. It is in fact better than a traditional NB... wider
101 BMI727 : I think that the CSeries is a lot more like the 717 or E-Jets than the 737 or A320.
102 planemaker : Actually, it is larger and more comfortable than any of AA or DL's MD80s... which as we all know are slowly being replaced by the 738.
103 Post contains images lightsaber : I didn't mean to take the thread too far off track but here are my replies: 100% agree. Nice post. Except I thing there is a chance of a 739RE. You mi
104 Post contains images Stitch : Silly me. I was confusing WN with FR...
105 BMI727 : The MD-80 could realistically be replaced by the CSeries, which cannot be said for the majority of 737s. How about just moving the L1 door back to ro
106 XT6Wagon : you have to have a emergancy exit both directions from any seat. So you could do this with additional doors on a longer frame. However the loss of se
107 BMI727 : Ideally, I would keep the R1 door as is, since presumably the galley would still be located there so that may fulfill the rules, like the rear of an
108 keesje : Well that is what you think, however; What's in a name. Anyway it can sit 145 passenger for 3000nm replacing NB's in its current form & some thin
109 Revelation : And yet DJ has just ordered another 50 (with 50+ options) of those 1960s vintage 737s. I wonder what is going through their heads?
110 Post contains images BMI727 : 'Nuff said.
111 Revelation : Really? I thought no one could want an airplane that doesn't have two rear-firing unducted turbofans on it.
112 BMI727 : Well nobody pays to fly on paper planes. Those obsolete aluminum contraptions are going to have to pay the bills for now.
113 XT6Wagon : Really? Where is thier order for a few hundred CS300 then? Since you claim that it should tear out the heart of the 737-700/A319 market, why is the C
114 planemaker : From ATI on Mar 22... Boeing management believes that turn time ability of future narrowbody designs will play a prominent role in developing a 737 r
115 Post contains links keesje : I looked at the configurations, MTOW,payload/range, engine power range, and I'm not the only one. Some folks often 1 step behind and were predicting
116 planemaker : Oh boy, a single analyst on Wall Street (and we all know what a great rep Wall Street has!) is "speculating" that BBD might be working on a 150-seate
117 frmrCapCadet : I think both A and B want to reduce the cost of manufacturing, and both the 350 and 787 may be persuading them that they have not found the magic bul
118 planemaker : Certainly by the all-new NB EIS date of ~2025, technology will have advanced considerably so we will not only have better materials but also better m
119 Stitch : Well the subs are struggling to ramp to ten barrels a month years into the program, so considering a 737RS will need a production rate three or even
120 Post contains images lightsaber : While the twin aisle is an interesting concept, I think Boeing will probably re-engine the 737NG. However, my point, which you re-enforce, is that ai
121 planemaker : I agree, they will most likely re-engine the 737NG. The twin-aisle concept is being examined for an all-new NB in +10 years. But no one speculated th
122 frmrCapCadet : Not fast enough to make enough improvements in what some (not me) consider to old technology planes, the 737 and 320 families. I fully realize that w
123 Post contains images sonyvaio : quiter engines would be good this is the view from my back garden . zoomed in abit of course .
124 bill142 : It's a simple question. Why get rid of a cash cow?
125 Post contains images planemaker : In addition to the tech reasons that have been discussed, another reason why it is not worth doing an all-new design now is that an all-new design wo
126 XT6Wagon : I think its because right now Airbus and Boeing are both staring down the barrels of resource shortages. Airbus is absolutely bingo on cash and talen
127 Baroque : Is there any news on production rates of barrels? Have they increased, or are they just going to have to duplicate to obtain previously forecast rate
128 Stitch : Not that I have heard, so I am guessing no news is good news. Either that or they figure with another three years until full production, that's enoug
129 planemaker : Even if they had the engineers and money, the technology is simply not ready for an all-new NB to make an acceptable difference.[Edited 2010-04-23 12
130 Post contains images Stitch : Well if U2 wants to scale down the capacity of their planes from the current average of 168 (A319/A320) to 145 (CS300) then I don't exactly see what A
131 ElbowRoom : Brilliant post. At the end of the day, there is a fundamental choice: 5 abreast or 6 abreast. A 6 abreast airliner can carry more people, at the limi
132 Post contains images Baroque : ??Time for Airbus to release the latest version of their report??
133 BMI727 : I think that the 180-220 seat segment will account for a large fraction of 737RS (and A320 replacement) sales. Only some of them since some airlines
134 747400sp : The CSerise has a wider wing span than an A320 or 737NG on a norrower body, so if P&W make a more powerful version of the G 1000, then a 150 passe
135 Post contains images lightsaber : Nitpick: It would need the PW1000G core that *will* (future tense) be developed for the MC-21. However, similar thrust could be made with a smaller f
136 Stitch : In terms of wing area, the CSeries has less (112m2) than the A320 family (123m2) which has less than the 737 family (125m2), so that might affect a l
137 Post contains images lightsaber : Longer wingspan for the same area has a better L/D. I also expect the C500 to not gain as much weight to the CS500 as others have posted. Lightsaber
138 BMI727 : ...but more structure and is more difficult to fit into gates.
139 Post contains images mandala499 : OK, I guess the table didn't come out right... Here it is again: At least it'll show the target fuel burn per seat and trip burn per seat per NM targ
140 Post contains links planemaker : Yet another news snippet on the re-engining, this time on ATW on-line... In a dire warning for Bombardier, the firm predicted that "an Airbus or Boein
141 JoeCanuck : Bernstein really is last with the news. They have added exactly nothing new by jumping into the fray. It seems like they finally picked up a paper in
142 Post contains links and images keesje : A similar reaction from US Airways. But he also believes the Bombardier CSeries powered by the geared turbofan has supplied Boeing and Airbus incentiv
143 Post contains images Flighty : Amazingly, the MD-80 is longer than both of those. So yes, your numbers are right... but the M80 and M90 got there. Starting from the DC-9-10.
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...
Southwest: A320 / 737 Reengining Not Good Enough posted Fri Jun 25 2010 15:21:47 by keesje
The DC-9 And 737- Not Good Cargo Airplanes? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 10:41:34 by c5load
Bombardier: Re-engined A320/737 Can’t Beat CSeries posted Wed May 26 2010 03:17:20 by aviationbuff
SAS Eyes Re-engined A320/737 As MD-80 Replacement posted Fri Mar 19 2010 05:13:04 by oykie
Re-engining The 737 An Option For Boeing posted Fri Sep 5 2008 08:15:02 by OyKIE
Why Are AA Not Good Enough And We Need To Have D posted Thu Nov 11 1999 04:59:50 by Iainhol
Boeing Not Re-engining 737, But "737NG+" posted Thu Sep 9 2010 08:09:56 by keesje
Re-engining The A320/737 Decision Next Year? posted Sun Oct 11 2009 05:10:23 by OyKIE
FI:Boeing Hints At GTF 737 Re-engining Study posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:27:40 by Planemaker
Udvar Hazy Clashes With J.Leahy On Re-engining posted Tue Oct 12 2010 07:45:03 by keesje