Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest: A320 / 737 Reengining Not Good Enough  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22891 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."

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...eed:+AtwDailyNews+(ATW+Daily+News)

Significant statement from Boeings long time #1 737 customer, saying he wants something better.

168 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22904 times:

Hmmmm...you know, the C-series probably looks awfully tempting to WN at this point...   Herb even commented a couple of years back that he was willing to look at "less conventional" alternatives.


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 22825 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?



I come in peace
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29663 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I imagine easyJet and Southwest are also worried about things like a CO2 tax on their operations, so significantly reduced fuel burn alone is not enough.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6264 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22624 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 2):
It's my understanding that the LLCs do not rely as much on below-deck capacity for revenue. I

Not true at WN. WN even has a cargo dept. that sells baggace compartment space for priority freight  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22621 times:

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.



User currently offlineFRNT787 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1315 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22580 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
User currently offlinekingfriday013 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1294 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 22492 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.

-J.



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!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7262 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 22331 times:

Quoting kingfriday013 (Reply 7):
I bet WN will be very reluctant to get any non-Boeing product.

Not to mention Boeing probably wouldn't want to lose a customer like WN...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 713 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 22170 times:

Quoting FRNT787 (Reply 6):

My understanding is that C Series does not have long enough legs for some of Southwest's longest routes

2,950 nm isn't long enough for WN? If that isn't, then what is?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15444 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 22133 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?
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 22090 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
WN carries quite a bit of cargo, and even won an award recently for their cargo performance.
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
Not true at WN. WN even has a cargo dept. that sells baggace compartment space for priority freight

Hmmm. 'Didn't know that. As I wrote my post I was thinking to myself - "does WN still qualify as an LLC?"



I come in peace
User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 21839 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?"

Absolutely. But they've carved out their own niche version of an LCC..



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6727 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21706 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.


User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21696 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 SSTsomeday (Reply 11):
Absolutely. But they've carved out their own niche version of an LCC.

And WN does quite a bit of transfer traffic now, through various airports, do they not? More so then Easyjet or Ryanair, right?

Anyone know if Ryanair or Easyjet carry much cargo?



I come in peace
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21621 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.


User currently offlineshamrock604 From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4105 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21591 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 14):
Anyone know if Ryanair or Easyjet carry much cargo?

I'm almost certain Ryanair doesnt carry any.



Flown EI,FR,RE,EIR,VE,SI,TLA,BA,BE,BD,VX,MON,AF,YS,WX,KL,SK,LH,OK,OS,LX,IB,LTU,HLX,4U,SU,CO,DL,UA,AC,PR,MH,SQ,QF, EY, EK
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1639 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 21098 times:

A big part of customer loyalty to WN is loyalty to Boeing. I don't want to have to ask if it is Boeing or Airbus equipment before I book a flight.

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4681 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 20995 times:

I'm not trying to be disparaging, just purely out of interest:

why does it matter???



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20834 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
.........CS130ER... B737-700
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.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20715 times:

@Keesje


Southwest is right to say this because they will not benefit from a re-engine program as other airlines will.

The reason is that the re-engine program is sufficient to improve the bigger versions of the A32x and B737s.

(because there is no competition)

But the smaller B737-versions won´t be able to compete anymore against the stretched CS-versions.

As southwest is focused on smaller versions only, they do not benefit from re-engine-ing.

In reality they would have a disadvantage against competitors with the CS in the fleet!!!


So, they are trying to put some pressure to Boeing, but Boeing cannot respond with a B737-version
(Airbus cannot either)


The more i learn about the CS, the more i like the concept!!!


I am really expecting Lufthansa to order the big version very soon!


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20467 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..


User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 787 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 20438 times:

Quoting miller22 (Reply 9):
2,950 nm isn't long enough for WN? If that isn't, then what is?
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 15):
passenger only range?

You beat me to it.

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.



...are we there yet?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 20363 times:

I see another possiblity:


You all can call me mad, but what about a Boeing Bombardier tie-up and Airbus Embraer as well...?


Airbus could cancel their A318 plus A319.

Boeing could do so with the B736 and the B73G.


User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6953 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 20364 times:

The other issue both A and B have is that many of the worlds airlines simply don't believe the performance and EIS claims anymore. Boy who cried Wolf is coming home to roost these days.


The world is really getting smaller these days
25 ElbowRoom : So Airbus announces re-engined A320, 321 (and 319?) at Farnborough? And next year Boeing announces open rotor 150 seater? ER
26 XT6Wagon : The open rotor has been the next awesome thing for 20 some odd years now. Its NOT going to happen now. I doubt its EVER going to happen given open ro
27 ElbowRoom : easyJet wants 25% CO2 reduction due to engines (plus 15% airframe + 10% ATC, for a total of 50%): https://www.easyjet.com/EN/News/easyjet_ecojet.html
28 par13del : The issue for WN is the a/c not who makes it, they have been the most successful airline in the US in the past 10-20 years, they have done so by foll
29 tdscanuck : I want a Porsche 911 Turbo. Some things just aren't going to happen any time soon, no matter how much we want them. Tom.
30 JAAlbert : Haven't both manufacturers (A and B) stated the technology just doesn't exist yet to produce the type of savings WN and AA want?
31 Post contains images Jacobin777 : He's also stating that a re-engined A32X isn't going to do the trick either...
32 planemaker : They have... several times. So why don't they just order the CSeries?
33 Post contains images ElbowRoom : Yes the hard fact seems to be that no engine is near to market which can reduce CO2 at the level of the aircraft by 25%. Instead, the Pratt GTF and L
34 AviatorCraig : It might be a big part of your loyalty to WN, but I would guess the vast majority of WNs customers (or any other airline for that mater) neither know
35 SEPilot : Exactly. The only fly in the ointment is if someone else comes along and provides it. For example, if China came along and offered you a car with the
36 justloveplanes : I don't think this is A vs B problem that will drive quick action by Boeing or Airbus. It's the CS Series mostly. If it wasn't for those, A and B wou
37 Post contains links ElbowRoom : I would be interested to know how easy it would be for China (in the C919) to create a credible competitor to the A320NEO and new 737: - the C919 is
38 par13del : Additionally, The loss of cargo payload and range limits are also negative factors, I may not use the words "little sense" but I trust you get the po
39 tdscanuck : Of course. But, given that the fundamental issue to meeting the customers' wants is technology, this is probably not China's fight to win. The Chines
40 LAXDESI : I have no way of knowing what those numbers are, but your point is well taken. My model suggest that, everything being equal(technology etc.), a 5 ab
41 parapente : Thank you Elbowroom for holding the fort whilst I was with my kids. But as you see it does not matter what you say,it matters even less when Rolls sha
42 2175301 : You are half right... I want a Porsche 911 Turbo (or something that looks very similar and performs almost exactly like it)... that gets 40 mpg fuel
43 wn700driver : Um, think you have the wrong thread there guy.
44 Post contains links and images lightsaber : As much as I'm a fan of the C-series, it is *very* unlikely WN would take on the risk of a new type. The only risk for Boeing is *after* the C-series
45 Post contains links and images rikkus67 : Bombardier had looked at picking up the 728Jet when FD collapsed. I have to wonder if they took anything from the consultations with FD -or whomever-
46 panais : I think the issue for Boeing is that Southwest is the major customer for the B737-700 with a bit less than a third of the orders, while the A319 has
47 scbriml : At some point in the future, they'll have to take that risk. Or are you suggesting they'd only be prepared to take that risk with Boeing?
48 Post contains links ElbowRoom : Fascinating stuff. Thanks for the insights. I am taking from this discussion and what I have now read that Boeing and Airbus are adopting slightly dif
49 BMI727 : I don't buy that. If 20% is the best that Boeing can get out of a new design and a re-engined 737 (which wouldn't give up much, if anything to a simi
50 XT6Wagon : Many airlines are likely looking at improvements that don't translate into easy numbers. WN for example is looking for a larger entry way and other c
51 miller22 : i don't think the problem is with the 20% all-new, I think you're finally seeing major cracks in the 15% Re-engine argument. Think about it. The next
52 LAXDESI : Thanks for the link. One of the slide shows the following fuel burn gains for A320 revisions over the current A320: Revision.........................
53 LAXDESI : I would like to present my comparison of CS300ER to B73GRS(Y1) from a post in technical forum. The comparison below assumes the replacement to be the
54 SSTsomeday : Am I correct in assuming that WN wants a 149Y sized plane because they would have to add a F/A if it had any more capacity?
55 DfwRevolution : I think that can be attributed to the fact that the economics of the 738 outclass the 73G than a wider margin than the A320 does the A319. The result
56 Post contains images 328JET : @ rikkus67 Please do not mention the FD728 / 928. I still cannot believe what happened to that fantastic aircraft family. And yes, i believe that not
57 miller22 : Didn't Bombardier buy what was left of the program? if anything, you should be pointing fingers at Embraer. The timing was suspiciously right for the
58 Post contains links and images lightsaber : If I may rephrase, WN would take on a new *unproven* design if it were Boeing. However, if Bombardier is given enough time to prove the C300, than WN
59 planemaker : And turn around time is why Boeing has said that they are keeping an open mind for a twin-aisle NB replacement. No, but D'Long bought the program but
60 cobra27 : Is there any chance for MS-21, probably not?
61 gipsy : It was all very suspicious. D'long couldn't get the cash. In general it was a financial problem. They couldn't get 1,5 Billion € they needed as no
62 SEPilot : But if the 737RS outperforms the A320NEO by even 5%, that will be enough to sway many airlines to Boeing. The difference between the A346 and 77W was
63 panais : You are aware that a 5% fuel burn disadvantage is probably less than 1% overall cost, which is nothing compared to having to wait an extra year to ge
64 Post contains images lightsaber : Not much. Let me give my reasoning. 1. Most airframes have a 15 year sales life. That is from announcement, not entry into service. 2. At announcemen
65 SEPilot : Quite true, which is why the A330 is still selling so well. But the cumulative effect will be that there will be a gradual shift to the 737RS which w
66 simairlinenet : I was present at the speech. The exceptionally curious thing is that no one from Boeing was present, yet Airbus and Bombardier were in force.
67 BMI727 : But will it sway enough airlines to make the extra massive investment worth it?
68 AADC10 : The original point was the WN does not derive as great a portion of revenue from cargo as legacy carriers and therefore does not need as much cargo c
69 SEPilot : Look at the alternatives. If the 737 re-engining does not at least equal Airbuses, then Boeing faces being gradually shut out of the single aisle mar
70 Stitch : It might also be the case that customers have told Boeing "if you build Y1, we will come" and therefore the added expense and risk of launching an all
71 Post contains links XT6Wagon : Say what? WN is one of the larger domestic cargo carriers. They even win awards for it. http://www.southwest.com/about_swa/press/factsheet.html "In M
72 CFBFrame : This really has nothing to do with pressure!! Both airframes know their customer expectations. Leahy's threat to Boeing about doing a clean sheet fell
73 keesje : If Boeing Well, that's a lot of bold talking, the situation isn't how it used to be 40 yrs ago. Multiple offerings that aint bad, Chinese and Russian
74 SEPilot : I agree with your analysis. The 737NG was always at a disadvantage relative to the A320 because of the shorter gear; it was able to achieve parity bu
75 keesje : Others think Airbus has enough possibilities to enhance the A320 series, to avoid having to be first on a new NB. Boeing has a backlog of 3-4 yrs, Ai
76 BoeEngr : Nah, there's time. Much better to take some time, even if it means losing some market share in the mean time, than to rush into the wrong airplane. B
77 CFBFrame : Keep in mind, my Big 4 are the airlines of the southern part of the US (AA,CO, DL, and WN). We'll move CO to Chicago soon, but all things being equal
78 Post contains links and images keesje : Mr. Mc is #2 now. He's fighting an uphill battle. The A320, A330, A350, A380 are doing fine. The 737, 777 and 747 need some big money (assuming the 7
79 JayinKitsap : When there is a 737 replacement, I would expect the first model out will be the model that WN wants, along with CO, Delta, Alaska, and American. Those
80 Post contains images BMI727 : I don't see why it wouldn't. I think that is an Anet myth. But they will not launch a new plane unless they are certain that is the best solution and
81 CFBFrame : You say that like he should pack his tent and go home? I won't take the bait on this one and say that the world is built by dreamers who see things d
82 keesje : Boeing thinks the market for narrowbodies in the next 20 yrs is 5600 for Asia Pacific, 5630 for North America, 5310 for Europe and few thousand for th
83 tdscanuck : How is the A320 "doing fine" while the 737 "needs some big money" when they're about as close together in performance, sales, and capability as it's
84 BMI727 : A*net wisdom I guess. To hear some posters say it, you'd wonder why Boeing even wastes their time on commercial aircraft.
85 Post contains images Stitch : With keesje, Boeing always has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. Just check the titles of the last dozen threads he's started. [Ed
86 CFBFrame : Market conditions will drive the size of the a/c. As WN moves into the more common airports they will be forced into making business model tradeoffs,
87 Antoniemey : And even if WN, CO/UA, DL, and AA only do a 1-for-1 replacement of each of their current narrowbody frames (no growth at all in the narrowbody segmen
88 BMI727 : They won't sacrifice too much in the way of broad appeal for a few customers. But what those customers want isn't necessarily too far from the mainst
89 Post contains links and images keesje : I like and fully respect your pride and optimism regarding Boeing and the loytalty of the 5 Southern carriers. I think the influence of American carr
90 eta unknown : Southwest has their cake and they want to eat it too. If they want Boeing to build an aircraft for their specifications, then they can fund a signific
91 XT6Wagon : perhaps you are unaware of the fact that they *DO* pay for it. They were the launch customers for the 733, 735, and 73G. Until they paused their deli
92 eta unknown : The topic is about Southwest saying re-engining a 737 isn't good enough... so the amount of cash they threw at Boeing for a new 737 version is peanuts
93 packsonflight : I think Airbus and Boeing will be very reluctant to go open rotor because of the increased risk it brings to the program. Nobody want to end up being
94 Stitch : If indeed Boeing tailored the 737NG for some American customers, considering that airlines all over the world have also bought thousands, it might ve
95 SEPilot : Simple reason; the A320 can accommodate larger diameter engines, which allows larger fans and hence higher bypass ratios. This is why the current A32
96 XT6Wagon : If Boeing launched the 737RS with an announcement for a 500unit order from WN, I doubt a single analysit would say a word about WN buying too many pl
97 eta unknown : I'm doubting Southwest's ability to fund development of a new Boeing aircraft that isn't based on a 737. I'm also doubting your ability to comprehend
98 parapente : Primary Aircraft designs of A &B last approx 40 years.Airbus bet their farm that their 2/4/2 seating concept would stay relevant and good for such
99 morrisond : Based on Production rates of today, Boeing doesn't need to design a plane that will last 40 years. They can assume it will only last 15-20 (call it 60
100 Stitch : But would not a 737NEO still benefit from being lighter than an A320NEO even if the NEO on the A320 offered a higher BPR than the one on the 737?
101 SEPilot : I think we are reaching the stage where advances in fuel consumption are harder and harder to achieve, and so having a drawback at the start looms la
102 WNCrew : I am looking forward to a new door design. At it stands now, the 737 door is the heaviest door to operate in the industry. This isn't opinion, it's fa
103 CFBFrame : You think the American influence is overrated? Think about this, three of the largest A320 fleets reside where? NW, UA, and US. NW is now in DL, UA w
104 Stitch : True, but the CFM56-5B and CFM56-7B are in many ways the same engine, varying in bypass and pressure ratios. And I expect the same would be true of t
105 BMI727 : Except for the small caveat that the 737 can as well, either by raising the plane or otherwise. And that will mostly impact development costs rather
106 ikramerica : So true. Keesje's bias is laughable at times. List of some unimportant USA carriers and their tiny narrowbody fleets (120 configured seats or larger)
107 SEPilot : The only problem is that raising the 737 is a massive exercise (involving major structural changes to the wing and fuselage), and by the time you are
108 ikramerica : No it's not. Not according to Boeing engineers.
109 Stitch : And the 737 may not have to sit farther off the ground to benefit from new engines (even if not to the level the A320 could).
110 SEPilot : I have not seen that they say this; from my own experience in designing mechanisms I know that seemingly small changes can have major repercussions;
111 CFBFrame : They are the same engine, with different fuel controls. If my memory serves me correctly, the engine on the Classic is the same as the CFM56-5B with
112 ikramerica : Boeing engineers, past and present, in these forums don't agree with you. It's not that it will be simple, but it's hardly going to approach the cost
113 parapente : "Based on Production rates of today, Boeing doesn't need to design a plane that will last 40 years. They can assume it will only last 15-20 (call it 6
114 LAXDESI : As for 73GNEO, it is unlikely to be as good as the projected CS300. However, 73G(Y1) does match the CS300 in operating performance as per my model. S
115 keesje : Boeing sees most of the market outside the USA. They say so in their CMO, where I got my numbers (reply 82). So I guess they develop their aircraft f
116 Stitch : They probably can't, at least with LEAP-X. Pratt's GTF Program VP has stated the GTF offers some mounting flexibility that might allow them to get aw
117 Post contains images BMI727 : The only way that Boeing will launch a new clean sheet design is if they really think that it is the best option for them.
118 morrisond : Do you wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? I meant to say it only needs to be in production for 15-20 years to when they can get to ne
119 ikramerica : So? Let's look at the competition buried in those numbers. China: will be split equally between Boeing and Airbus until they have their own product,
120 tdscanuck : They do. A *big* chunk of purchase cost is amortized development cost. Tens of billions isn't "peanuts". The amount that Southwest has spent on 737NG
121 morrisond : Yes, agreed, but my point is as your spreading it over so many frames it's not that big of a number, especially if you can pump out 100's per year, v
122 kingfriday013 : Boeing can incorporate a few things that went right on older aircraft into newer aircraft. There are even similarities between the A300 and the A380
123 Antoniemey : I'm in no way saying that all of the carriers mentioned will definitely buy from Boeing... just that in order to have the best chance of securing the
124 328JET : In no way, warmed over versions of the B736/B73G oder A318/A319 can compete with the new CS. It is really time for Boeing and Airbus to think about re
125 XT6Wagon : NO. we have covered all of this in a half dozen threads. IF the CS was worth anything why is the customer list still able to be counted on one hand o
126 328JET : @ XT6Wagon The reason the sales of the CS are not as high as expected is, that a lot of airlines including Southwest, are pushing Boeing and/or Airbus
127 BMI727 : Which will almost certainly be better with a few extra years worth of technology. In the short term perhaps, but even then new narrowbodies from Airb
128 328JET : @ BMI727 it is really unbelievable that YOU never get my points in any topic here... The CS is a game-changer BECAUSE its GTF forced Boeing and Airbus
129 BMI727 : And without the GTF, the CSeries is a nonstarter. It's kind of a chicken and egg argument and mostly irrelevant. But what is interesting, is that mos
130 328JET : My company is currently operating B733, 734, 735, 73G and B738s (besides B752/752Ws and B763/763Ws plus A320/321) The operating margins of the B73G wi
131 BMI727 : Which is precisely why the 73H outsells the 73G by a wide margin. And why I expect the Y1 to have its smallest variant sized at least at the 73G size
132 Post contains links and images keesje : Because nobody was buying any aircraft during the last 2 years, they were parking them? If Boeing listens to low cost carriers, European airlines, do
133 Stitch : It should be noted that chart's datapoints on mission lengths refer to 150-seat aircraft. The majority of aircraft doing T-Con missions in North Ameri
134 BMI727 : Which is why I think that Boeing should go with two sets of wings and engines (like the 777) with one optimized for sub 2000NM missions and the other
135 Post contains links and images keesje : True, but it is a small part of fuel consumption. Most of the fuel worldwide is burned by narrowbodies flying mission shorter then 1800nms. Big narro
136 Stitch : The 738, 739, 739ER, A320 and A321 can all seat around 165 or more - the Boeing's in two classes, no less - which is over 8500 sales. Not exactly my
137 keesje : They can but they don´t. See graph in post 132.
138 Stitch : I admit the actual graph part makes no sense to me in terms of what it is trying to say.
139 frmrCapCadet : Keesje - how about a link to that graph, we need a key to the various colored sections.
140 keesje : The graph contains operational statistics of 100% of flights between 0 and 3500NM´s GC ranges, for 100 - 200 seat aircraft. It gives an indication o
141 XT6Wagon : Its trying to lie to you. I hate that kind of graph as its used to tell stories that don't exist. They are great for hiding data as a peak in one dat
142 parapente : I think it's saying that all the fuel is being used in the 500 - 2,500 mile sectors.So this is where efficiency of aircraft - but mainly engines matte
143 BMI727 : Based off of numbers hastily found on Wikipedia, it appears that 24% of A320 series orders were for the A318 and A319, and the -600 and -700 account
144 Post contains links Stitch : I know many feel it's just a PR shill for Boeing, but FleetBuzz's latest editorial claims that the weight penalty for wing reinforcement to add "shark
145 parapente : Interesting article Stitch.Without trying to be wize after the event.I did wonder whether the double bogy undercarriage would come out of the woodwork
146 BMI727 : Except that Boeing can. Well that is what they want, and have for a while. Whether they get it is something else entirely.
147 Revelation : One can also read it to say the bulk of the fuel is being used in the climb phase, since fuel use drops markedly in cruise. Happy 5th A.net birthday,
148 SEPilot : The reason that the 737NG is competitive with the A320 while having the penalty of a smaller fan and hence lower bypass ratio is from what I have rea
149 Post contains links lumberton : I didn't read it that way, but clearly not everyone is enamored of the retrofit prospects. The CEO of Virgin America has some reservations as well. h
150 Stitch : I suppose it will depend on how whatever weight penalties are required to support the new engines and other modifications affect the SFC improvements
151 frmrCapCadet : Let me post this question again, my figures are back of the envelope, and somewhat uninformed. An all new build would cost about $10 Billion 1000 NBs
152 keesje : Congrats. Conclusion : try to get back in aviation, but you probably know..
153 Post contains images lightsaber : Stitch, happy a.net 5th anniversary! You're now officially a long term a.netter. I happen to agree with this. The two airframes will have slightly di
154 Post contains images SEPilot : Boeing learned the hard way in the 90's that they MUST listen to their customers. I hope they have not forgotten the lesson; I don't think they have.
155 keesje : What would Bombardier have to do to make Soutwest switch ? Some suggestions. - unbeatable operating costs - fully optimized / customized specs (seat c
156 SEPilot : But even if they do all of that, if Boeing matches it they will stay with Boeing. And I do not think that Bombardier can offer anything that Boeing c
157 keesje : What if Boeing decides the global market is asking for a 150-225 seat aircraft. The shrink is what they offer to SW, heavy like the 737-700. Bombardi
158 Stitch : Boeing would decide that with input from WN, at which point the 150-seat may be the baseline and the 185 and 225 models would be stretches, in which c
159 SEPilot : This is certainly a valid point; and if SW were not such an important customer then it would certainly be something to consider. But since SW buys mo
160 BoeEngr : This is why Boeing is working with Southwest already, to find out exactly what they want so Boeing doesn't build the "wrong" plane for them.
161 SEPilot : I read in this confirmation of my point; that if it is a question of optimising the plane for SW and making everyone else less satisfied, or making e
162 Post contains images keesje : The rest of world needs 20x as much aircraft as Southwest Airlines. They won't risk winning a battle but loose a war.
163 Stitch : Honestly, we're not looking at WN needing a plane that seats 100 people and flies 1000nm and everyone else needs one that seats 200 people and flies 2
164 ikramerica : Living in a vacuum and ignoring other people's analyses again. Why even start these threads if you don't even care what anyone else says? I mean, ser
165 Post contains images pnwtraveler : This quote brings something to mind, I hope everyone realizes that on boards like these, and even more so on "professional" based chatrooms, social m
166 XT6Wagon : And WN doesn't buy it. They absolutely do not want a 5Y plane. I'm not sure why this is news, but WN has been wishing for *FASTER* turn times than th
167 SEPilot : And its my contention that the same will happen with the next move, as well. As you point out, if WN is happy it's highly likely that many others wil
168 Post contains images BMI727 : Really, Southwest's orders would be large enough to justify a specialized variant for them with some changes. It might save Southwest money in the lo
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...
Why Are AA Not Good Enough And We Need To Have D posted Thu Nov 11 1999 04:59:50 by Iainhol
SAS Eyes Re-engined A320/737 As MD-80 Replacement posted Fri Mar 19 2010 05:13:04 by oykie
Re-engining The A320/737 Decision Next Year? posted Sun Oct 11 2009 05:10:23 by OyKIE
Not A Good Weekend For UK Flying. posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:58:44 by LHR380
Not A Good Day For Norwegian Air Shuttle posted Fri Oct 17 2008 07:25:11 by Scooter01
Shahab Leasing Will Order 50 A320/737 In 2009 posted Mon Oct 13 2008 10:41:55 by FCKC
A320/737 Replacement Twin-aisle? posted Tue Jun 3 2008 05:46:31 by Beaucaire
5th March Not A Good Day In Airline History posted Wed Mar 5 2008 11:52:58 by GDB
Why Did Southwest Order 737-500s? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 08:16:54 by TranStar
AF-KL Pushing For A320/737 Replacement posted Mon Oct 29 2007 02:19:10 by Scbriml
The DC-9 And 737- Not Good Cargo Airplanes? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 10:41:34 by c5load
Why "Warrior 1" For Southwest's New 737-800? posted Wed Mar 21 2012 14:32:25 by LuisKMIA
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 A320/737 Decision Next Year? posted Sun Oct 11 2009 05:10:23 by OyKIE
Not A Good Weekend For UK Flying. posted Sun Jun 14 2009 08:58:44 by LHR380
Not A Good Day For Norwegian Air Shuttle posted Fri Oct 17 2008 07:25:11 by Scooter01
Shahab Leasing Will Order 50 A320/737 In 2009 posted Mon Oct 13 2008 10:41:55 by FCKC