keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25530 times:
Similar the Easyjet a few months ago; Southwest COO Mike van de Ven:
"The time has come to develop a replacement to the workhorse narrowbodies." He added that today's single-aisle aircraft only enable airlines to make "marginal improvements" in fuel burn efficiency, adding that "marginal improvements won't allow us to meet our environmental responsibilities and economic challenges. Our industry needs better economics…I believe that a new narrowbody aircraft will produce one of the single most significant steps toward meeting our economic challenges."
SSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1283 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25464 times:
I would suggest that for many of the low cost, point to point operators such as Southwest, Easyjet, Ryanair, who use large fleets of small twins, the direction to go is something smaller (meaning - less capacity below decks; so lighter, leaner and meaner) than a mainline A/C. Something that holds roughly the same number of people but doesn't need the same cargo capacity as with legacy carriers. It's my understanding that the LLCs do not rely as much on below-deck capacity for revenue. I suspect that would save a LOT of fuel. Basically - a really big commuter jet.
This in addition to technological advances.
Perhaps this will also put Embraer and Bombardier in a position to table such a design.
The drawbacks I see to this are:
1) Perhaps the LLC market is too niche to want to create an A/C specifically for it.
2) The A/C would be less versatile then a bonifide 737 or 320.
3) #1 and #2 may mean a decreased resale value.
However - it could mean that less expensive crews would fly it?
FRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1338 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25219 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 5): I don't say Southwest will go CSeries but I think they have set a new benchmark for aircraft in the 130-140 seat category and Boeing is asked if they can comply with that benchmark.
My understanding is that C Series does not have long enough legs for some of Southwest's longest routes. The plane is big enough though. Frontier will put 138 passengers, including the Stretch seating, in the CS 300. Southwest can easily do that, as they have no premium economy seats.
"We have a right to fail, because failure makes us grow" --Glenn Beck
kingfriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1307 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 25131 times:
Just something to keep in mind...
I bet WN will be very reluctant to get any non-Boeing product. One thing that the 737 has (as well as with most aircraft families of any manufacturer) is cockpit commonality. A WN pilot can fly any type of 737, just as an A320 pilot can fly any A318-321 or an ERJ-145 pilot can fly the ERJ-135 or -140 as well. Southwest has a huge 737 fleet and therefore has a huge pilot body. When choosing an aircraft to replace their 737s, they need to keep in mind the costs and time involved in training all of these pilots on the new aircraft type. However, if WN goes with a Boeing product, it is very likely that there will be some commonality with the 737, thus reducing the cost and time of new training to an extent. If Boeing can come up with an aircraft that delivers what Southwest is looking for, I think they will be willing to pay more for the plane as they would save money in the long run; Boeing clearly has an advantage here.
Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 16390 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 24772 times:
Quoting keesje (Thread starter): "The time has come to develop a replacement to the workhorse narrowbodies."
Old news. Southwest was known to be one of the airlines (along with AA and probably others) eagerly awaiting the Y1.
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 2): It's my understanding that the LLCs do not rely as much on below-deck capacity for revenue.
WN carries quite a bit of cargo, and even won an award recently for their cargo performance.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 8): Not to mention Boeing probably wouldn't want to lose a customer like WN...
I am sure that Southwest's needs are well known and will almost always considered by Boeing when looking at what to do with the 737 family. Truthfully, I would advocate the same approach Boeing used with the 777 (and what I favor for the 787) and do three (or four) fuselages and two sets of wings and then match them up to meet demand. It won't be able to cover everything from the CSeries to the 757, but I think that is as close as they can get.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 8394 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 24345 times:
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 11): Hmmm. 'Didn't know that. As I wrote my post I was thinking to myself - "does WN still qualify as an LLC?"
Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 12): Absolutely. But they've carved out their own niche version of an LCC..
AS one of the larger if not the largest domestic carrier in the US I would assume that the airports they operate into will also require the underbelly cargo capacity. Folks do not like to admit that WN carries a lot of business travellers so if the C series with limited lower payload is geared towards business why would WN be interested?
Reality is that WN has both types, going to an a/c with limited appeal to non business folks will limit their business.
Replacement a/c needs to be much lighter as the engine technology has not increased by itself to make much of a difference, a/c are still tubes so not much improvement from fuselage and wing design in short haul stages where most of the flights will be, so weight is the best option. I'm betting Boeing is looking at spinning a composite barrel in that size range.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3529 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 24260 times:
Quoting miller22 (Reply 9): 2,950 nm isn't long enough for WN? If that isn't, then what is?
passenger only range? A range that drops like a rock when fuel is traded for payload? This is the disadvantage to lower fuel burn engines... if the passenger only range is the same as a older plane... the older plane will haul alot more extra payload as the needed range drops. Which means thier higher costs are offset by higher revenue. Or more than offset.
The CS300 makes little sense for WN, and range/payload is just one of the big failure points.
Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 2): 1) Perhaps the LLC market is too niche to want to create an A/C specifically for it.
WN proves its best to cater to them and others that think along the same lines. WN alone was eating up 1/12 of the capacity of the 737 line before thier pause. The pause that is waiting for a firm answer on whats next. With WN almost certainly wanting a 149Y sized plane, its likely that between Southwest, Ryanair, American Airlines, United, and Delta that the entire current 737 production rate would be consumed by those airlines alone for just *ONE* size configuration. Don't forget the US major airlines have a huge number of frames needing replaced today... not to mention in 10 years when the new models should be in full production.
The continued fragmentation of routes and growth means I could see a need for 100 narrobodies a month between B and A in a fairly short time as long as the new aircraft generate the impression that its goinig to be the plane(s) to have going forward.
LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 23473 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 15): The CS300 makes little sense for WN, and range/payload is just one of the big failure points.
Here's my OP from a thread comparing CS300 to the current B73G. The CS300ER can carry its max. structural load to 2,200nm--enough to cover all(?) Southwest routes. My example below assumes a 5 seat advantage to 73G, which may not exist as it is possible to configure CS300 to seat 138 with comparable comfort. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...grees-to-purchase-20-737-800s.html
OEW ....78,200.... 83,000
MTOW 139,100.. 154,500
MZFW. 115,700.. 128,900
MSP .....37,500 ....38,700 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range ....2,950 ......3,000 (Max. Design Range in nm at 225 lb./passenger)
Seats ......135 ........140 (Single Class) CS at 31" pitch w/ wider seats/aisle. B at 32" pitch.
MSP Range for CS300ER is 2,200nm.
Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 500 nm mission:
CS130ER cargo 7,125 lbs, trip fuel burned 1,050 gallons, GSM 0.014, GTM 0.113
B737 cargo 7,200 lbs, trip fuel burned 1,400 gallons, GSM .018, GTM .145
C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $700 in fuel cost per trip. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (5 Y seats) B737-700 for this mission length.
Assuming 50% passenger LF for the additional seats, B737 will earn additional passenger revenue of $300(10 X 50%LF X $60). C130ER should have a $400 per trip advantage over B737-700.
At six 500nm trips per day, C130ER should save about $0.8 million in annual fuel costs over the B737-700. At 10% COC, the saving have a NPV of about $6 million over the life of the aircraft.
CS300ER carries as much cargo as B737-700, and burns 25% less fuel while carrying 5 fewer passengers.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1949 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 23106 times:
The pressure by Farnbrough will be so intense on these 2 procrasternating companies that I believe that they will be forced to show their hands.
As correctly stated the re-engined 320 will benefit the 320-321 not so much the 319.The same would be true of Boeing (except they have no intention whatsoever of doing it).
Boeing have as near as damn it stated that they are going to build Y1 next.All they are doing at present is trying to put off the evil day.I understand this on a day where 5 787's stand idle at the test facility.Of course the 787 work was supposed to have been over 2 years ago.If it had we would not be even discussing this.But it's not - that is the reality.
Boeing cannot work on the 748,787 (8/,9),a major upgrade of the 777 (ERX) AND start the most important clean sheet project in their history all at the same time -can they now? Just not possible.They are the most extraordinary company in the World IMHO but they remain humans.
It is not that much easier for Airbus.No money,plenty of work going on for the 388 as we have recently heard - even retwisting the whole wing by 1.5% for goodness sake - and how much weight are they trying to shave off 3 tons was it!! Then you have thi massive 350 project.Efectively 2 projects in one as it is trying to span both the 767 and 777 markets and everything in between.
Using "carbon pannels" Hmmm well weve just seen what happened to Boeing with the use on carbon.They need to tread very carefully here.And another brand new plane - I don't think so.
Hence the procrasternation. But their customers are getting impatient..... What gives....
Well personally I think Airbus will go for yje Leap-X re engine. (perhaps not the paper GTF engine).It will give them a tasty 757 market for $1billion and improve the whole range particularly with all the other improvements in the pipeline.They know Boeing is in no position to move fast on Y1.
Boeing? Well I have stated my position many times.It is exactly as Southwest and all the others are saying (which makes
BTW Boeing's comment that they want to delay their decision to 2011 based on conflicting messages from their customers look like the complete b***** that it is.They all want exactly the same thing.I believe thats why Southwest has spoken out - to kill that particular lie.
They (Like Easyjet as an example) have also made it 100% clear what they want.Big,big fuel savings first and big ,big fuel savings second - oh and lower emmissions third.
There is but one technology that can deliver this and we all know exactly what it is - so does Boeing. Go figure I am not going to repeat it again - it's boring..
My guess is 787 technology in a 737 sized aircraft (like that is hard to figure out) with geared turbofan engines. That's the quantum leap.
Now, will the ROI justify the much higher price tag.
Will they spec. an aircraft that finally gives them a shot at Europe? Their CEO was on CNBC the other day and said international is not in the near term plans but it was obvious from the interview that they continue to evaluate it for the long term.
I think international for SW, when it happens, will be Central America and the Caribbean.