Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EADs Sees No Need For A Clean Sheet Narrow Body  
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11208 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...y-case-for-all-new-narrowbody.html

Thought these comments were interesting given that they chose to go with NEO. Mr Gallois says that their research indicated that there was no need for a clean sheet, and I'd think his comments were very right on and supportive of their decision. He is discrediting an all electric composite short haul aircraft because the only engines will be those used on NEO and the challenges seen trying to bring 787 to market. As a competitor, the best confirmation that you are on the right track, is when your competition comes out and calls you a fool before you have fully announced anything. Mr Gallois may have been served himself better by reserving his comments until after an announcement of a product concept. Only time will tell who had the better ability at reading the tea leaves of the narrowbody market. But either way the bet will be big, whether to spend the development funds or wait and investment less early.

89 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerl757pvd From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4674 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11137 times:

Didnt they say the same thing for the 787...that A330 improvments would be suffice, then they come out with the A350, then the A350XWB


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They see no need for it because they can't deliver it before Boeing can get the 797 into service.

Come next decade, I expect their views will change.  


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Thread starter):
when your competition comes out and calls you a fool before you have fully announced anything

Something of a gross exaggeration, IMHO.

If you're referring to "EADS chief executive Louis Gallois has questioned the wisdom of Boeing's apparent plans to launch an entirely new narrowbody airliner.", then those are the words of the reporter, not Gallois.

EADS is not convinced an all-new plane is right at this time. Hardly a surprise given they've launched NEO. Boeing says the exact opposite - they don't see the business case for a re-engine. And guess what? All indications are that Boeing will launch an all-new 737 replacement this year.

This is hardly shocking news, is it?   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11030 times:

Airbus are in the ideal position here.

They produce the market leading product and have just launched a relatively cheap neo product which is going to keep their 3 production lines filled for the rest of de decade regardless what Boeing comes up with, so there's no urgency to do something indeed, whereas their main competitor was put under pressure and thus had no choice but to show his cards and come up with a clean sheet design.

Airbus has always been at its best when it could see what their competitor was doing and Boeing blinking first, is going to be a very significant advantage in the long run.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10988 times:

Quoting rl757pvd (Reply 1):
Didnt they say the same thing for the 787...that A330 improvments would be suffice, then they come out with the A350, then the A350XWB

Absolutley, something about how Boeing would "return to best practises and use 30% or less composites by weight in the 787" by the time 001 was built.

[Edited 2011-03-09 12:58:54]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10926 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
This is hardly shocking news, is it?


Which is my point exactly, so why say it so early? Makes more sense to hold judgement until more is known. Boeing could very well say they're going to do a NEO as well but produce an all new 180-220 a/c for 2020 introduction. Just wait and then make your comments when you can add value to decision making. As for the other comment, when you call someone a fool before you know what you're talking about, your competition can use it to show you are out of touch with customer requirements. The guy who is not sure will use your comment as a reason to listen more to your competition, and the longer the competition is in front of a customer the greater the possibility they may say something that peeks interest. The customer may be even more interested in proving your theory wrong. Just shut up and let it go.


User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 4):
Airbus has always been at its best when it could see what their competitor was doing and Boeing blinking first, is going to be a very significant advantage in the long run.

You could be right, kind of depends on how well the tea leaves are read by each competitor? This will be an interesting one because if you guess wrong the numbers will be hard to recover. This is not a 700 frame market, so when you blink will say much about your future in this space.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1359 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10807 times:

Airbus has committed to the low-risk, low investment, NEO option, so obviously they'll stand up and say they fail to see the business case for a clean-sheet design.

Likewise, Boeing are committed to a clean-sheet design because they can't get the numbers to work for a 737neo. So obviously they're going to stand up and say they fail to see the business case for a neo.

It's all politics and public sales pitches. Hardly worth getting knickers in a wad over.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10782 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 3):
EADS is not convinced an all-new plane is right at this time. Hardly a surprise given they've launched NEO. Boeing says the exact opposite - they don't see the business case for a re-engine. And guess what? All indications are that Boeing will launch an all-new 737 replacement this year.

And both are right, from THEIR perspective.

The 737NG CAN NOT be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence a new design is needed, yet
the A320 CAN be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence the NEO was launched.

However, clean sheet design is locking Boeing into certain design parameters for the next decades, whereas it allows Airbus to have a good look at all the details, to find the things which could have been done better and to leapfrog it with its own new design when they feel the need for it: it's what they did with the A320 vs the 737SG too, remember, and no matter how hard Boeing tried to regain the lead in this market segment with the NG thereafter, they really coudn't, mainly because of them being stuck with on a less than optimal platform.

Well, it's history repeating itself really and it's the scenario which Airbus have always hoped for: i.e. Boeing blinking first. The price for coming up with the most modern plane first, is to have the older platform for most of the production cycle. Boeing tried to push the moment out in time for as long as possible, but the market response to the NEO gave them no other option but to do it now, nevertheless.


User currently offlinepylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1551 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10770 times:

We are in the beginning of an extremely interesting game.
After a boring year of chewing over and over 787 delays and 380 slow sales and newcomers on RJ market - we have got an outstanding intrigue: Boeing new concept vs. Airbus conservative assessment.
All of us should be happy that the Duopoly is still able to surprise us.

I can tell for myself only. But after five hour flight on Qatar Airways A-320 DME-DOH (five star hotel in the sky!) I immediately turned into a Boeing 797 true believer.
QR tried hard: great chairs, superior AVOD, good food and drinks unlimited.
However, narrow body is just unbearable on flights over 2 hours. And nothing can change it.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10679 times:

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 10):
Boeing new concept vs. Airbus conservative assessment


But the NEO is not Airbus long term answer to the airlines' needs in this market segment; it's them taking the opportunistic low cost occasion to incorporate the newest technologies into their current product, something Boeing decided wasn't possible on their 737 platform any more...

Airbus' final reply to whatever new concept Boeing will come up with, is only going to come only after a few years and that's a great position to be in for them.


User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3642 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10613 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Thread starter):
As a competitor, the best confirmation that you are on the right track, is when your competition comes out and calls you a fool before you have fully announced anything.

I notice he mentions several things Boeing has not committed too. All electric and composites.Maybe he knows things we don't.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):


Well, it's history repeating itself really and it's the scenario which Airbus have always hoped for: i.e. Boeing blinking first.

Didn't Airbus blink first? If a re-engine doesn't count as a blink ( a wink?), couldn't one say Boeing is leading the industry? I don't think you want to go there....

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
The 737NG CAN NOT be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence a new design is needed, yet
the A320 CAN be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence the NEO was launched.

However, clean sheet design is locking Boeing into certain design parameters for the next decades, whereas it allows Airbus to have a good look at all the details, to find the things which could have been done better and to leapfrog it with its own new design when they feel the need for it: it's what they did with the A320 vs the 737SG too, remember, and no matter how hard Boeing tried to regain the lead in this market segment with the NG thereafter, they really coudn't, mainly because of them being stuck with on a less than optimal platform.

This rhetoric really gets tiresome.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4736 posts, RR: 39
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
The 737NG CAN NOT be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence a new design is needed, yet
the A320 CAN be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence the NEO was launched.


I think this is no rhetoric at all. It sums up the actual market situation pretty nicely. The B737-NG can be turned into a B737-NNG, but the economic prospects are not looking that good. The airframe is at the end of the (enormous long and highly successful) line, though it might still be sold if the B797 turns out to be a size larger then the current B737-family.

The A320 as the more modern and more flexible airframe can be upgraded much easier then the current B737-NG, and the A320's prospects are looking very good and the new orders (extra orders?) are streaming in.  .

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
However, clean sheet design is locking Boeing into certain design parameters for the next decades, whereas it allows Airbus to have a good look at all the details, to find the things which could have been done better and to leapfrog it with its own new design when they feel the need for it:


Boeing reacted with the B777 family on the A330/A340 program. And especially at the top end of the range the B77W put the A346 out of business. So Airbus reacting to Boeing will most likely show the same picture. Already the A350-XWB is also a lot more successful then anticipated and there is no reason to think that an A360 or something like that would not be evenlu successful.  .


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10492 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 14):
This rhetoric really gets tiresome

What rhetoric?

That whoever blinks first, is going to be stuck with the oldest platform for most of the time?

As I've shown above: it's not rethoric at all, it's an elementary law in product management, called the law of the handicap of the head start.

Or do you think the A320NEO is more than just an opportunistic way to incorporate some new technology in the A320 program and to increase both the program's margins and life cycle at minimal cost? If you think the A320NEO is going to be Airbus' answer for the long term, you've fallen into Leahy's PR trap who's taking his job of talking up every technical improvement to his current product portfolio very seriously indeed!

[Edited 2011-03-09 14:34:54]

User currently offlinethediplomat From Ireland, joined Jun 2006, 382 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 10457 times:

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 10):
a Boeing 797 true believer.

How - we dont even know what the aircraft will look like, or feel like, how tall, long, wide etc, and you love it already - all on the basis of one five hour flight.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10255 times:

If Boeing is doing a new 3x3, I would agree with Mr Gallois that Airbus has more time with NEO.

However if Boeing is able to do a 2x2x2 CFRP mini 787 with the frontal area of a 737, such product, even with NEO class engines, will be very disruptive and will render the NEO, or other upcoming 3x3, obsolete much faster.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2823 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10163 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
They see no need for it because they can't deliver it before Boeing can get the 797 into service.

Come next decade, I expect their views will change.

I expect you are correct. I expect that the A-320NEO is not the final solution, and will, after the 797 nears market entry, give way to a clean-sheet design from Airbus that will again leapfrog Boeing, much like the original A-320 overtook the 737-300. I actually believe that both manufacturers have made the correct calls for their current positioning in the marketplace, and I can't wait for a true 737 replacement from Boeing, and I hope it's a great plane.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 8):
Airbus has committed to the low-risk, low investment, NEO option, so obviously they'll stand up and say they fail to see the business case for a clean-sheet design.

Absolutely correct.

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 8):
Likewise, Boeing are committed to a clean-sheet design because they can't get the numbers to work for a 737neo. So obviously they're going to stand up and say they fail to see the business case for a neo.

Again, absolutely correct.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
And both are right, from THEIR perspective.

The 737NG CAN NOT be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence a new design is needed, yet
the A320 CAN be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence the NEO was launched.

I actually agree with this assessment, and think you worded it very well.

Quoting slz396 (Reply 12):
But the NEO is not Airbus long term answer to the airlines' needs in this market segment; it's them taking the opportunistic low cost occasion to incorporate the newest technologies into their current product, something Boeing decided wasn't possible on their 737 platform any more...

Airbus' final reply to whatever new concept Boeing will come up with, is only going to come only after a few years and that's a great position to be in for them.

Another great point. Airbus will have a relatively low-cost derivative of the A-320 that's viable for quite a while, which allows them to look at the 797 before firming up their new narrowbody.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 22):
However if Boeing is able to do a 2x2x2 CFRP mini 787 with the frontal area of a 737, such product, even with NEO class engines, will be very disruptive and will render the NEO, or other upcoming 3x3, obsolete much faster.

I'm not an engineering savant, but how could a 2x2x2 cross section possibly fit into the frontal area of a 737?


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10108 times:

Both companies have found this a hard decision. The path forward was not all that straight. It is even possible that both companies could largely reverse course in the next year or so. Airbus certainly was not engaging in trash talk with their comments, and one would expect both A and B to spin things a bit.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10183 times:

Back in the eighties Europe had no competitor in this sector, and eventually launched the A320. Boeing in meantime had plans for a radical UDF powered plane, the 7J7, but in the meantime launched the reengined CFM56 powered 737-300, the first of the Classics.

Both the A320 and 737b Classic were great successes, eventually though the all new A320 started to make the 737 Classic look a bit old fashioned - winning shock sales victories like UA and BA - so the 737NG was launched as its replacement, and the 2 have been slugging it out ever since.

Now it's Airbus with the existing plane that can be reengined, while Boeing wil launch the all new plane, it's history repeating itself, just the other way round!



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10147 times:

Quoting B777LRF (Reply 8):
It's all politics and public sales pitches. Hardly worth getting knickers in a wad over.

     

Quoting slz396 (Reply 13):
When you're back on your feed, you might consider there might be more intellectual ratio in it than you ever thought possible: ever studied the law of the handicap of a head start at university?

I apologize, I didn't realize you were trying to be serious. That commentary looked like it came straight from the Airbus marketing department. It really has no basis in reality, in the same way that no Boeing marketing does, either.

There is quite a bit of truth in the handicap of a head start. However, like anything else, it is far from the 'be-all' and 'end-all' of a situation. Afterall, the A330 is still doing amazingly well, isn't it? And the A32X has managed to evenly split the NB market with the newer 737NG, right?

Quoting mham001 (Reply 14):
Didn't Airbus blink first? If a re-engine doesn't count as a blink ( a wink?), couldn't one say Boeing is leading the industry?

  

Now that the NEO is launched and started, I think it's safe to discuss this point: all last year, Boeing was highly criticized (both professionally and here, by amatuers) for always giving 'cagey' answers when asked about the future of the 737NG. What amazed me was how nobody seemed to catch on that this was done on purpose. I can't tell you how many times I read someone criticizing Boeing and forced myself from saying "Well DUH!!!"

Boeing's entire strategy was to allow Airbus to 'blink' first, then come out with an appropriate response. BTW - I still don't believe a clean-sheet is a 'given.' I do believe it's most probable, but it's not guaranteed.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 14):
This rhetoric really gets tiresome.

  

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 16):
Maybe, if you don't like the fact that it's true...
IF it was true, then no, it wouldn't be rhetoric. But it's 100% fabrication based on belief, not fact.

Boeing could (can) do a 737NEO. It can match the operating efficiencies promised by the A320NEO (they've even publically said as much, but apparently, it's easier to believe ones own bias). It would not be as simple, nor as 'cheap' (we'll see how much A32XNEO ends up costing), but it is entirely possible to do.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 16):
Have you looked at the delays on the 787 project recently? Enough said really.

Are you seriously going to go down that road. . . ?


Regards,

Hamlet69   



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10108 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 24):
I'm not an engineering savant, but how could a 2x2x2 cross section possibly fit into the frontal area of a 737?

Current 737 height is about 10 inches more than its width. Therefore 797's height can be made 10 inches shorter while width can be 10 inches wider. Combined with thinner wall achieved by CFRP barrel and reduced isle width of 16 inches from the typical 18 inches, it is conceivable that there is no need to add frontal area. So six 737 width seats and two 16 inch isles can fit into a 737 equivalent frontal area.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 10054 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 9):
The 737NG CAN NOT be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence a new design is needed, yet
the A320 CAN be made much better with an engine upgrade, hence the NEO was launched.

According to Boeing and the engine makers, IT CAN be made significantly better with new engines. Mike Bair, (he's only head of 737 development so he just might have a clue), has said they have a re-engine plan ready to go, (should they decided the time isn't right for all new), which gives an 11% fuel burn improvement with new engines. That's within a percentage or two of what Airbus is claiming engines will give the 320. The rest of the NEO improvements will come from sharklets.

At the moment, Boeing has the luxury of time to research going all new or re-engining the 737. We'll know this summer.

So since Airbus blinked first, it seems that Boeing is now in the drivers seat. After all, that's the law.



What the...?
User currently onlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9921 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 28):
So since Airbus blinked first, it seems that Boeing is now in the drivers seat. After all, that's the law.

But what it also did is make Boeing shelve any plans to upgrade the B777 which makes Airbus rather happy...


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11655 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9911 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 26):
IF it was true, then no, it wouldn't be rhetoric. But it's 100% fabrication based on belief, not fact.

Just to get a GTF on the current 737NG would require a significant redesign of the wing, wing box and fuselage - that is a fact. Of course nobody but Boeing are privy to the figures, but again the fact that Boeing are not seriously entertaining this idea can be considered a pretty good indication that it wasn't going to generate worthwhile gains.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 26):
Are you seriously going to go down that road. . . ?

Would you say then that Airbus has learnt nothing from Boeing's outsourcing issues, ambitious timeline, and composite woes? Learning from others mistakes is a useful benefit of being second in line to implementing new procedures and technologies.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
25 PPVRA : I have to agree with you. There are differences between their products that need to be taken into account. I would think the difference would be smal
26 frmrCapCadet : Quote attributed to me must be a response to something I said. In any event your reply sounds like something I would have liked an answer to. A 797 r
27 Stitch : The head of the GTF program implied they could make the PW1100G fit on the 737NG and he said so back in 2009. And he didn't mention that Boeing would
28 CFBFrame : I think you play with the hand you have. If your program is dated you have to make modifications, while if you can make changes you make changes to y
29 JoeCanuck : My point was answered by Mike Bair. He has clearly said that Boeing is prepared to go with a re-engined 737 if the business case cannot be made for a
30 panais : Both of them are blinking but always is what their clients are communicating to them. Nobody wants to lose a client to the competition because they d
31 Aesma : Airbus could do the neo in half the time, it's the engines that won't be ready before 2016.
32 mariner : M. Gallois was speaking about the financial performance and his audience was the financial community. They want to know what Airbus strategies are. I
33 SchorschNG : Gallois said that any performance improvement will not come from the engines, as both aircraft have pretty much the same. Any additional improvement (
34 flyglobal : We shouldn't put the Airbus comments out of context. The article isolates it a bit. Airbus was obviously answering questions if a 797 clean sheet desi
35 Burkhard : Well, they can celebrate that there are indications that Boeing is leaving the narrow body market as they left the VLA market and concentrating on sw
36 panais : Where is Keesje? This reads so much like his Greenliner.
37 Post contains links sirtoby : I see Boeing in a dilemma: with the CSeries about to enter the market the duopoly is broken. Before the CSeries became an option, Boeing and Airbus w
38 eugdog : I think that the differing strategies between the planemakers is due to the differing stages in the product life cyle. The Airbus 320 is much newer de
39 pylon101 : That is exactly what makes the difference between a belief and the knowledge.. And why one flight? A 5 hour 20 minute SVO-MAD on IB A-319 and SVO-AMS
40 SchorschNG : If the C-Series enters the market. We should remember that the aircraft involves serious risk. Same for the engine. P&W is running around and sel
41 rheinwaldner : Really just any solution that makes a 2-2-2 viable makes a 3-3 even better. How much does it need until people get that? And if you keep 3-3 plus the
42 parapente : "Has Boeing looked at the future engines crystal ball and saw no credible open rotor for 2025 but saw a version 2.0 of the PW1000 and the Leap-x aroun
43 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Sales for both the 73G and 319 were already falling in favour of the larger models before the NEO was announced. If you look at the 320/321 and 738/7
44 Carls : My personal opinion is that the 797 or whatever name Boeing call it can't be 2x2x2. Why they will increase the weight of the Aircraft to fit the same
45 rheinwaldner : I answered a statement that did not make any time restrictions. Therefore it is a valid answer. And here Boeings states that the figure for cost redu
46 Burkhard : Like in all US companies, also at B 90% of management skills goes into fighting each others, the rest into mostly uncoordinated activism. ( In A the n
47 Post contains images Pihero : From the horse's mouth , excerpts from Mr Bair's interrview,cited by JoeCanuck on post # 43 "An updated 737 could achieve savings of as much as 11 per
48 CFBFrame : I agree with you, but we all know a message goes further than where it is spoken. So let's say the plan is to introduce a larger frame first and then
49 faro : All very normal, today's product was yesterday's innovation across all industries. What would make it special here is the industry's anticipation of
50 Post contains images EPA001 : Valid questions, but only time can tell about the answer to them. Personally I do not think that in 10 years times the relative positions of Airbus a
51 mogandoCI : is this the same EADS that was also "convinced" they don't need a clean sheet 300-seat twin, and opted for the A330neo instead (aka A350 Mk I) ? but t
52 ckfred : Airbus has made the right move for the short term, but the wrong move for the long term. If you have a fleet of older A320 family aircraft, even even
53 OzGlobal : I've read the article. These are entirely your words and your assertion and in no way refelect the quotes cited of Gallois cited in the article. He j
54 Post contains images EPA001 : That remains to be seen. I am not so sure about that, especially if the that plane would be a lot bigger. I think Airbus made the right move for the
55 CFBFrame : Let's wait til January 2012 and and get project updates before we make such comments. But that's a discussion about technology options, which shows t
56 JoeCanuck : While it may have been accurate at the time, it has been superseded by new information. If you wish to use fuel savings as a metric, use consistent n
57 YTZ : His statement might well validate the CSeries. It's got the same engines. Which means the only extra efficiency is coming from the airframe. And Bomba
58 pylon101 : I am not an Airbus fan or Boeing cheer leader. But isn't it amazing the The Duopoly - which theoretically should be interested in stability and stuts
59 mariner : That shouldn't prevent people from fulfilling their obligations. In any present discussion of Airbus finances and strategy, I would expect them to ex
60 LAXDESI : Not a large advantage if one takes into account the higher seating capacity(4%) of 738(over A320) and lower OEW of 738. I wonder if Boeing is plannin
61 parapente : Reply 55. but to declare your competition foolish for leveraging a different path is.......... I am not suggesting that they are foolish.In fact just
62 LAXDESI : I hope your estimates are correct. If there is not a significant weight penalty, then it certainly would be a game changer for many airlines.
63 woodsboy : Over the next 15 years Boeing will continue to build and sell 737s (or at least for some portion of that time) and Airbus will be building and selling
64 AirNZ : This is not the first time you have stated this.......can you give a factual basis for your knowledge of what Airbus can, or cannot, deliver in respe
65 EPA001 : Well the rumors have it Airbus will have sold 500 by this summer already. Since the B797 would enter service around 2019/2020, I would think Airbus c
66 flipdewaf : We're basically in te reverse situation of the early nineties. This time airbus will do the update and boric will do the cleansheet. Everyone will be
67 ukoverlander : I'm really quite surprised by what I'm reading here regarding "who blinked first". The reality is Airbus logically have taken the option to captializ
68 flipdewaf : BRAVO!!!! More from this chap! Fred
69 Aesma : Most major airlines outside the US change planes quite often, so they already got rid of MD-80s and 737 classics and old A320, are candidates for A32
70 CFBFrame : That's if and only if you fly the optimum route. On the other hand if you fly either a/c on less than optimum route, current fuel burn is a wash. You
71 Aesma : Well, the original A350 would look really good right now, and could even have EIS before the 787, so if anything, Airbus will keep the neo, even if th
72 Asiaflyer : That was what Boeing according to good sources started already last year, which generated strong sales numbers.
73 Post contains images rheinwaldner : No, I spoke of headlines that emerged in the last half year. There were a lot of airlines saying this or that about re-engined NB's. And hardly ever
74 JoeCanuck : No problem. If fuel expenses are 18% of overall expenses, an 11% fuel savings would give a 2% savings in overall expenses for a re-engined 737. For t
75 Burkhard : Not deeply. Airbus has RAISED the price for the NEO ( list price by 6 Mio € ) to increase its margin and participate in the advantages the airlines
76 rheinwaldner : Ok, good. I say that too. The overall cost figure usually is useless and therefore not used to advertize aircraft. Too much variables, too much unkno
77 JoeCanuck : Costs, even fuel expenses, are unique to every airline. Boeing issues a fuel burn prediction and clients will have to work out the overall expenses f
78 Post contains links tommytoyz : It's a lot more than just fuel burn: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-targets-for-737-clean-sheet.html "The airframer (Boeing) is also targeti
79 rheinwaldner : You miss completely what I wanted to say. Tell me why Boeing has chosen a figure (18%) for fuel cost that makes the 737NEO look bad? You can select a
80 Post contains images astuteman : Your post seems to indicate that you think that Airbus are completely clueless, as are the airlines that buy their planes.... I would bet you're wron
81 LAXDESI : Looking up WN income statement, I noticed that there are two major expense categories: Cost of revenue 44% Selling General Administrative 43% I suspec
82 RoseFlyer : I think you are putting far more analysis into the information found on FlightGlobal/Flight International than I would ever. They provide a lot of ac
83 Stitch : What does it matter what figure Boeing puts up in the public? The public isn't buying the plane. As JoeCanuck noted, each airline is going to run the
84 frmrCapCadet : At this point the chances that either A or B could reverse course(s) is significantly above zero. If I were Time magazine I would attach the invented
85 ikramerica : My take on this: A319/A320, MD80 series and 737NG are all smaller than the 738/9/727/A321. Those larger aircraft have always had a market segment, jus
86 Aesma : The difference between 15% better efficiency and 11% better efficiency is not 4% better efficiency, but 4,7%.
87 ikramerica : Should read "other THAN debt." Big difference.
88 RoseFlyer : That would be awesome as it would be the seat width and configuration that most airlines use for business class (DL, AA, etc) on 767s. But unfortunat
89 JoeCanuck : Ask Boeing. Besides, it doesn't matter. Whatever metric Boeing would have used with customers would also be what they used to compare it to the 320 s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Need For Aviation Magazines Anymore posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:41:27 by Boeingforever
No Need For The USAir A350 Deal posted Thu Jun 16 2005 22:35:35 by Beauing
Delta To Stay Solvent In 2005, No Need For Chp 11. posted Tue May 10 2005 13:43:55 by Juventus
No Need For Good Luck, He Won! posted Sat Jul 28 2001 16:36:45 by Hkgspotter1
No Clean Sheet A320 Replacement Pre 2024 -JL posted Thu Sep 17 2009 10:11:00 by Art
Emirates Sees Need For 10 748P posted Fri Sep 7 2007 14:45:02 by BoeingBus
Airports With No Narrow Body Service. posted Tue Jul 24 2007 22:33:54 by AA787823
Etihad Announces An Order For Narrow Body Aircraft posted Mon Apr 16 2007 15:25:29 by Ronerone
Humbert: Airbus Sees No A320 Replacement For Years posted Thu Jan 12 2006 19:56:33 by Leelaw
I Have No Seat For My Flight! Need Info! posted Sat Jul 20 2002 23:58:15 by GRZ-AIR