Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airbus, Boeing PAY Attention! Design A New N/B.  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17363 times:

I know there been a lot of post of about Airbus and Boeing building a new design for a narrow body. Now after reading that NZ would have a nice reward for who ever can design a narrow body with 30% fuel saving, I really think it time for both A or B to get on the ball. Both Boeing and Airbus has talk with Embraer about working with them on the Y-1 and NSR. A or B could end up lossing this order to the 919 or MC-21, or we could see 919 replaceing WN 737s or JetBlue A320s, but if A and B get on the ball, WN could replace their 737s with Y-1s or JetBlue could replace their A320 with NSRs. A and B you doing good in the widebody department, but do not let your bread and butter slip from under you.

52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17294 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

30% is a lot. I don't expect to see a new replacement much before 2020 because the technology just isn't there. The best option is to go with the relatively low cost reengine for some improvement and when the technology to get the bigger jumps is ready for prime time, the manufacturers need to hit it out of the park.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 4 hours ago) and read 17265 times:

They're both safe for now. It may not seem like it, but theirs are both pretty good positions to hang out in.

Embraer & Bombardier have both come an awful long way too, and I am of the unmitigated belief that I will see a twin-aisle from both of them in my lifetime. That having been said...
Neither are in a position to go much further into the mainline market at this time. Anything larger than a 195/CR10 will pretty much have to be a clean sheet design, if for no other reason than to avoid the problems brought by the 753 vis a vis boarding, debarking times. And with a huge backlog (well, for Embraer anyway, though I maintain cautious optimism wrt the 110/130 as well...), they have their work cut out for them. In other words, expect it to be at least another decade before you see either breaking into the 120+ seat market. But, by the same token, don't expect it to take much longer either.

As for B & A, they too have tremendous backlogs for their products. And while ANZ may be able to offer them something nice, I hardly think an airline their size can offer any realistic incentive for Boeing or Airbus to dump billions into a modern iteration of a product they already have a huge backlog for.

I think this is one of those odd business cycles, where given the cost of development, it may be wise for both Boeing and Airbus to actually take a nominal loss as E & Br push ahead in this segment. The logic being that B&A both have huge backlogs that are paid for compared to the uncertainty of developing a new product (yes I do mean uncertainty there. Just b/c it is a B or A product doesn't mean it will be a slam dunk...) This will also give them both a chance to not be the least advanced/reliable/etc of the next generation of narrow-body ac. Anyway, just my .02


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7084 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 3 hours ago) and read 17119 times:

What kind of nice reward would NZ offer? They have just ordered new A320's, so I doubt they will be looking at new narrow bodies for a while.

User currently offlinedynamicsguy From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 868 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 16948 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now after reading that NZ would have a nice reward for who ever can design a narrow body with 30% fuel saving, I really think it time for both A or B to get on the ball.

And how exactly do you expect A & B to get on the ball? A 30% fuel burn reduction any time in the near future is fanciful regardless of how much reward NZ or anyone else offers. Even a 15% reduction would be difficult to pull off.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 16899 times:

Quoting dynamicsguy (Reply 4):

Exactly right. It isn't that Boeing and Airbus don't want to build their replacement, it is the efficiency increases airlines want aren't possible yet.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6103 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 16792 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 2):
and I am of the unmitigated belief that I will see a twin-aisle from both of them in my lifetime.

Based on what factors?

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 2):
expect it to be at least another decade before you see either breaking into the 120+ seat market.

The CSeries is already beyond the 120+ seat market and competes directly with the 73G and A319.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 2 hours ago) and read 16712 times:

IMHO, A and B are not under a much serious threat. Their current focus obviously is to achieve some 10-15% fuel saving through new engines. The only worthy competitor seems to be C Series, 919 is unlikely to be anywhere near.
Quite possibly, we will only see a new narrowbody model from A and B when new fuels are in use. A 30% increase in savings will need a total renovation of aerodynamics.



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 hour ago) and read 16675 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 6):
Based on what factors?

Air traffic will increase again in the coming decades, and they'd be fools not to. After all, Embraer went from 110's to 190's in about the same time it took Hyundai to go from crappy econoboxes to a real threat to Lexus, Mercedes, et al...

Mostly just a hunch, but their collective rate of development over the last three decades is very encouraging.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 6):
The CSeries is already beyond the 120+ seat market and competes directly with the 73G and A319.

All right, I see that for the CS300. Best of luck to it as well. I think I read here somewhere that the frame is expandable to a 140+, I guess that would be called a CS500. So perhaps that one is a bit further off. But deffinitely feaseable.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16049 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 2):
Embraer & Bombardier have both come an awful long way too, and I am of the unmitigated belief that I will see a twin-aisle from both of them in my lifetime. That having been said...
Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
Air traffic will increase again in the coming decades, and they'd be fools not to. After all, Embraer went from 110's to 190's in about the same time it took Hyundai to go from crappy econoboxes to a real threat to Lexus, Mercedes, et al...

Well I hope Embraer & Bombardier builds a twin-aisle in the 787/A350XWB size class. It would be cool to see what kind of design they could come up with. Who knows, I could being flying to Europe or Hawaii on a 300 + passenger Bombardier DS600 or Embraer E-3330 when I am in my 50's.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15990 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 9):
Well I hope Embraer & Bombardier builds a twin-aisle in the 787/A350XWB size class. It would be cool to see what kind of design they could come up with. Who knows, I could being flying to Europe or Hawaii on a 300 + passenger Bombardier DS600 or Embraer E-3330 when I am in my 50's.

While this would be nice to see, I have to wonder if they'd do better remaining in the niche they've established for themselves. They do very well there and improving on their product line rather than venturing off into something outside of what they're established in "may" prove to be a disaster rather than a blessing. I guess time will tell.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15978 times:

Others have said the technology isn't there. I'm not sure if that's the case or if the cost of doing it would make the planes too expensive.

It's similar to the hybrid cars. At the moment, the fuel savings can't offset the added price of the car. At the moment, the average Prius driver has to drive the car well beyond the life of the batteries to break even. But Priuses sell because people feel green driving one. Airlines can't afford to buy a much more expensive airplane that can't offset the fuel savings, because it's highly unlikely that they'd be able to pass the cost along to the consumer.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15775 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If NZ would like to order 250 of them at $70 million a pop and put down the entire cost up front (so $1.75 billion), I think Boeing or Airbus could use that as seed money to launch a new narrowbody.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 15281 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
Now after reading that NZ would have a nice reward for who ever can design a narrow body with 30% fuel saving

If you could design a narrowbody with 30% fuel savings, you'd be getting a nice reward from *everybody.*

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I really think it time for both A or B to get on the ball.

Where does this weird belief come from that they're not on the ball? A & B are *constantly* looking at new products. They've said, time and time again, that technology doesn't exist today to make those kinds of improvements. If it did, one of them would have done it because the market domination is obvious.

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
A or B could end up lossing this order to the 919 or MC-21, or we could see 919 replaceing WN 737s or JetBlue A320s

If they're going for 30% improvement, they're not going to lose the order to the 919 or MC-21.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 11):
Others have said the technology isn't there. I'm not sure if that's the case or if the cost of doing it would make the planes too expensive.

It's the case. A & B had to do technology to the hilt to get 20% on their widebodies, and it's harder to get fuel improvement on narrowbodies.

Tom.


User currently offlinerikkus67 From Canada, joined Jun 2000, 1622 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14201 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 10):
While this would be nice to see, I have to wonder if they'd do better remaining in the niche they've established for themselves. They do very well there and improving on their product line rather than venturing off into something outside of what they're established in "may" prove to be a disaster rather than a blessing. I guess time will tell.

Convair, anyone?
I agree with that assessment. Both BBD and EMB have worked at slow and steady growth with achieveable increments in developments of products: Challenger 600 to CRJ 1000 ; EMB 120 Brasillia to EMB 145. EMB first to bat with the 170/190, and now BBD with the CS100/300/"500?". For either to jump into wide bodies is still going to take some time...if ever...
Perhaps a viable 757 replacement as a next step? Only time will tell.

I would love to see the next generation of NB's from A & B as much as anyone else...but cudos to both for keeping their cashcows viable.



AC.WA.CP.DL.RW.CO.WG.WJ.WN.KI.FL.SK.ACL.UA.US.F9
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6103 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12047 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
Air traffic will increase again in the coming decades, and they'd be fools not to.

One doesn't just decide to "design & build" wide bodies.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
After all, Embraer went from 110's to 190's in about the same time it took Hyundai to go from crappy econoboxes to a real threat to Lexus, Mercedes, et al...

Aviation and autmotive are not analogous. Going from 110 to 190 was relatively cheap, no, in fact very cheap for EMB... they developed ALL 4 e-jet models for only $1-billion! Now compare that with the CSeries where just two models are going to end up costing north of $4-billion.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 8):
Mostly just a hunch, but their collective rate of development over the last three decades is very encouraging.

Not much of a rate of development if you actually look at it... in fact long, drawn out birthing pains for any new models. For E or BBD to try to get into the widebody game would be financial suicide.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 11):
Others have said the technology isn't there. I'm not sure if that's the case or if the cost of doing it would make the planes too expensive.

It truly isn't. Just look at the CSeries for your answer.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
I think Boeing or Airbus could use that as seed money to launch a new narrowbody.

Why? So that the airlines will only be clamouring for more improvements in 10 years time as the truly enabling tech only becomes available then.

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 14):
Perhaps a viable 757 replacement as a next step? Only time will tell.

While it is nice to speculate, believe it or not, apart from the engines, the CSeries is out of sync with technological advancements. It is selectively utilizing only what BBD can handle - and even at that it will be a major feat for BBD to turn out the CSeries on time or budget.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 10533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
I think Boeing or Airbus could use that as seed money to launch a new narrowbody.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 15):
Why? So that the airlines will only be clamouring for more improvements in 10 years time as the truly enabling tech only becomes available then.

My comment was meant to be sarcastic, as in if NZ is so impatient for a new narrowbody from Boeing or Airbus, they should "put their money where their mouth is" and place a very large and high value order to convince Boeing or Airbus to take the plunge and actually launch it.  


User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9683 times:

How cool would it be to see someone, anyone, order as the mainstays of their fleets: 919's and Sukhoi SuperJets? I'm just thinking from the "let's see something different in the skies" point of view.  

User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3288 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8932 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 15):

It truly isn't. Just look at the CSeries for your answer.

The CSeries seats 110-135 if I'm not mistaken. Boeing and Airbus have planes that small, but their bread and butter is in larger versions. The 318 and 736 are niche players.


User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8849 times:

There are planty of offerings in the 80-140 seat capacity. As environmental issues become further highlighted what is needed is a new generation to replace the 757


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8807 times:

@jetfuel 737-900ER and A321 fits just that. The 787 complements the rest. I doubt there'd be any future 757 class aircraft.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinejetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8443 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 20):
@jetfuel 737-900ER and A321 fits just that. The 787 complements the rest. I doubt there'd be any future 757 class aircraft

757 variants seat up to 289 pax - neither the 321 or 739 can do this. Problem is pricing. The 787 is double the cost of a 737. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineBAW716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2027 posts, RR: 27
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8114 times:

Wow, it's been a while since I've been here...an interesting discussion, no doubt. Where to begin:

I am in complete agreement that any new NB design will have to be clean sheet, since to get to the kind of fuel savings needed to make the return on the investment worthwhile. On narrowbodies it's a bear, since unit cost is higher as NBs tend to operate on shorter stages in which the fuel burn is much higher and ground costs are higher (more cycles = greater number of landing fees, ground ops costs...the list goes on and on). The bird will require new engines, wings and in the case of Boeing, a slightly wider body to compete with the A320s greater comfort (as a rule, the 320 is more comfortable to fly on longer stages than a 737, imo). Of course, the bird will have to be composite like the 787; assuming weight can be significantly lowered and improved engines and wings can reduce fuel burn, then you'll have a killer short to medium haul aircraft. Plus, with the 737 family (600, 700, 700ER, 800, 900, 900ER), an airline can pretty much develop a very efficient fleet plan (this is NOT to say that the A318, 319, 319CJ, 320 and 321 can't get the job done; the economics are a little different for these aircraft).

The parts are almost there, bleedless engines, more efficient wings, composite fuselage, but what is not there is capacity to design and build. Boeing is tied up with the 787 program and the 748, they are looking at mods to the 777 as a next generation aircraft that can be easily brought to market and then there is the backlog of 747s, 777s, 767s and 737s that will keep their factory capacity tied up for the next 10 years. Even the new plant in SC once ramped up will be not enough to expand beyond the 787...at least not in the short term.

Airbus still has work to do on the A380; there are teething issues that are driving some of the operators crazy (Emirates?) and none of the aircraft are anywhere near the 850 pax capacity that was originally planned; right now most of them are configured in the 450-550 range which is not all that far off of what the new 748 will be able to carry and the 748 pax will be out flying fairly soon. The A350XWB (a mouthful) is shaping up to look very nearly like the 787; but they are very far behind the curve in that market even with the delays that Boeing has experienced with the 787, so Airbus is hustling to get their house in order. They also know they need an A320 replacement and I understand they are studying it, but I don't think they will have the capacity to do a "clean sheet" design anytime soon.

The CS and 919 aircraft will create an interesting environment for A and B in the coming years, but Bombardier and Embraer are heavily invested in the under 120 seat market, so taking their existing designs and "stretching them" to get larger aircraft is not a viable solution (can you say 753?).

So sit back, relax and enjoy what's coming...a widebody near you. The new narrowbody designs from A and B are at least 10-15 years out.

baw716



David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8055 times:

All of the above sadly true.What is odd for two "marketing oriented" organisations is the huge (and vastly expensive) "catfight" that has and is going on in the widebody sector.Read 380,748,787,350,77NG.Whilst the market over this whole period has been screaming for a replacement to the 3 "venerable" narrowbodies.One owes more to the Wright Brothers (no it's not a new plane however ofter you tell yourself it is) and the other a 1970's "Chinese copy".

The fact is that a revolution (LCC) in short/med sector flying has taken place.here in Europe it has totally changed the way people see travel.Popping off for a W/E in one European city or another,popping off for a W/E skiing in the Alps or just doing a long W/E R&R on a Med beach is all commonplace - let alone seeing European friends without a seconds thought.

The nearest plane first available was the 738 and letterly the 319.neither remotly designed for this neww "Bus style" type of operation.Christmas came early and it stayed Christmas as this US (SouthWest?) invention rolled out all over the World.

So which manufacturer answered the call for a really economical plane to meet the customer requirements (even if the customer went to the expense of showing a madel of what they want)?

No they went off an indulged themselves in a manufacturing war in the wide body sector 'cos the LCC's had (have) no where (one) else to turn to.It's a classic case of what is known as an Duoopoly (A type of Oligpoly). You won't see a better example of one in practice.

all we hear is "we would love to but we can't" Hmmm.

What I would love to see is (say) 6 LCC's get together and offer an aircraft manufacturer a 2,000 plane order for what they want.You know something? I bet you would find that "the impossible" is suddenly very possible - and right now.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15713 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7990 times:

Quoting parapente (Reply 23):
neither remotly designed for this neww "Bus style" type of operation.

Actually I would say that the 737 (and the 727 before it) was designed first for the "bus style" and then has gradually moved somewhat away from that as time has gone on.

Quoting parapente (Reply 23):
No they went off an indulged themselves in a manufacturing war in the wide body sector 'cos the LCC's had (have) no where (one) else to turn to.

Or it could be because the widebody portion of the market offers better return for the advances in technology.

Quoting parapente (Reply 23):
It's a classic case of what is known as an Duoopoly (A type of Oligpoly). You won't see a better example of one in practice.

Either side would love to be the first to provide the plane airlines really want with the efficiency jumps they want, but neither wants to put a lot of money into a new airframe that does not provide the advantages over current planes the airlines want. As of now, it just there just aren't enough gains to be had out there to make the time and expense of a new airframe worth it.

Quoting parapente (Reply 23):
I bet you would find that "the impossible" is suddenly very possible - and right now.

Is there any evidence to support this, or is this just speculation?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 vegas005 : Would love to see a clean sheet design that did not come out looking like a 737/a320 ... tired of looking up and seeing the same designs fly overhead.
26 parapente : "Speculation"? To a certail extent of course. But.... Boeing have shown ideas - a long while ago "Fossie,Kermit et al?" They clearly demonstrate an un
27 BMI727 : Understanding what is needed and making it happen are two very different things. I wouldn't say mastered, but great strides have been made. It is, bu
28 parapente : Well this is a circular argument really.If one implicitly believes what A&B say."We can't do it".Then there is no more to say.What I am pointing o
29 Stitch : There is certainly a sense of complacency within Boeing and Airbus when it comes to narrowbodies, but I expect there is also a sense of trepidation, a
30 BMI727 : But why wouldn't they? There is a huge payday in it for whoever can give the airlines what they want. The flip side is that this segment is so import
31 JayinKitsap : I think Boeing would like to use CFRP barrels for their narrowbody, but they are way too early in the learning curve on the 787 to see the real produc
32 frmrCapCadet : Some back of the envelope arithmetic on this. Corrections appreciated Boeing and Airbus spend $12 billions each to offer a new NB They intend to recov
33 planemaker : Sorry... I completely missed that. The 2 CSeries models are slightly smaller than the 2 A & B models that they are directly competing against (th
34 lightsaber : Well said. One must not forget that Boeing and Airbus have certain sales with a re-engines narrow body. Why risk losing those sales with an all new d
35 Post contains images planemaker : I agree with you - for now. However, in 10+ years design, materials, and manufacturing will obviously be in a different league and I can certainly se
36 Post contains links keesje : I do not know how a new NB will look. I proposed a stretched CSeries last yr, http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...eries100300500FakeAirlinerscom.jp
37 dynamicsguy : Is there really a huge payday? The two options are close enough now that they share the market reasonably evenly. If Boeing moves then Airbus has to
38 KFlyer : It is likely the Tipping Point of next gen aircraft technologies will come in the next 10yrs. ( bringing both economical and reliability advantages )
39 planemaker : A very valid 2 cents. And to re-iterate, the hoped for improvement by the NB competition is "only" 15% vs the current A & B NBs... which would ob
40 Bongodog1964 : Every few months this story re emerges about an airline demanding a new narrowbody with 20% or even 30% lower fuel burn than the existing offerings, t
41 Post contains links parapente : See http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...7-in-response-to-a320-upgrade.html Well blow me down with a feather.It just seems (Boeing) does think an al
42 atcsundevil : I don't think there's any chance of that happening. Americans are weary enough of giving their kids plastic toys from China, much less trusting their
43 keesje : SW exectives recently explicitly did not rule out the CSeries. Looking at payload range requirements of the SW network and the efficiencies of a CS30
44 atcsundevil : Eh, Canada is pretty much America, right? Just kidding. I can see how this might be a bit of a scare tactic on SW's part to get Boeing on the ball. S
45 pitingres : Boeing has always thought that an all new 737 is possible. The question is whether anyone will buy it, given the price tag it may have to carry to re
46 Stitch : To those who think a 20-30% improvement is something Boeing and Airbus could easily bring to the table if they could just be bothered to make the toke
47 Post contains images Bongodog1964 : Some one else talking sense at last As I posted earlier today 30% may have been possible when going from a 707 to a 747, but its going to be very dif
48 planemaker : it isn't because the 20-30% that airlines want is achievable but because Boeing thinks that the re-engined 737 may not be as competitive as the re-en
49 Stitch : He's also forgetting that FR would like to add 200 more of the bloody things to their fleet once they can work out the final issues (which have publi
50 frmrCapCadet : Would in fact A and B design a new NB that could take on the C series. Or would it still be enough larger that the shrink could/could not match the sm
51 Stitch : I would expect both Airbus and Boeing will simplify to three models sized around the 73G/A319, 738/A320 and 739/A321. The smallest would seat say ~15
52 Post contains links EddieDude : LH seems to favor a re-engining of the A320 and 737NG families. This is the link to the story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=20601109&s
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...
Composite Divide: Airbus, Boeing And The New A350 posted Fri May 12 2006 12:06:17 by A380900
Airbus & Boeing Working Together On New A/c posted Wed May 14 2003 04:44:18 by Zebfly2
Airbus/Boeing's New Battle For JAL Order posted Mon Jul 2 2001 07:38:00 by Jiml1126
Airbus, Boeing Expect Big From India posted Sat Mar 6 2010 16:56:39 by DTWLAX
Stunning Design! New Royal Jordanian Head Office posted Thu Dec 10 2009 13:24:07 by ClassicLover
Airbus/Boeing Orders And Deliveries 2009 Outlook? posted Sat Nov 28 2009 15:16:49 by A380900
Boeing Completes Detailed Design On 787 Wing Fix posted Tue Oct 27 2009 03:15:46 by Keesje
Airbus Needs Extra Cash For New Planes posted Thu Sep 24 2009 16:24:37 by Ruscoe
Airbus Boeing WTO Dispute posted Thu May 28 2009 17:10:54 by Trex8
Airbus / Boeing White Tails? posted Fri Feb 20 2009 11:11:23 by JETSTREAM63