Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Shifts Focus To New 737 Rather Than 777  
User currently offlinecubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 410 posts, RR: 5
Posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25200 times:

According to Bloomberg, Boeing is shifting attention to a New 737 development ahead of a 777 upgrade first.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...sor-rather-than-new-777-model.html

206 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24831 times:

Very good. The right thing to do.

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24780 times:

The recent oil price spike may have helped the decision.

User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 604 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24711 times:

Finally more information.

So obviously Boeing figured that starting a new plane 2020/ 2021 will give Airbus too much advantage so they balanced a 777 upgrade against an earlier 737 successor plane. Also in the equation, they bet on more delay of the A350 and thats seems less a thread to the 777 later refinement, probably even that the A350-1000 can not completely replace the 777-300ER.

I can fully understand the rational. Key will be the size discusison as each cm more width and the base line (otimize around 180 or 200 seatrs) will eat into the advantage they may be able to achieve against the A320 NEO.

Interesting times and many more threads ahead.

regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24583 times:

From the linked article in the OP:
A new plane probably would be wider than the 737 and seat about 150 to 220 people, said Mike Bair, who leads the team formed last year to study the concept.

An updated 737 could achieve savings of as much as 11 percent in fuel burn, he said. The trade-off would be a heavier plane subject to increased strains on landings and requiring more maintenance, Bair said.

That along with other expenses would yield a reduction in costs of just 2 percent at most, and most airlines have told Boeing that the company should focus resources on a more attractive option, he said.

Comments:
So the smallest 737RS will be slightly larger than the current 73G. The article also suggests that Boeing is exploring a two-aisle offering.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24535 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 3):
So obviously Boeing figured that starting a new plane 2020/ 2021 will give Airbus too much advantage so they balanced a 777 upgrade against an earlier 737 successor plane. Also in the equation, they bet on more delay of the A350 and thats seems less a thread to the 777 later refinement, probably even that the A350-1000 can not completely replace the 777-300ER.

I can fully understand the rational

Exactly my opinion, already before this article. It gives Boeing also some time to see what happens in the A350/77W/748 market. Maybe in 5 years it seems wiser to launch a 2025 Y3 instead of a reworked 777, who knows. Its better for Boeing to endure a few bad 777 years than 5 or more bad 737 years. The 787 and 748 can partially cover a possible 777 crisis, but no Boeing type could cover a steep drop in 737 sales which is very likely if Boeing doesnt react on the A320NEO in time.
The job as "797"program-chief though could easily become more demanding than the 787 hot seat. Imho the step between 737 and its successor must be greater than between 767 and 787 to last beyond 2030.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24466 times:

Quoting na (Reply 5):
The job as "797"program-chief though could easily become more demanding than the 787 hot seat

Maybe not. Boeing has undoubtedly learnt a lot of lessons from the 787 program, and is unlikely to repeat those mistakes. Furthermore, the article states that Boeing does not expect much difficulty in scaling down the 787 technology/materials to a narrow body.

The article also talks about a possible smaller 130 seat offering with Al-Li material. I wonder if it would have the same fuselage width as the larger variant.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24435 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 3):

I can fully understand the rational. Key will be the size discusison as each cm more width and the base line (otimize around 180 or 200 seatrs) will eat into the advantage they may be able to achieve against the A320 NEO.

In all honesty, I think cabin width is way way down on the list of key decisions. Things like seat capacity, engine choice, wing design, systems architecture, fly by wire, etc are all far more influential in the cost of airplane design. All the Boeing narrowbodies to date except the 757 have had 17'' width seats as the standard option. I don't see this changing despite many people on a.net claiming that cabin width is a major factor in the design process. Boeing has put a lot of emphasis on cabin design, but this has shown up in window technology, larger bins, lighting, galley configuration, etc.

[Edited 2011-03-02 16:17:11]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24321 times:

I partly agree that width isn't a priority item, but it's Mike Bair mentioning it.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAphonic From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 97 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24325 times:

Neophyte here, so please forgive me if I insult anyone's intelligence.

What are the chances of the next 737 being a BWB or a BWB/conventional aircraft hybrid design? It's certainly going to be carbon fiber, right?

Thanks



I'm not racist you ANUS. Obama's spending is heinous
User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24309 times:

Widening the fuselage several inches adds next to no weight and drastically increases cabin comfort. The 737RS has to be wider and bigger than the NG in order to have GTF engines. The A320 is slightly wider and has larger landing gear than its rival. That is why Airbus is making an A320NEO and Boeing is going with a new plane.

A twin aisle narrowbody (2-2-2) makes no sense, simply a waste of space, and turnaround times don't matter that much.



You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24201 times:

Quoting Aphonic (Reply 9):
What are the chances of the next 737 being a BWB or a BWB/conventional aircraft hybrid design?

I am no expert, but I believe a BWB wouldn't work effectively on that small a scale. It only becomes viable in larger configurations. Someone correct me if that's wrong.

I think Boeing had little choice but to follow this path - the part I found most interesting is that they seem to have put a timeline on announcing their decision - by June. I am sure they're feeling the heat from the likes of FR, WN, DL, AA so they need to get off the fence.


User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24185 times:

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 10):
A twin aisle narrowbody (2-2-2) makes no sense, simply a waste of space, and turnaround times don't matter that much.

A twin aisle 2-3-2 does make sense, however. Maybe Boeing have something up their sleeves here with seating arrangements?


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24129 times:

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 10):


Widening the fuselage several inches adds next to no weight and drastically increases cabin comfort.

Where do you get that conclusion from? More width = more structure. Weight is the enemy of aircraft design. They'll spend thousands to lower the weight of the airplane by a pound.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 10):
The 737RS has to be wider and bigger than the NG in order to have GTF engines. The

Why does a GTF require a wider cabin? What are you referring to as wider? Also, why does the cabin have to be bigger? GTF requires ground clearance.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 10):
The A320 is slightly wider and has larger landing gear than its rival. That is why Airbus is making an A320NEO and Boeing is going with a new plane.

I don't think width enables an NEO for the A320 any more than it would for the 737. Landing gear length is an issue, but it can be overcome by raising the nose and changing mounting configuration. People seem to have the perception that main landing gear is the only factor in engine clearance, when in fact the lowest part of the engine is very far ahead of the main gear. On a 700 the engine fan is about 6/10s of the distance between the gears and it is about 7/10s on the 800.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineseachaz From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 221 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 24068 times:

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 12):
A twin aisle 2-3-2 does make sense

....And its called a 767.

[Edited 2011-03-02 17:09:33]

User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1350 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 23983 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13):
More width = more structure.

And more drag



rcair1
User currently offlinemanfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 23786 times:

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 3):

So obviously Boeing figured that starting a new plane 2020/ 2021 will give Airbus too much advantage


I don't think this is necessarily the catalyst behind their decision. Rather:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 11):
I am sure they're feeling the heat from the likes of FR, WN, DL, AA so they need to get off the fence.


AA, DL, UA and Southwest have more influence on new projects than anyone else. Keep your eye on your customers and your customers will keep you in business. Let's not forget even though the 737 is Boeing's best selling airplane, there are still a limited amount of customers than say...a new cell phone.

Ultimately Boeing's best customer's will build the best airplane. Not much has changed since the 60's.



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12954 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 23722 times:

As was said in the other thread, this is all an elaborate plot to give a.net members migraine headaches!   

Some of the more debatable statements:

   Gain from re-engining is around 2%, new airplane is around 20% (didn't we hear that there were no technologies available that could give double digit gains from the already optimized 737?)

   We've learned from the 787 that composites scale down well enough for a smaller airplane (didn't we just hear Mr. Albaugh and Ms. Piesecki suggest the opposite?)

   We don't see any new technologies in the next five years that will leapfrog our new design (but also you say the plane will need to be in its prime in 2030?)

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
In all honesty, I think cabin width is way way down on the list of key decisions.

Mr. Bair disagrees with you, and so do I.

Quote:

The size of the new model is the most challenging decision left, Bair said, because Boeing will have to make assumptions about air travel in 2030, when the jet would be in its prime. Engineers are studying how to speed loading and unloading, with either a wider aisle or possibly two aisles, he said.

IMHO cabin width is a key factor in how many seats the airlines can sell, how many FAs they will need on the plane, how much cargo volume there will be, how much frontal drag there will be, how much the plane will weigh (and thus how big the wing will need to be), how much market they will address vs cede to competitors, and so on. I'm sure they are getting plenty of input from the customers on all of this. I can't think of another single factor that influences so many things except materials technology.

Maybe there isn't much to decide if they take the decision to stick with the 17 in seats in a 3-3 config, but they really only do get this one chance to set this key parameter for decades to come.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23670 times:

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 12):
A twin aisle 2-3-2 does make sense, however. Maybe Boeing have something up their sleeves here with seating arrangements?

What? No it doesn't. A 2-2-2 makes far more sense as its a trival difference in crosssection compared to the A320 as the LD3's are the primary width constraint.

A 2-3-2 would be absolutely horrible at the 150 single class size. It would be heavier and have far higher drag than a 3-3 or 2-2-2 design as the lack of lever arm would mean it would have HUGE vertical and horizontal stabliizers. Also no cargo capactiy as it would be mostly wingbox with minimal length left for the actual cargo compartments.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9817 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23672 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
IMHO cabin width is a key factor in how many seats the airlines can sell, how many FAs they will need on the plane, how much cargo volume there will be, how much frontal drag there will be, how much the plane will weigh (and thus how big the wing will need to be), how much market they will address vs cede to competitors, and so on. I'm sure they are getting plenty of input from the customers on all of this. I can't think of another single factor that influences so many things except materials technology.

I think we are looking at this slightly different. My opinion is that the slightly wider cabin of the A320 vs 737 is not a major design issue. However capacity, FA requirements, exit requirements, on/off loading time, etc are big factors. However, while a factor, I think the cabin width down to the inch compared to the A320 is not the major factor, but the decision between 5, 6, 7 or 8 abreast is a big decision.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12954 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23586 times:

Quoting manfredj (Reply 16):
AA, DL, UA and Southwest have more influence on new projects than anyone else. Keep your eye on your customers and your customers will keep you in business.

Indeed. Many here seem to enjoy focusing on the competitive drama, but in the big picture there is a duopoly in place, and trying to 'one-up' your competition really doesn't build value, satisfying your customers does.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 19):
I think we are looking at this slightly different.

Thanks for the clarification.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
LD3's are the primary width constraint.

If that's the case, one would almost presume we'll end up with the A320s width, maybe with an extra inch or two for bragging rights?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23544 times:

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 10):
A twin aisle narrowbody (2-2-2) makes no sense, simply a waste of space, and turnaround times don't matter that much.

This isn't necessarily true. Turnaround times might not matter to many carriers, but it's a big concern for others that Boeing wants to please. (namely WN) If you have a cabin that's ~155 inches wide, (less than a foot wider than an A320), you could give carriers the option to either have a very comfortable 3*3, or squeeze in 2x2x2 if they desire it.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 23503 times:

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 12):
A twin aisle 2-3-2 does make sense, however. Maybe Boeing have something up their sleeves here with seating arrangements?

There is an assumption that a 2-3-2 would have more drag. However when you look at Boeing's patent application it is very wasp waisted, almost teardrop shaped, which I believe is the most aerodynamically perfect shape you can get.

The plane could have the same shaping in profile.

Isn't this an example of area rule design? Doesn't this help to minimize the wave drag on a long tube?

Is the fact that Carbon construction will most likey be used allowing more exotic shapes like this to be used?

As the Carbon walls have to so thick to withstand impact and are overbuilt, does this allow much thinner ribs to be used, meaning that maybe the outside of a 2-3-2 really is not that much Wider than an A320, maybe 6-8 inches the same as the A320 vs. the 737? Combine that with the potentially more efficient shape, and you may be able to build a twin aisle plane with no penalty that Airlines and Passengers prefer.


User currently offlinePanAm788 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23115 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13):

Fair points. I just see a new narrowbody being slightly wider than the current 737. New materials/interiors might make a wider cabin possible without an increase in fuselage width. Large landing gear is what a GTF needs for clearance. Width does help here to a point, because the wider the plane, the more space you have to design large landing gear. Obviously it's not a huge factor though, so I apologize if my previous post was misleading.

As for the 2-2-2/2-3-2 debate, both are bad designs. Maybe WN wants a 2-2-2 plane, but I can't understand it. The aisles would be ridiculously narrow and the seats would be worse than 10 abreast 777. It'd be like 2 ERJ cabins lined up next to one another. To make it comfortable, Boeing would need a very wide cabin, but then you run into problems from drag, support weight, etc, and at the end of the day you're still flying a 6 abreast a/c. It makes much more sense to make the cabin slightly wider, like a few inches, and let airlines who want better turnaround times make the aisle wider and those who don't the seats wider. There's a reason why the 787 has 8/9 abreast seating as opposed to the 7 abreast 767 it's replacing. Simply put, the more space in the cabin that isn't filled with seats, the more money airlines are missing out on.



You know nothing Jon Snow
User currently onlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2264 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 23008 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
All the Boeing narrowbodies to date except the 757 have had 17'' width seats as the standard option.

Somebody help me out here. What is the seat width? My understanding is the 757 cross section is the same as the other Boeing NBs.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
25 davs5032 : Seeing as how there would be *no* middle seats, I don't see how it couldn't be more comfortable than any 10Y 777...or 747 for that matter. And keep i
26 redflyer : I have to agree with you, Rev. And the reason I think cabin width is a key consideration in this next generation design is because Boeing is trying t
27 Stitch : I believe all A320 family operators have chosen to put the extra 6 inches of cabin width over the 737NG into the seats and not the aisle. Six inches m
28 tdscanuck : Pretty much nil if it happens in this decade. It will certainly have more carbon fiber than the 737NG. Whether it's got as much (% volume) as the 787
29 JoeCanuck : I find this the most interesting tidbit. Though there are many other reasons besides weight to choose a material, I wonder if they have come up with
30 XT6Wagon : No it wouldn't, It would have minimum width aisles for each of the two, and full 17.2" width Y class seats. I think WN is just as likely to go for 3+
31 UA933 : I thought that it was a done deal to have a new wing on the 777 by 2012/2013?!
32 413X3 : If I were Boeing, I would only concentrate on one thing, making the most efficient engines possible. Everything else is more for the airplane geeks. F
33 joelyboy911 : Boeing doesn't make engines.
34 ferpe : It is interessting that Boeing is validating the material choices of the Cseries, "at 130 seats Al-Li is the material for the tube" according to Baird
35 DLdiamondboy : It may not be down as far as you think. From the FF perspective the A320 series is far more comfortable than the Boeing narrowbodies due to more shou
36 rheinwaldner : Problem is that the sub-150 seat market would be lost with such an airplane. And the best-selling size of 150-160 would only be served by a suboptima
37 faro : Perhaps but the 737 replacement and all its subsequent related derivatives will be in production for perhaps 40-50 years if the 737 is anything to go
38 na : What? Never, ever. Boeing aimed at 2017/18 for a 777NG. Now it will most certainly be later. I do not think that any airliner constructed before the
39 faro : Interesting to know why. One major reason why I believe this is not the case is cost. R&D is getting more and more onerous and will necessitate l
40 Burkhard : I read this Bloomberg report the following way: Boeing acknowledges they have to do something, the A320NEO sales as well as constant comments of the b
41 na : I do think the fuel issue will drastically change a lot sometime between 2030 and 2050, shortening the career of all new types introduced from now on
42 Burkhard : One issue is the complexity and costs of certification. Not only in aviation, in practically every regulated market the requirements posted by the ag
43 parapente : Reply 36 rheinwaldner . I am not as qualified as you to comment with your level of understanding, however. I did comment a while ago that if Boeings "
44 JoeCanuck : That is some disclaimer...a bit condescending but let's see if I qualify to comment. Bair's statements are actually very straight forward and nobody
45 Post contains images PITingres : And if fuel is a smaller percentage of total operating cost, such as 20% which is not unreasonable if short flights account for the majority, then th
46 SEPilot : The 130 seat market is already gone; the C-series will own it. Boeing and Airbus would both be wise to accept that; they can only design so many mode
47 NAV20 : Hate the thought of this actually happening - but the current trend in larger aeroplanes is for the airlines to cram in more seats in 'cattle class' -
48 Post contains links and images Revelation : Very interesting detailed interview with Bair at http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...clean-sheet---boeings-all-new.html and http://www.flightglobal
49 SEPilot : Boeing, and the airlines, have to weigh the advantage of more space and comfort vs. weight and drag. My bet is that economics will trump comfort; the
50 rheinwaldner : No, no, you are fully qualified. You wrote a great post that exactly describes what I mean. That's it. I have no idea too but obviously Boeing does n
51 WAH64D : I think we can safely say that whilst 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 is nice conversation material, the Boeing 737 replacement WILL be a single aisle 3-3 design. It w
52 Post contains images NAV20 : Maybe a misunderstanding, SEPilot. I meant that Boeing might go for LESS comfort (in the sense of narrower seats and narrower aisles) but MORE conven
53 tdscanuck : Can't happen...they'd have had to start building wing tooling last year or earlier and there's no sign that they've done that (you can't hide stuff l
54 Revelation : As per my last post, Bair says it's off the table. The usual reasons are cited: - People like windows much more than looking at a screen - People are
55 SEPilot : I think they will listen to what the airlines want. The airlines, after all, have to sell the seats, not Boeing. If they determine that wider, more c
56 MCO2BRS : Are we likely to see a slightly more refined yet 737-sized 787? Cheers MCO 2 BRS
57 NAV20 : Guess we're close to agreement, SEPilot. No point in making it any wider than the current 737 (still just about the 'perfect' airliner in my book, as
58 parapente : Re Revelation Post 48. Thanks.I should have seen both of them - but I had not. You are of course right.Perhaps for the first time Boeing are really ma
59 JayDub : Edit: Point had already been made.[Edited 2011-03-03 07:49:17]
60 Aesma : I didn't think of that. Of course that same 2-2-2 config' then doesn't work at all for EU style business class ! At the moment they use 6 seats with
61 Post contains images EPA001 : I would prefer the 19" as a passenger. . Which giant do you mean? Boeing is a huge company, but the term giant usually goes to the largest OEM which
62 na : Highly likely. Maybe of a width LCCs could press 3-4 in. And opposed to some earlier posts I think the cross-section decision is THE most important d
63 SEPilot : I believe regulations would prohibit 4 seats together without an aisle on each end. And I agree with you about the importance of the cross-section; t
64 na : Ok, didnt know that. Makes some sense. Yeah, that was after the USAF ordered the C-135 and as a reaction to Douglas´ announcement of the DC-8 which
65 NAV20 : Sorry, EPA001, but you've just plain misquoted me. I'm sure that you didn't mean to, but what I said was:- In other words, if I was running Boeing, I
66 Post contains images EPA001 : Oops, my bad. I mus have misinterpreted your post. .
67 redflyer : I believe that's a forgone conclusion. From the article, Bair himself says: Sounds to me as though they are definitely going to relinquish the sub-15
68 NAV20 : Rumours are rife that, if fuel prices keep rising, that market sector is going to 'come down to' turboprops...... Not good news to me - HATE the nois
69 SEPilot : Exactly. It was after Boeing lost two major airlines to the DC-8 (one was UA, I'm not sure of the other) that Bill Allen forced the decision. He had
70 frmrCapCadet : Totally a side issue: Should aerodynamics call for a taper somewhere along the fuselage don't resist. A bit of a narrowing would allow for 5 seats of
71 affirmative : Am I the only one that thinks that evolution is going backwards..? I would (will?) be hugely disappointed if Boeing just put another tube and wings on
72 Revelation : I really think you are misjudging it. For better or worse, A320NEO has to live with constraints on structures, aerodynamics and materials made in the
73 parapente : Reply 68 Rumours are rife that, if fuel prices keep rising, that market sector is going to 'come down to' turboprops...... Don't worry won't happen ..
74 LAXDESI : How much would WN gain if the B737RS had 6" more interior width than the current A320? Assuming an average flight duration of 1.5 hours(taxi and flig
75 JoeCanuck : I think what will kill the OR, (except perhaps as a fast turboprop option...as a longshot), is the efficiencies that will happen to ducted turbofans.
76 tsugambler : I'm sorry you'll be disappointed, but the fact is the tube-and-wing design is an unmatched masterpiece of functionality and simplicity. That's why it
77 Post contains images EPA001 : I think you are quite right here. No doubt the A320 will see some fine-tuning when the NEO engines become available. Flight test will point out the "
78 goblin211 : Aren't most of the 737s older? If so, then this is what B should be doing. They've already got a lot planned for replacements that seem to be making p
79 Post contains links jdevora : From the resent Flightblogger post http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...clean-sheet---boeings-all-new.html not much
80 LAXDESI : The article above has some interesting comments on how the new Sky interior enables passengers to access overhead bins without stepping into the aisl
81 abibus : Ok i understand Boeing, but this is playing with fire, if the 350 has no mayor problems and the roll out will be on date or maximum 6 month delay, Boe
82 Post contains images astuteman : Which implies that even if the fuselage becomes CFRP the overall benefits will be seen as only marginal Are you suggesting the A319NEO won't exist? P
83 davs5032 : From a passenger view, I like the thought of this. The advantages in comfort and turnaround time would be impressive. However, I just don't see it ha
84 Revelation : LOL! Indeed. I for one still wonder exactly what Airbus is having to change for the NEO, but given the strong order uptake one can imagine the number
85 flyglobal : I would expect that while Airbus was discussing with the suppliers for re engining, the theme of integrating further development steps in those 2 eng
86 tdscanuck : CFRP was always known to have problem scaling down...that is not news. Technology that works fine on large aircraft may not work at all on smaller on
87 Post contains links NAV20 : Interestingly, Boeing have apparently lodged a patent application for "Weight-optimizing internally pressurized composite-body aircraft fuselages hav
88 JoeCanuck : It depends on what one considers a benefit. It seems to me that some are focused on weight as the only benefit where there are many other advantages
89 Aesma : And as is already done currently, you can still improve an engine after its EIS, sometimes upgrading earlier ones even, so Boeing can't bet on having
90 Stitch : It is possible that Boeing is not so much betting on a better engine, but a more polished one (all the kinks that appear in revenue service that didn'
91 JoeCanuck : I have no doubt that if Boeing goes all new, they will have a somewhat more polished engine but whatever the engine makers do for the Boeing offering,
92 Dash9 : It already happened with TS 236. The aircraft barely made it to the acores. They were quite lucky that their route had been moved south that night du
93 Post contains images astuteman : I my defence I didn't focus on anything at all other than Boeing's own comments that it's "not totally obvious that a CFRP fuselage works at narrowbo
94 747400sp : Well I think this is a good thing. The DC-3 was a smaller short range plane, same for the DC-9 and 737, so it would be fitting that the a/c that bears
95 Post contains links sirtoby : Will the 737RS/797 or whatever it will be called, be good enough? Of course, engines will be (a little bit) better then the NEO engines, OEW per seat
96 etoile : Uh, circumference = pi x r^2 And who says Americans are bad at math?
97 JoeCanuck : To give them credit, I don't think Boeing has used 'game changing' in relation to CFRP on any narrowbody. If they can shave off a bunch of time, effo
98 TSS : Erm... pi x r^2 is area, not circumference. Circumference is pi x diameter.
99 Burkhard : I think one could say so :lol: But since not only the circumference scales with the width, but also bigger radius require stronger structures, the we
100 NAV20 : I think that is one of the more intriguing points. Just maybe Boeing are sure now, from the 787, that composites are strong enough to form elliptical
101 Post contains images astuteman : Agree. And that was my point, really Personally, I think the plane they come up with will from a configuration, and visual viewpoint, look extraordin
102 parapente : I look forward to Paris. The way the PR releases are shaping up I can't help feeling that ,that will be the time of "reveal". It will also be interest
103 scbriml : If the benefits of a CFRP fuselage are marginal for the 797, the decision might come down to how confident Boeing is that its suppliers can pump out
104 JoeCanuck : Ultimately, the composite fuse will realise the promises of faster, cheaper production with fewer fasteners...perhaps, eventually, even lighter than
105 Revelation : Yes, that thought keeps crossing my mind too, given the idea that the A320 airframe should be able to keep rough parity in terms of engine technology
106 Aesma : Of course, they haven't. They're still saying the 737 is so great they wonder how the A320 can sell ! They're not sure if their next narrowbody will
107 SEPilot : Completely agree. As to cross section, the most efficient shape is circular. When you factor decks in you can make it a vertical oval (with the deck(
108 flipdewaf : I hear people on here a lot say you can just raise the nose gar but I was under the impression that the nose gear makes no difference for the ground
109 WAH64D : I can agree with that. I think the 737 airframe is at the peak of its design and can no longer be economically upgraded, so Boeing's hand has been fo
110 Stitch : Spirit Aerosystems, which currently produces the 737NG fuselage, is by far the best-performing 787 supplier. Their Section 41 line is so good that th
111 wingman : Maybe Boeing should buy Spirit. It sounds like that's where all the great engineers went.
112 Stitch : Spirit purchased Boeing Commercial's facility in Wichita, so many of those employees are ex-Boeing.
113 N328KF : Maybe it's better to say "was borne from," as Spirit initially only consisted of that facility, as well as a few nearby ancillary facilities. And whe
114 Aloha717200 : I find it intriguing that the 7-abreast diagram above is also a T-tail. I thought Boeing had decided against doing any new T-tails for good, over conc
115 Post contains images Aesma : What's the point of longer life, when the engines are considered gas guzzlers decades before the airframe's EOL ? Then, Boeing would be making parts
116 Post contains images EPA001 : "Returning" the favor since Airbus is building some B787 CFRP parts (e.g. rear bulk head) .
117 SEPilot : That is a valid consideration, but it is not guaranteed that improvements will be that great in the future. We may hit a plateau, and again fuel pric
118 JoeCanuck : Of course they will...that's what sales guys do...sell stuff. If you aren't willing to push your stuff as better than the other guy's, why would anyo
119 Post contains images NAV20 : Maybe we can meet halfway? There's another thread running on here now 'rumouring' that the layout's going to be 2-2-2. That would 'hit the jackpot' w
120 manfredj : Just curious how you are drawing that conclusion. This was a chess move more than anything else. Already coming up with excuses for 9 years in the fu
121 BMI727 : Unless people are willing to pay more for that, what's the point? Of course there is the lowering of turnaround times, but two whole aisles is an awf
122 tdscanuck : Where is the requirement to keep the engines off the ground coming from? If the nose gear collapses, you're screwed. Raising the nose gear definitely
123 NAV20 : Boeing have a slightly-unusual marketing task, BMI727. Airbus have already put their cards on the table - the A320NEO. Boeing are thinking in terms o
124 BMI727 : Higher weight would be too, but not in the good way. Like the Sonic Cruiser, pretty much anything Boeing could do to make a larger widebodied plane b
125 NAV20 : More or less agree, BMI727. But composites appear likely to help weight-wise; and in any case getting some 2-3-2 in would make the aeroplane just pla
126 Stitch : Open Rotor is going to pretty much require a T-tail or a variant thereof (like the Pi-tale of the Boeing "Fozzie" concept).
127 scbriml : A Boeing subsidiary already builds the A380 wingtip fences.
128 NAV20 : If you mean the diagram that I linked to in Post 87, Aloha, the (plan view) drawing clearly shows the fin above the tailplane - in other words a conv
129 Post contains images Heavierthanair : G'day I seriously doubt any airline out there has ever even remotely considered passenger comfort, maybe they did in the past when for the same price
130 Post contains images scbriml : Sorry, NAV20, but I can't see how that's anything other than a T-tail design. The fuselage tapers to an end in front of the horizontal stabilisers -
131 Post contains images NAV20 : Hi scrimbl. I suppose the truth is that it IS only a diagram, not the final design! I had my eye on those singles, though, I'd plump for one vof them
132 Post contains images scbriml : I had you down for seats much closer to the front! I suspect, given the layout shown (yes, I appreciate it's just a scheme), those seats probably hav
133 Revelation : Chess move would imply some intellegence, but I don't see any here. Clearly Boeing would rather be in the position Airbus is, being able to keep the
134 JamBrain : I think you are ignoring the fact that the fin design was not relevent to the patent and is most likely an insignificant scetch to confuse. You don't
135 SEPilot : I agree that Boeing HAS to offer something that the A320NEO can't match. But I think that is going to have to be operating economics; if it doesn't B
136 Post contains images Stitch : I still think they'd swallow a 737neo as readily as Airbus customers appear to be swallowing an A320neo. I just don't see a wholesale defection from
137 LipeGIG : I would not say only Airbus. The 737 is the niche that all other players could venture into, not something to face the 777 or 787. Boeing could allow
138 Post contains images NAV20 : Surely the number of seats, the revenue they can be expected to generate, and the overall size of the aeroplane will always be pretty central to oper
139 SEPilot : Of course they are. What I am saying is that the CASM of the 797 will have to be measurably better than the A320NEO for it to be considered a success
140 JoeCanuck : The real advantage to 2-2-2, and the wider fuse it would require, is the increasing advantage of the layout as the plane gets longer. A marginal incr
141 NAV20 : Thing is, Airbus appear already to have opted for the A320NEO, not a new aeroplane. So anything truly 'new' from them appears to be at least 15 years
142 BMI727 : It is a diagram on a patent application for the fuselage design. Those are the only things that have to be accurate on the diagram. The portions of t
143 rj777 : I'm pretty much 98.5% sure that if this plane DOES become an all-new plane, it WILL be called the 797.
144 JoeCanuck : I think Bair has admitted as much.
145 scbriml : They've said 2025ish, yes. But it's not like Boeing's 737 replacement is here next year, is it?
146 Post contains images EPA001 : With almost 10 Billion Euros in cash in the bank, ($14 Billion) the finances are not the problem. Resources at present are with the A350 and A400 in
147 BMI727 : Well what else is he going to say?
148 Post contains images EPA001 : To be fair to JL, he has said this since 2008/2009. So far it looks as he might be right. He usually is. .
149 nomadd22 : Seems a little unlikely that Airbus would schedule the start of the 320 replacement program the day the first 320NEO EIS'd
150 scbriml : Why not? Boeing's talking about a minimum of an 8-year gestation period for the 737 replacement.
151 manfredj : Quite a silly example really. In the airline world, there is no simplicity. Things change on a daily basis. Overhead, fuel costs, supply, demand, pro
152 NAV20 : It would make a precarious kind of sense if one believes (as I do) that Airbus are currently 'strapped for cash' and have their hands full sorting ou
153 JoeCanuck : I think Airbus is looking for the most bang for its buck and Boeing, (if it does decide to go all new), will be looking to gain an advantage over Air
154 odwyerpw : at the risk of steering this thread in an unintended direction.... does anyone have any sketches of the A320 with a 2x2x2 layout... my math doesn't wo
155 Stitch : I don't believe it was a mistake to launch the A320neo, but I also don't believe they will gain significant market share over the long term with it (
156 davs5032 : @ A320 cabin width, I don't think it would...based on my calculations, you'd need around 5-10 more inches to make it realistically possible. I think
157 Post contains images EPA001 : You just won't give up, will you? . Cash is not the problem, but resources are. See my previous posts.
158 NAV20 : Don't forget that the current single-aisles have old-fashioned 'proper width' seats, dav5032. 737 interior fuselage width is 12 feet, the A320 2 inch
159 odwyerpw : 737 Interior fuselage width is 11' 7", Airbus about 12' 2". you could adopt a 17.5" seat.... how much clearance do you need between seats and sidewall
160 davs5032 : Yeah, the armrests need to be taken into account as well. All together, the armrests take up more space than you'd think...something like 8 inches. N
161 Post contains images astuteman : I'm utterly convinced that the A320NEO is more about not losing market share, than gaining it. It is obvious that both airframers had to respond to t
162 JoeCanuck : I really wonder how resource constrained Airbus really is. The 380 is long done with most issues being production/ramp up related. The A400 is flying
163 rheinwaldner : Great source that you have found! So here are the figures black on white...: - Y1 aims to reduce fuel burn by 20% - Cost goes down by 10%. Which requ
164 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Thanks, Davs5032 - an even tighter squeeze than I thought. Looks like Boeing's proposed 2.2.2 twin-aisle approach (and the 797 designation) is out in
165 parapente : Earlier Quote "That's about what I think too. It's a nice idea, and passengers would love it, but just like the Sonic Cruiser, I think the more econom
166 Post contains images scbriml : EADS, strapped for cash? They may be short of engineers, but cash they are most certainly not short of. Their 3rd quarter results last year reported
167 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Not a field I'm any sort of 'expert' in, scrimbl - but, as far as I know, EADS are under pressure from their corporate shareholders to maintain a lot
168 Post contains images 328JET : It sounds like a great deal, but it is not. The bigger margins are made in the widebody market, not in the narrowbody market. Offering a revamped B777
169 JoeCanuck : Actually, I exactly compared the business case of the a320neo to the business case of doing nothing. Airbus would have received the orders regardless
170 astuteman : I personally think that Airbus (and Boeing) would progressively lose market share to new narrowbody entrants if the do nothing. I think a response is
171 Post contains images EPA001 : I think so too. But another argument for the NEO-option is that we can expect less noise levels from the new engines, hopefully dramatic lower noise
172 JoeCanuck : I agree...eventually. At the moment, there is nothing coming up this decade which would compete with either Airbus or Boeing. I think everybody had a
173 Aesma : I agree with the general picture (smart move by Airbus), but you make it look like the A320neo is an answer to the 797, when it's in fact the opposit
174 nomadd22 : You can be arrested in some places for butchering metaphors like that.
175 Stitch : Airbus knew Boeing would either NEO or launch the 797. Boeing's been talking 797 for years and Pratt and CFM have both been working to get the PW1100
176 astuteman : Which says (rightly IMO) that the A320NEO is a response to Bombardier, COMAC, etc, rather than a response to any Boeing move. Airbus's response to an
177 Stitch : I still think it's a response to the 797, as well, if a proactive one. While the 797 will be the better plane on an economic level, the gap between a
178 rheinwaldner : Wrong, wrong, wrong. Then you agree with me too, thanks! How could you respond me before I said something?
179 JoeCanuck : So you are saying that without the NEO, Airbus would not have received any more orders for the 320? Wow...that's very pessimistic. I have contended t
180 rheinwaldner : No, I am not saying that. I have no idea why you interpret my posts so wrongly.
181 JoeCanuck : Because I said, and your immediate reply was;
182 rheinwaldner : This is rubish. But when I say this is rubish it does not mean "that without the NEO, Airbus would not have received any more orders for the 320". Th
183 JoeCanuck : Then you are going to have to try a bit harder to say what you mean so other people can understand it. If you don't mean to refute something I say, d
184 PITingres : What is this, Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass? ("words mean what I say they mean...") Yes indeed, when you say "rubbish" and "wrong wrong
185 Burkhard : At least it is fair today to say than the 797 that we hear about today is no response to the A320NEO, but an attempt to create a class of its own. Suc
186 rheinwaldner : Which is not the same like: You see: "not the orders" = correct "not any more orders" = not correct and wronlgy interpreted "Not 100%" is not equal t
187 JoeCanuck : Nope...read it carefully. It means, regardless, ( which means, no matter what, or, it would happen anyway), Airbus would have received orders. If you
188 Stitch : Personally, I believe those who ordered an A320neo would have ordered the A320 because they're all existing A320 operators and they are placing fleet
189 slowroll : I think one could even conjure up a scenario whereby the NEO announcement has potentially hurt A320 sales. It has now created uncertainty where it did
190 Post contains images astuteman : I guess you are Because they'd also progressivley share that market not just with Boeing, but with bombardier, COMAC et al. The A320NEO isn't about t
191 JoeCanuck : The russians and the chinese will not be able to compete this decade and into the next by virtue of their lack of even their most optimistic projecti
192 rheinwaldner : Not at all. To wait is also an option. Airlines don't have to replace aircraft after a fix number of years. If they feel that some better product wil
193 astuteman : Airbus have made it abundantly clear that the "classic" A320 will continue to be offered. The "O" in "NEO" stands for "Option". Rgds
194 JoeCanuck : So what explains the increase in 737 sales last year? Is there any indication the NEO sales would not have gone to the OEO if there was no NEO? Gee,
195 Post contains images seabosdca : Oh no, the dread uncertainty! (This has also been a frequent ride on the merry-go-round in US politics recently...) Businesses the size of airlines c
196 astuteman : On the basis that by definition NEO sales are post 2016, it's possible that the alternative would currently be no sale at all... By 2016 I'd argue th
197 JoeCanuck : Which is why it was expressed as my opinion. On the basis that by definition the 'O' is an option, one would expect 320 sales after 2016 to include O
198 328JET : Last year - because of a lot of uncertainties about Airbus future of the A32x-family. This year - the sales of the B737NG are very low - up to now.
199 Post contains images astuteman : And I accept that. However, it will be some competition, and that level will only increase with time.. It may not haul what the A320 can, but that do
200 JoeCanuck : That's just s ...and ultimately, opinions about what might have been to the contrary, we deal with things as they are and will be. The reality is the
201 astuteman : Could you clarify this part of your response, Joe, if it's pertinent? Appreciated. Rgds
202 LAXDESI : I keep thinking that all this activity from A(NEO) and B(797) would not be taking place but for BBD's Cseries(aided by GTF). I would like to see Boein
203 JoeCanuck : I have no idea...probably a cutting pasting spasm but the interwibble here has been throwing the toys out of the pram today.
204 slowroll : How about a nextgen 717?
205 Post contains images Stitch : In terms of gross orders, so far Boeing has secured 77 737NG orders through today which tracks with the 75 net orders recorded through the first thre
206 LAXDESI : If you mean a reengined 717, than I doubt it would be competitive against CSseries. The HGW weighs only about 7,000 lbs less than CS300, but with a M
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...
Boeing And Bombardier To New Iraqi Airways posted Mon May 5 2008 08:24:06 by SOBHI51
Boeing Studies 2 Airplanes To Replace 737 posted Thu Sep 14 2006 14:57:30 by DAYflyer
Pressure On Boeing & Airbus To Improve 737&A320? posted Sat Nov 5 2005 01:14:35 by Keesje
Boeing Shifts 737's To PAE posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:58:16 by Clickhappy
WN Pushes Boeing To Develop New 737-700 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:31:45 by KLMcedric
McNerney Hints At New 777 Before New 737 posted Thu Oct 21 2010 09:37:43 by tistpaa727
Virgin Blue (DJ) Orders Up To 105 New 737's posted Wed Mar 31 2010 17:25:02 by AusA380
Why Does FR Fly To BHD Rather Than BFS posted Tue Aug 18 2009 10:57:05 by Loughrey1
New 737 Interior - "Boeing Sky Interior" posted Tue Apr 28 2009 16:57:18 by UpstateDave
New 737 Seen In Costa Rica, Need To Identify Tail posted Fri Sep 26 2008 17:27:58 by Tomascubero