LAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47 Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 33717 times:
I wonder if it would be a simple 737NEO with no changes to wings, MLG etc or a major refresh to make it more competitive until 2030 against Cseries and likely entry by Embraer in the near future.
Airbus believes that a viable all-new single-aisle airliner will not arrive before 2030, due to the timing of the necessary advances in powerplant technology. It is therefore fairly confident that Boeing will end up deciding to launch a re-engined 737, rather than a clean-sheet narrowbody, to counter the A320neo.
Speaking in Toulouse during a briefing for journalists this week, Leahy said that engines, rather than airframe technology, are the main driver behind step-changes in fuel burn, so the pace of powerplant development will determine the timing of a viable all-new single-aisle.
Airbus calculates that for a clean-sheet design entering service in 2020, new airframe, systems, and aerodynamics technology could only deliver 3-3.5% better economics than today's A320. "So if you want to spend your $10-12 billion, you get that [3-3.5%] and the engines which are available in 2020 - the [A320neo's] GTF and Leap-X, or maybe something from Rolls-Royce with similar SFCs. That's one of the reasons we decided to launch the Neo."
packsonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 33334 times:
JL is probably spot on here:
"When United Airlines bought the A320, Boeing decided it needed to re-do the 737 and that's exactly what I think is going to happen again. When one big Boeing customer decides to go with the Neo, then all this 'BS' about game-changng airplanes available in 2020 will stop, and you'll see a re-engined 737."
pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 33188 times:
This appears to be a valuable statement.
It provides Airbus vision for 10 years ahead, at least.
No doubt JL is pretty well informed about what's going on in "Boeing".
The intrigue with 797 project is getting more and more interesting.
Heavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 824 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 33017 times:
In my opinion JL is not far off with his statements.
With some 1 billion US$ the costs for Airbus to do the A320NEO are comparatively small and for A320NEO customers the changes to the airframe are minimal thus the maintenance costs of the airframe will not be that much higher than the basic version, keeping additional maintenance expenses at a minimum.
Having to change the wings, landing gear and other items to accommodate the larger diameter engines the costs for Boeing to do a 737NEO are halfway the cost of a building an entirely new airframe. They will have to recoup that higher investment by pricing the revamped version accordingly having the choice of being uncompetitive or reducing margins. Being a substantially different airframe costs for maintenance, training etc will raise substantially for buyers of the B737NEO.
Likely that was the motivation for Boeing to float the idea of an all new design. But that new design will cost even more to develop, so acquisition costs will be even higher. And there will be no commonality with an existing airframe and thus require a substantial investment by operators for maintenance, training etc.
And it will be later on the market for what - a 3-5 % improvement in fuel consumption over the A320NEO?
It appears Boeing is cought between a rock and a hard place, it will be interesting to see how they are going to resolve that situation. The Le Bourget show will likely hold some surprises and I expect Boeing to show their hand then.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5797 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32888 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): He's not, he's giving his opinion. Unlike many given here, his is made from a knowledgeable position. There are plenty of others who also doubt the wisdom of launching an all-new narrowbody just now.
Doesn't he pretty much HAVE TO say this? I mean how could he say anything different being that Airbus is committed to the A320NEO? I doubt the customers would appreciate a statement like: "Oh I think Boeing is spot on and will be able to deliver significant savings in both fuel and maintenance area's with an all new design."
Really there is nothing else that Mr. Leahy could say other than what he did, whether he is right or not. So the real issue is not what Mr. Leahy said but what will Boeing actually do? And that is a decision that is not yet known and will be made by Boeing regardless of what John Leahy says.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Tangowhisky From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32853 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): I do believe Boeing will develop and launch a 737neo, be it as their only response or in conjunction with a 797.
I agree. The 737NEO and 797 will address two different markets. The NEO will be there to protect the current 737 market share for Boeing, while the slightly larger twin aisle 797 will fit between the 737NEO and widebody 787.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32729 times:
Leahy may often speak with forked tongue but I reckon he's dead on in this case...for exactly the reasons he states. There is no guarantee that a new plane will get any more than the current half of the market Boeing already has, even if they can get another few percent advantage out of it.
Leahy is using the same logic comparing any all new Boeing craft to the NEO, that Boeing is using comparing the NG to the NEO. Basically, is a few percentage advantage worth the cost of development?
Boeing is losing nothing studying and presenting all new concepts and if somebody was willing to bite, they would do it.
Otherwise, I think the answer is for 1-3 billion...yes. For 10 billion, no.
BEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 982 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32705 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): It is therefore fairly confident that Boeing will end up deciding to launch a re-engined 737, rather than a clean-sheet narrowbody, to counter the A320neo.
Leahy is hoping to get more A320 NEO orders before Boeing reveals a design that would end up saving far more than 3%-5% he mentions. This statement shows that Airbus is a bit nervous Boeing didn't jump the gun and respond with a counter-solution (re-engine) the day after Airbus decided to go with NEO.
Boeing can very well develop a solution that can use whatever engine technology is available today and leave enough margin (call it module or whatever approach) to re-engine in the future.
FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
pylon101 From Russia, joined Feb 2008, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32706 times:
Right. The whole point of the 797 idea is not based on fuel saving.
It appears to be about meeting traffic growth, airports clogged, a possible shift to higher capacity, etc.
JL's statement doesn't include these aspects.
Say, we have 30-40 daily flights between Moscow and St.Petersburg - on top of 20 daily trains.
But people still prefer to fly - and air traffic increases on this particular route.
What to say about a hundred (or so) flights between Madrid and Barcelona?
brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32487 times:
We are at the point at which decisions made on the 737NG to please WN are biting Boeing in the rear. If they had abandoned ground level loading with a longer landing gear, they wouldn't have the clearance problems they are currently having with re-engining the 737. $0.02.
My opinion is that Airbus is sitting pretty with the A320neo right now. I agree with Leahy, the 797 as envisioned is BS.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 32295 times:
Quoting scbriml (Reply 3): He's not, he's giving his opinion. Unlike many given here, his is made from a knowledgeable position.
And yet when Boeing's executive team states they believe the 737NG can fight an A320neo without a dramatic overhaul, they're laughed out of the forum. Trust me, they have knowledge on how the A320 performs today and how an A320neo should perform tomorrow.
As tugger noted, Airbus' executive team has to downplay the 797 just as Boeing's has to downplay the A320neo. Both are playing from positions with both strengths and weaknesses, and they need to play up those strengths and downplay the weaknesses while also downplaying the strengths of their counterparts and playing up their weaknesses.
The true audience for these statements is the global investment community, not the airlines. Both Boeing and Airbus want to keep the investment dollars flowing into their respective coffers so they have the capital necessary to fund these new programs when they do go forward, so they want very much to make the case their decision is the right one, and their opposition's decision is the wrong one.
The airlines are at best likely paying lip-service to them. They have their own internal teams whose job it is to model how these aircraft are going to perform for them in their specific configurations using their specific mission rules.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3192 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32153 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 16): The airlines are at best likely paying lip-service to them. They have their own internal teams whose job it is to model how these aircraft are going to perform for them in their specific configurations using their specific mission rules.
How about we listen to someone who buys from both (SUH):
"He notes that bolstered efficiency "could come in several ways", adding: "That could come, for example, and I'm not telling you what Boeing will do or won't do, but for example a slightly larger fan diameter on the new-generation Boeing airplane versus the [A320]neo could give it a several percent fuel advantage just the way the airplane is designed, whereas the A320 is already an A320. It can't be redesigned for this engine."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31435 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 32098 times:
Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 17): How about we listen to someone who buys from both (SUH):
Exactly. People seem to be assuming that the 797 will use the exact same engines as the A320neo with identical fan diameters and internals.
By entering service later, P&W and CFM could develop new versions with larger fans and higher pressures and implement other advances that could lower fuel burn by a not-insignificant margin over the engines that are being designed for the A320neo.
So if you can get 6% better out of the engine and 4% better out of the airframe, the 797 could be 10% better than the A320neo and that would be something airlines would take note of, me thinks.
cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 31890 times:
There are a factors that signal the 797 is not BS.
1. There is a big gap between current NBs and the next smallest thing 767. A 4000nm class New Twin Light addresses growth markets in both pax and cargo capacity.
2. Since launch of A320 Neo, the mentality towards oil price has changed significantly.
3. Lessons learn and confidence gained from CFRP will be put to good use plus a 797 family will let Boeing establish early dominance of CFRP supply chain.
IMHO, we may even be surprised by an early 797 EIS schedule.
That said, I believe Boeing needs to and will find ways to leverage new engines on their 737s. PW GTF may be too good to ignore.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 31781 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11): Leahy is using the same logic comparing any all new Boeing craft to the NEO, that Boeing is using comparing the NG to the NEO. Basically, is a few percentage advantage worth the cost of development?
I tend to agree with that.
I've heard the argument that the -NEO is only garnering orders that the A320 would have got anyway, and hasn't prompted any defections from Boeing.
By the same token, if the -NEO continues to gain the sort of momentum it appears to be gaining, it seems clear that existing Airbus users are quite content to stay that way, even with the prospect of an "All-new Boeing" on the horizon.
In truth, Mr Albaugh appears to agree with Mr Leahy, when he says that the existing 737 is quite capable of meeting the NEO threat on its own merits.
In which case why bother with an all-new plane?
Quoting BEG2IAH (Reply 12): Leahy is hoping to get more A320 NEO orders before Boeing reveals a design that would end up saving far more than 3%-5% he mentions
And seems to be succeeding.. Which implies that current Airbus operators at least are content with Airbus's approach.
LH are held up as the voice of reason that committed to the 748i. And have just ordered A32X NEO......
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 13): It appears to be about meeting traffic growth, airports clogged, a possible shift to higher capacity, etc.
Astuteman: I noted the winkie there, but (and I know you well enough after these years to know you get this), it's quite a bit different to upsize the smaller frames, vs the top end of the marketplace.
I don't (for example) know of many high-frequency 777 or 747 routes that can absorb a 380 nearly as easily as the high-frequency 737/320 routes that could easily absorb an extra 30ish seats and trim a frequency (or two) a day.
I mean hell, even relatively little Toronto here has some segments where flights leave on the half hour, that could *easily* be serviced every 45 minutes with a larger aircraft and no one (in the public) would care and the airline would be laughing all the way to the bank
I think the realities of the two market segments are very different, almost unrelated to each other (beyond over arching factors that affect all air-travel).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
: I think Boeing will go with a new frame. It's either spend the money now for a new frame or spend it later, regardless of where the engine development
: As said earlier, that might be the case, but early signs indicate that the NEO is gaining strong market traction, despite the prospect of airlines "t
: There are a few of us who believe that the re-engined A330 was the right decision - and still think so. That same few of us believe that the weak and
: And so it should, since I would not expect airlines to choose not to grow for the latter half of this decade and wait for the 797, especially when th
: Airbus and Leahy sure didn't forget this when they were crowing about the Trent XWB's superiority to the Trent 1000. If this is Airbus's claim, it is
: I was wondering when John Leahy started working for the Boeing PR Department.
: Which have been posted on this site, inlcluding some who are engineers, sales men, other professional's etc etc. etc., they may not be knowledgable a
: And he did sell over 200 frames of it in the relatively short period it was available for sale. mariner
: And I think that is a very valid question. If Boeing sees the smaller end of the marketplace getting crowded out by the likes of Bombardier and Comac
: Exactly. He is a salesman and a salesman for Airbus. It is incumbent on him to promote the company's product but he does not decide what that product
: He is also Chief Operating Officer (since July 2005). Not sure what that title entails in an EU corporation, but in a US corporation, the COO is usua
: What John Leahy IMO actually does with this statement is that he is challenging, and in a sense, provoking Boeing. He says: "You can't build the 797 i
: The presentations and an interview with Leahy are available at http://airinsight.com/
: Look at the wording : Airframe and systems and aerodynamic technology would bring only 3 to 3.5 % better economics than to-days A320. ...in other wor
: I think Boeing does the 737RE but will grow the fan only as big as the current landing gear allows, if at all, and leave all the engineering work to t
: Maybe the 797 is the 757 replacement.........
: At the end of the day, he is actually saying the same things that Boeing folks and their fans and others have been saying in the Boeing thread on a cl
: Why does this comment stir the pot? Some of us have been pointing to this probability for weeks, including some at Boeing. The question becomes: with
: Airbus seems to be referring to fuel burn when they say "economics", while Boeing appears to be talking Total Cost of Ownership. So making a direct co
: I've always been very confused about that title. It was my understanding that he his correct title is "Chief Operating Officer - Customers" but I kno
: Raise your hands if your afraid of the impact the 797 would have on the industry....perhaps jealous that others didn't think of the concept in the fir
: I was going off Wiki, which notes his titles as "Chief Commerical Officer" (his original title since 1994) and "Chief Operating Officer" (his additio
: IMO, 737NEO is a "low risk/low investment" decision that buys Boeing a lot of time to firm up the type of 797 it should offer. As for the 797, if it
: JL is a marketer, and we all know that. In 2020, engine technology won't get a quantum leap and we know that too. There are many airlines who already
: As much as I would like to see a successful 797 launch soon, I don't see it the way that you do. A worst-case scenerio would mean that Boeing ace's t
: I'm sure this is what Leahy wants Boeing to do, just like all of Boeing's crowing about how nobody wanted a re-engine. And also unlike many here, he h
: Like just about everyone else, SUH has an agenda, he sees aircraft through a different prism. As a lessor, he is properly concerned about the residua
: Also, just a few short weeks ago Mike Bair pointed out: Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ean-sheet---boeings-all-new-1.html Somehow Mr. Le
: Which is why I say GE has to play hard and fast with Boeing and it will be them going into the market proclaiming what they are able to deliver by 20
: Thanks, for some reason I can't access the Airbus website today. And, while we're clearing things up: I know it has become the Conventional Wisdom th
: In my view that must be so. Both the 757 and the 767 sold over 1,000 frames each. On the other hand, the 737-900 has not sold well. There would appea
: Here's another piece of what JL is calling "BS": The mindset Boeing has is a lot different than the one Leahy is portraying, presumably since Airbus h
: A noble response but still begs the question, where did the rhetoric begin? Why do we fail to ask the important questions. Why would someone with no
: What's not careful about "IF the NEO continues to gain momentum". I in no way implied it was guaranteed. But then again, neither have I attempted to
: I now think the NEO was the right move for Airbus given the relative ease of adding the new engine. After all, rewarming the 737 a few times worked o
: For once we're in entire agreement, astuteman. I'd add to your point that the Old A350 would have had no chance at all of competing with the 777, whi
: Yes, that was brilliant. Yet Leahy seems to think that Boeing aiming at the midpoint between the 737 and the 787 is a bad idea? So if the past is pre
: The A320 didn't have a large operator base when it was launched (more like none), it wasn't a low risk investment (riskier than Boeing's clean-sheet
: I don't think it was a "bad" decision at all. I don't know if it was the best decision, but I think it was the expedient decision. At that time the a
: Okay, we'll have to disagree because I remember sitting in meetings wondering what Airbus was talking about and their expectations of demanding suppl
: No I don't think so either. The probably sold at least a few on cargo, but neither FBW nor extra cabin space (5 inches or whatever it is) has likely
: Things would be very interesting that's for sure, and it may well happen. My guess is Boeing wants to upsize this market a bit in terms of seats.. it
: I think it came earlier than that, mariner - in early 2006 (as far as I recall) when Air India evaluated both aircraft and chose the 787. Up to that
: It would be nice to have some performance data now to show capability? When numbers are not rolling out you have to wonder, but this is not a 787 dis
: You might be implying JL, but he is not part of a.net. The difference to me is that the sweet spot of the narrowbody market might be moving higher, b
: Not if the 737NEO is pretty close to A320NEO in terms of cash operating costs per seat.
: It isn't just you. Most of a.net seems and much of the airline world seems to believe that John Leahy said it. And he may have - later. But Forgeard
: I do not think the 797 is a 737/A320 size or price aircraft. I do not see a 797 being in service for another 8 years, I think Airbus could sell 4-500
: Tried to google the date of the Air India order and got two, mariner; April 2005 and January 2006. I can only conclude that the first was the period
: Historically, you can get 0.5-0.75% better SFC a year - if you go to a larger fan diameter to do that, you have to calculate with more drag and more
: The only thing that counts against this statement is that the 787-3 was designed to be able to target this market and attracted virtually no interest
: The 787-3 was designed for the intra-Japanese network. At maximum payload, it could only fly 2300km and was so aerodynamically-crippled to fit in a 7
: It isn't a question of that. The Air India order was so clouded by politics that I don't regard it as representative of anything. I think - as in I t
: Boeing had an offering in this class, the 787-300 and they dropped it due to lack of demand, so I can not really see what has changed since then.
: Quite so. There have been many references to the difficulty of scaling-down the current B (or A) CFRP technology to the "narrow-body market". JLs rem
: .... And this has been confirmed by Boeing, that they either come with a small wide body twin aisle, or a 737NEO, or both, but no single aisle all ne
: The 777 was around for years before the A350 was announced, Airbus believed that they could compete with the 777 with the A340, the decision may have
: True enough, brindabella - on the basis of 'all other things being equal.' But Boeing just patented yet another variation on the CFRP route - what th
: I think the original A350 was very competitive with the 787-8, however not so with the 787-9 or 777. It only addressed the A330-200/300, leaving the
: Last statement is not true - indeed I think it was Jim Albaugh who siad recently that he is not really convinced of the small widebody concept. This
: Which is what it was intended to do, investors and other's convinced Airbus that it was better to bring in a whole new family with a broader market r
: Indeed. It's so strange seeing the company that pulled off the all-new A320, A330, A340 and A380 in the same time frame as Boeing did a reheated 737
: Is there any chance that Airbus struk some kind of exclusive deal with PW for the GTF so that they can not particapate on future 737 upgrade or new na
: ] Much like Boeing managed to make the old 737 competitive with the A320 in the nineties? Why is that? I suppose Boeing are pretty annoyed with have j
: Leahy is always trying to sway the minds of potential customers and bash his competition. Similar to discrediting the CSeries, and now the decision to
: The 787-3 was not optimized for this role by any stretch of the imagination, it was a kneecapped 787-8 with clipped wings to fit into the 767 gates.
: But what to say about JL if Boeing abandons the 797, like they did with the Sonic Cruiser and the 7J7 and builds the 737IV gen which I think is highl
: Every time I read one of these threads I can't help but think that timing doesn't matter, head to head competition doesn't matter, heck most factors w
: That hasn't happened yet. The ones argueing a case for the 797 have been shouting this for the entire thread. Yes, perhaps Boeing is throwing the 797
: Here's a question. What if Pratt were to develop it's own STC for installing the PW1100G on the 737NG? Probably wouldn't make many friends at Boeing,
: There's a great deal of difference if you are entering a market, if you are established on a market or if you are dominating a certain market. He did
: Hey gang - forgive a newbie question, but what about the 787-3, or some appropriate-capacity alternate based on that platform? For those of you who ju
: And they could call it the 767-350 could they not? And probably not the worst idea for a paper airplane on these threads this week either!
: That's where I think you're wrong. I do think Airbus knows better than any of us here what Boeing is currently doing. They are in active talks with a
: As someone living in Canada, there is more than enough stink around the AC Airbus order for the 330s and 340s, that I don't this Airbus considered AC
: Pratt has long been talking about putting a GTF on the 737NG, so I would say that there is no such deal. The agreement between GE and Boeing applies
: Bit of confusion regarding the unnamed (797 on a-net) new build. I understood Boeing statements that it would have a little more capacity and a little
: Can you show me there where he is "making decisions" for Boeing, rather than your comment done for pure effect? Indeed, can I quote you next time any
: Sure, it was. As I said, pretty much everyone was smoking it. It was quite a party. But then Qantas came down off the high, faced the reality of the
: Actually, JL statement really sounds as "making decision for Boeing". Anyway, he used strong language - and that is why I called his wording "valuabl
: There's a big difference between "Leahy expects" and "Leahy says" He says whatever he thinks will sell more new 320s. Given his complete and utter di
: I suppose, but I think Boeing knows a lot more about what Boeing is thinking, and there are plenty of articles to read where they say exactly what th
: Not being a 1 sided fan of either Airbus or Boeing, I listened to the whole 40 min of JL's presentation. One thing he said was not mentioned here. In
: I feel more sorry for Air New Zealand, and not just because I live here (I'm Australian). Air NZ is a very small airline in the big scheme of things
: Market discussion on CNBC regarding the replacement of the current 737 and the market's awareness that a large-scale replacement of the 737 is about t
: True. Air Canada was the one that really struck me as a defection, but I don't know the overall timing. Regardless, the two of them together really s
: I thought the Air Canada decision was a kick at Airbus (widebodies) generally, not just specifically the A350. At the time, it was said they removing
: I'm an engine nut and I have issues with this quote in the OP: Historically, it has been 50/50. A new narrow body with a CFRP wing, hi-li aluminum, mo
: And Boeing won that because they were cheaper.
: I'm not disputing that at all, I believe it may be true, but it's not a statement I've often read on a.net. mariner
: Thing is, Fred, as the patent describes, using composites means that they can differentially strengthen key areas of the fuselage skin by adding extr
: Indeed, but I remember QF stating that it came down to price.
: You may be correct. I don't remember the details as much as the overall picture at the time. -Dave
: It was far more than that. It came down to overall value over the life of the frame in QF's colours, which will likely be 20+ years. It also came dow
: I love history, even recent history, it's what I do. I am at my happiest when I am snuffling around in the past and your post sent me off on a dig. A
: My first thoughts too, but an extensive discussion here around December last persuaded me otherwise. Since then, however, B have won the KC-X competi
: The KC-46 has Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines, not GE CF6.
: GTF will be on the C-Series, the NEO, and the C919, so no exclusive. PW has the chance with the GTF to be from 2015-2030 what GE was with the CFM fro
: At the moment, the jury is out on the type itself, pending airline operational data+experience, I would think. IMO the cock-up goes way-back. Before
: I agree. Airbus is in the position where they've already chosen not to upgrade the airframe, so of course Leahy will say there is no gain to be had f
: Oh Mariner, please there is only so much laughter one can take in one afternoon. First a couple of hours just trying to get access to a website of a
: Only fair to point out, Burkhard, that the 787 may be late, but the 'Older A350' they would otherwise have ordered will never arrive at all!
: Since Qantas didn't order the Old A350, I assume that is totally irrelevant to them. It would never have arrived at Qantas anyway. mariner[Edited 201
: I think that diagram (sketch?) is just that, Baroque. Possibly deliberately uninformative - why give the opposition ideas they haven't found for them
: In which case it will start to look like a Lancaster or Liberator cross section. So the shape cannot have been patented??? And it appears that A woul
: Why not? The Lanc and the Lib worked quite well in their time? Though not in the passenger field, I admit........
: As above, PW won the contract. They are doing a PIP but it's only good for 1-2%. Bottom line: The 767 just isn't commercially viable any more. It'll
: Which is somewhat ironic in the circumstances... Which was the "bottom line" It's interesting that the productionisation that Airbus was "forced" to
: Well as the York, even passengers. But that is the point, most SHAPES have been used, so it would be difficult to patent them. So it would have to be
: Quite so. I am looking for a definitive statement to confirm a couple of comments that I have previously read on the forum. cheers, Billy
: I believe that Boeing has to re-gain the trust of the airlines again before it starts the next complete clean sheet like the B797. First they have to
: Initial position: A320's outdelivered 737NG's since the beginning. Action: one of the two gets overhauled which is not the 737NG. Result: better than
: Not so, Baroque. They could ONLY use panels because Boeing had already patented "One-piece inner shell for full barrel composite fuselage" back in 20
: I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say panels were Airbus's ONLY option. There's always more than one way to skin a cat and Boeing's patent only c
: Agree - and the 'magic words' were 'one-piece.' Can't be 're-interpreted' or misunderstood. That guy earned his fee all right.......
: Absolutely. Boeing's patent can not block something that was done before already. The patent only prohibts "a one-piece inner shell for full-barrel c
: 77 Just as a matter of interest, rheinwalder - why d'you think Airbus are using separate fuselage panels instead of one-piece on the A350, then? Must
: I have explained my opinion about that here: Cfrp Panel Fuselages Superior (?) (by Rheinwaldner Jan 25 2008 in Tech Ops)
: Indeed. The 737 production line literally ground to a halt in the late 90s and was shut down for a few weeks because it could not cope with large num
: Do you actually believe that Boeing would commit to anything based on what JL says Amazing (and somewhat disappointing) that there are some on this f
: Fair enough, rheinwaldner. In a couple of years or so, when the A350 is in the later stages of flight-testing, we'll be able to compare notes on comp
: I think Boeing's been quite open and honest about what its thoughts are. From what we read here on a.net, McNearney, Albaugh, Bair, Piesecki, etc wou
: Good post, Revelation. But I'd say that they're probably leaning pretty far over. the 757/767 were (and remain) pretty successful aeroplanes in comme
: It will be interesting to see what Jetstar do if/when they order more A32xs. QF have reasons to want to let new engines have a bed in period. They mi
: The 739 is on the tail of the bell curve of the 737 family, just like A321 is. Whatever Boeing does next will only resemble the 739 in pax count. Cur
: [quote=Revelation,reply=149]I'm sure you didn't mean to slight PM by not including the RR Advance3 included in that list, right? Quoting NAV20 (Reply
: Well, Leahy didn't say the 797 wouldn't be several percent more efficient than the A320neo, in fact he said it would be ! The point being those sever
: Cheers! Thanks for bringing up the Merlin, the engine that made the P-51 the plane it needed to become! Both are unknowns. If Boeing goes all-new, th
: If (and I think ti is a big if) Boeing builds the 797 it probably can compete with A320 but the real problem starts when Airbus launches the all new
: I'd simply say, Aesma, that (IMO) that is the worst possible business strategy. 'IMO' only because I've never tried it - or, as a consultant, ever re
: ...which will happen the next day after Boeing annouces the 797 program Actually, such a rare Airbus fans' unity (under leadership of John Leahy) rev
: Yes, it'll always be a penalty, however if it opens a new market segment for Boeing, perhaps the 320 replacement will have to follow Boeing's lead.
: I was hoping you would adress the problem short range WB faces against similar generation short range NB competitor
: Why would I? It was a joke. The issue was already covered well enough. I am not an A-fan or B-cheerleader. But I would like Boeing to establish a new
: This sounds like the perfect engine for the 737NG series. If they could build it so that it could be retrofitted to existing airframes.... there woul
: Because it's limited, even in ER form. It can't do what the 757 does of the 738 does, so it's not really a viable aircraft to replace the 757 or be i
: I thought that there likely wouldn't be a larger frontal area on the 797, since Boeing is seemingly trying for a "semi-elliptical" fuselage shape?
: ...and now for something completely different. Well, not really...but every little tidbit that gets out keeps us from getting bored. http://www.flight
: Wishlist maybe? Besides, this Powerpoint slide thing is quite similar to how the public got photos of a re-engined 737 in wind tunnel testing. It wou
: It was a slow news day anyway. I poo poo'ed the concept of Boeing doing both a re-engine and going all new...but I'm starting to wonder if they might
: Same here. After all, their development team has just about finished the 'heavy lifting' on both the 788 and the 748, they have to find a new project
: The abstract work, the concept work, on the A350XWB should all be done, those folks should be available to be thinking of other things. And if we are
: Hi, Aesma. If B management opted to produce a 797 which was NOT far more attractive to the airlines than the A320neo family, there would be no contai
: I am happy I am not the only one who does not understand what semi-elleptical really means.
: More or less 'oval,' mate. More width for less height; 'equals' more seats for no increase in frontal area or fuselage length. Previously pressurised
: For the aerodynamicistic boffins out there; Does a 10%, (for example), increase in frontal area always mean a 10% increase in drag...given the same sh
: We are still awaiting the calculations for frontal area.
: The short answer is no, it depends on the shape and speed
: A smart question, Joe. Obviously we need a erodynamics specialist to answer this. Sure it is not 10% = 10%.
: This is misleading. The short answer is yes, it is linear because we can say that the shape of the object is more or less the same and of course the
: I'd vote for Texas as the location of the new "Boeing City" plant. Katrina, Japan Tsunami, and Renton strikes all point for a new production line ind
: I would say around 2025, so ten years after the A32xneo. And, to be honest, the engines of the neo save 15 percent against the current ones, so i am
: If they require more ground clearance than the A320neo and C919 can offer...
: I don't think so, since drag is going to be based not only on frontal area, but surface area as well. I'm not sure a "Boeing City" would be as good a
: The story is if. As far as I understood from another thread, Airbus would still have some margin with even a larger fan. As well a change in ground c
: Agree about the possible body lift, packsonflight. Which, of course, would allow smaller and/or thinner wings if it occurs. As to the amount of drag,
: Not sure how relevent that depiction is, but I noticed one little detail on the right that might change to whole equation. "Shape-Morphing composites
: I vey much hope so. It would be 2-2-2 with option 2-3-2. For short routes/LCC it will be 2-3-2. But QR and the likes will go with 2-2-2 for their 3-6
: Funny what you find. This Geoffrey Thomas article is from back in 2007! "Speaking to ATWOnline late last week, Commercial Airplanes President Scott Ca
: Interesting idea. Say it cost $10 billion each to do a 737 replacement and 757/767 replacement for a total of $20 billion. Could they save $5 billion
: I would think that would depend on the commonality across the two families. Using a common wing (perhaps with different wingtip extensions ala the 78
: And Boeing could very possibly build both models on the same line? Maintenance and spares savings for the airlines, too; presumably a lot of procedur
: I am sorry but what Boeing-787 is if not Boeing-767 replacement? As far as I understand the whole point is that due to various reaons (all of them met
: Sorry pylon101 - I tend to include the 767 as part of the hole in Boeing's range because it was very useful in the midhaul area - the 787s are longhau
: I agree by a 100%. The gap left by the B753/762/763 and also A310/306 on medium hauls is still open. Maybe the chinese or brazils will fill that role
: I think we're all fixating on the physical size and passenger capacity of the A330-200, A350-800 and 787-8 and therefore assuming that they are just t
: I'm also betting on 797 being more of a 757/762 replacement, with a wider fuselage than the 737/757 but not quite as wide as the 767. The gear will be
: No! JL never can directly steer Boeing. But he can send messages so that airlines draw conlusions. And the airlines can then steer Boeing. B.t.w. has
: And what wording would JL possibly choose for this purpose, I am wondering?
: Size is not the problem for shorter flights - weight is the problem. All new widobody airplanes are optimized for long flights and carry too much str
: It doesn't seem to be that much of a problem, especially if aerodynamics are significantly better. An empty 787-3 weighed over 10 tons less than an e
: It is a problem and is the reason why airlines are still looking for a real replacement. Are you sure these new birds were mainly ordered for the sam
: Boeing did the same with the A380, said how much better the 747-400 &-8i were, and customers came out saying the A380 was doing better than adver
: There are a few of us who believe that the re-engined A330 was the right decision - and still think so. That same few of us believe that the weak and
: Ok, it's tricky while demonstrating big confidence in the A320NEO at the same time. And there is much reason for him to be confident about the A320NE
: I'm morally certain that that's how he actually feels, rheinwaldner. After all, he's in touch with the airlines (even the US ones) just as closely as
: I believe that people of this rank are supposed to make public statements in good faith. There might be some variables in the context. But basically h
: Ha! You're a one nav! I can't wait till next time I'm cash strapped, I'll cheer myself up by buying a couple of aircraft carriers or launching a few
: You know with cash and cash equivalents at 5,030 million Euros at end 2010, how much do they need not to be "strapped for cash"?
: Oh dear, Baroque........ They HAVE to hold large amounts of cash because, otherwise, given the fact that they're not doing much more than 'breaking e
: Perhaps you can tell us what these are. I assume you are going from page 64 of the 2010 accounts. That looks to me like about 4.2 billion that might
: Yes, they make no profit but yet manage to find billions of euros lying around. You do talk a lot of twoddle. It's actually quite amusing for many on
: Very simple answer, Fred. It's 'political.' The European governments want Airbus to keep going. The European banks are 'complying'; but, in fairness
: Meanwhile back on planet Earth the reality looks quite different: http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/inve...s-to-funding/outstanding-debt.html http://ww
: It seems to me the critical question for the Boeing NB is the number of passengers the smallest model it would seat. The original 737 held 124 in one
: Guys! What are talking about? Even if we had the whole Price Waterhouse Cooper avaialble for a.netters - they still would not be able to provide relia
: Boeing not so sure about an imminent new plane anymore?? Boeing shelved 737RE–new airplane appears to be shelved for now, too Cheers JD
: I actually didn't expect Boeing to come up with something at Paris Air Show. Nothing to present as of yet. Take your time, Boeing.
: Why would WE worry about that when we've got NAV20 to turn to for that privilege? Rgds
: If there is no 737RE, I am sure some aggressive discounting on the current 737NG will help Boeing keep most of its current market share. From the lin
: I'm not sure they are looking for a replacement. When Boeing first discussed the 7E7 with customers, the baseline model was similar in capacity to th
: I think similar to the 757 'replacements' out there, they were bought to replace the 767s on missions at the edge of the 767 envelope. They were also
: There is nothing new in the article. Cut away the chaff and it says, "Boeing hasn't decided what they plan to do" ....which is the status quo.
: actually it says "Boeing hasn't told anyone what their final plans are. "
: I am starting to think they don't have a plan.
: I think they have lots of plans and they are taking their time to decide which one will be best for them.
: Why? Because they haven't come onto a.net and answered the speculation? They have a timeline for announcing their plans. We are privy to neither, so
: They could do that already today. But they don't seem to keep most of their market share. But it has a horrible market share (don't consider the NEO
: You keep saying this, but it doesn't make any sense considering that there are more 737s in airline service today than A320s so the 737's share of th
: To be honest, when you look how far out the A32XNEO commitments are being made, you could argue that, for this year at least, it might be a good thin
: "It is selling well this year" tells something about this year. When I respond to it and say "but it has a horrible market share" the comment of cour
: For 2011, the 737 has 98 Gross Orders to date. For 2011, the A320 has less than 69 (since Airbus no longer appears to provide monthly updates and the
: Analyst Buckingham Research has changed its view that there will be a clean sheet announcement this year: "Our view has been that Boeing will develop
: Ow deary me. NAV20, you really have to stop beating that poor dead horse.You have made these statements about a "cash strapped" EADS before and every
: I assume they have at least a couple of possible plans, but I see no reason for Boeing to rush to a decision. I don't think the NEO changes the equat
: I know perfectly well how much firm commitments exist. Therefore I said: And: So counting the MOU's does not distort the message more than you are by
: That only works if you define a time period and there is nothing in the definition of 'market share' that specifies only current sales or sales withi
: Then you must completely misunderstand the following headlines from arbitrary news articles. Here the simple term "market share" is used without any
: As expected: the same topic, which keeps us busy in several threads is nothing else then the internal fight within Boeing about what to do. Problem:
: Most of this thread is about "either/or" RE vs NB.But there is ? the third option of "Doing Nothing".Some have commented that this route is feasable v
: Perhaps you should read your own examples a bit closer before questioning some else's understanding of something. They are using market share as perc
: Boeing could decide to purchase Bombardier Aerospace for the same amount of money and introduce the CS500 to take business away from the A319/320NEO.
: Of course that is an option I did not mention. It even more stresses the complexity where Boeing has to find the path through and how difficult it is
: You mean that the headlines alone are ambiguous? Of course nobody would understand that they mean over all times. That's my only point. Stitch consis
: Looks as if the rumours about no announcement in July 'have legs.' That could be boardroom disagreements, as some of the stories say; but in my view i
: This plainly wrong How can Boeing ignore the 737 segment which is probably the cash generator of the company, and focus instead on the 75/76 when the
: This works when there is a market to go after. In the case of the 797, Boeing (and Airbus) might not be sure that there is a market. They know that a
: For that many seats, a 2-3-2 platform will be more efficient. Perhaps the 2-2-2 that you are proposing could be wide enough for 2-3-2 with 17" wide s
: +$100 oil is here to stay. Given both A and B have access to the same engines, the only way for Boeing to draw a big enough performance gap from A320
: I think more like say 230 seats in 2-3-2/2-2-2 and two classes, panais (say 34-odd rows); but otherwise I agree entirely.
: In all fairness, if you consider those headlines being clear when you read the whole article, you should maybe have a look at the quotes earlier in t
: That's true for this year because Boeing has stayed at 31 airplanes per month and market share in terms of annual delivery is based on the production
: Pointless unless it incorporates moving the MLG pivot points further outboard to facilitate greater ground clearance for new engines. Somewhat more e
: Why would it be pointless? Is the current NG wing so optimal that there are simply not enough improvements to be made? But suppose they go the NEO wa
: I expect the A320neo to secure significant orders this year. However, let us say that the pundits are true and Airbus secures 1000 orders this year,
: They most certainly do still provide monthly updates. http://www.airbus.com/company/market/orders-deliveries/ The spreadsheet can be downloaded from
: I downloaded that, but all I could find were family totals, but that was because it starts on the Worldwide tab. Thanks. So the A320 family has 24 gr
: It is easy for Airbus to deal with "sold out" situation if it is this far down the road. Then they have the ability to increase production to lets sa
: I'm operating under the assumption they will already be at 50 frames per month. If they're not, then they'll be sold out even deeper towards 2020.
: On the basis of the suggestion that both companies cannot keep up with future demand then of course neither would be selling anything at less than ful
: Ok. fine. Then they have the ability to increase production to any number necessary to balance demand and production rate.
: This assumes Airbus can easily scale to a rate in the 60s or even 70s - how saturated are TLS and XFW's lines and can TJN scale significantly? Also,
: I would believe that the next production increase Airbus would consider is a production plant in the US - Alabama most probably. Airbus wants a dolla
: As A330 production winds down to primarily the A330 MRTT and A330-200F, all production could move to Alabama, freeing up space for an additional A320
: With the clear vission of hindsight: The fact that Airbus was ever allowed into the aviation market as a major player - which they managed on the bac
: I don't think that is true at all. Airbus exists because it fills a market need. Back when Boeing and MD were the major players, there was a small fr
: Boeing started development of the 737 Classic in 1979 and the first orders were placed in 1981, at which point the design was effectively locked-in.
: While I don't deny that there's room for improvement with the current wing (as evidenced by the row of vortex generators on it's upper surface), I'm
: Let's put a bit of perspective on this. Buckingham Research published a paper earlier this year saying they believed Boeing would announce a 797(737/7
: I remains to be see how much the weight increase really will be. Airbus still has more than 4 years to reduce the empty weight as they are doing righ
: They do but don't forget there is some wing/undercarriage strengthening required so there will be a weight penalty.
: Nice summary but a couple of factors you missed. Building fury at B at the thought of RLI and falling about laughing at the concept of producing the
: Though this certainly could be a factor we must be cautious not to put the cart before the horse. If this rule would be true, Airbus fans could go an
: Perhaps. It seems plausible that Airbus might sell out to the end of 2019 (at current rates) within the next 2 – 3 years On a statistical basis, th
: Could be 'interesting times' ahead. Boeing's current priority has to be bringing the 787 home. Equally, Airbus's has to be making a reality of the A3
: I wouldn't say they are sold, we really do not know what is going on at Boeing, they are sending out very confused messages at the moment. I think if
: Indeed. The old cert rules seem to be worth quite a few percentage points just by themselves. Abandon the 737, and grandfather departs the building a
: Undoubtedly true, Fred. But, equally, we DO know what is (or, rather, is NOT) 'going on' at Airbus. Just the A320NEO........ Some of my older relativ
: But Bair et al said they presented such a pitch to the customers and they were "underwhelmed"... Boeing is in a strange place. They want to build a p
: I agree that the intrigue is here. I love a.net. We can just say: If I were Boeing Anyway. If I were Boeing, I would proceed with a new airframe - ass
: Boeing hast a lot of reputation due to all missed promises and delivery targets. They first have to re-gain their customers trust - then the customer
: LOL - we all have anecdotes. Anecdotes are not facts. If you listened to my father - a British civil airline engineer who learned his trade with the
: Sorry. I hadn't had my coffee yet, so I was a bit off my game. Considering how people are pooh-poohing the 797, I'm not sure if Boeing had launched a
: A couple of points: (1) Shouldn't it be about making money and not necessarily selling more planes? (2) If Airbus weren't around or a much smaller co
: First, the EU would not let Airbus be a side note. Even if MD had built a better narrowbody and the MD11 had been successful, the EU would not have al
: However most people choose to ignore such reality and religiously believe in the WTO freak shows which only benefit the lawyers. We are living in a w
: Should put an end to any supply problems!
: Sometimes I wonder why you "capitalist Americans" don't really believe in your own supposed value set. Do you honestly think that Airbus selling sub-
: You mean Airbus Leyland wouldn't have come to rule the market?
: I agree it was close to impossible to anticipate the outcome of all of this. I fully admit that with hindsight our judgement is extremely easy... But
: Wow this was an unintentional 'good one'. greetings flyglobal
: Currently, the 737 has about 5 years backlog. The 320 has about 5 years backlog. What, exactly, could Boeing have done to fend off Airbus? How many ai
: Boeing has done a big failure: They started the less capable B734 as a A320-competitor, which was a rediculous decision. To get more range out of the
: 2000 planes...count them...2000. Then another 3000 ng's. Big failure. Right. Boeing was incapable of building all of the planes customers wanted...an
: Hmm, weren't you the "sandwich shop owner" a while back in the WN 737 grounding thread?? I noticed you never came back to that thread when all your s
: Yes, a big failure. Boeing was not able to prevent Airbus to grow.
: Quit drinking the bong water. A reasonable person would say the Boeing and Airbus are both successes.
: Why would Boeing want to prevent Airbus from growing? mariner
: Come on. IF both Airbus or Boeing would see a chance to remain the only supplier, they would do it. To get a higher market share?!?
: Airbus is launching the NEO, not because of Boeing, but to hinder the Cseries to gain foothold in the 150 pax segment.
: It is extremely hard for me to imagine that there would have been one monopoly manufacturer, or, if it had happened, that it could possibly last. Bus
: But neither has...not a single chance. There are too many customers and neither can supply them all. Period. There is no 'IF'. You might as well say
: reply 294 Airbus is launching the NEO, not because of Boeing, but to hinder the Cseries to gain foothold in the 150 pax segment. I would add - and to
: This: "Boeing hoped the 7J7 would burn about half the fuel of the Airbus A320 and hoped to revolutionize commercial air travel." I tell you Airbus an
: I would suggest that this thread is closed. I went loose and too negative and pointless.
: Indeed not. And about the same way that Ford Australia currently rules our car market - as in NOT. I am waiting for Ford to (re-)introduce the P76 wh
: Airbus, in those days, were the 'innovators,' and did two things VERY right, rheinwalder. The first was the A300 - virtually the birth of ETOPS. The
: What were they supposed to do? Just write-off the 737-300 and start a brand new airplane program? We might as well ask why Airbus didn't address thei
: Re Reply 298 But is this not exactly the point? Although many wish to ignore it - Boeing is not. OR is the real future. But it is not ready yet.... Bo
: It is funny that the pro-Boeing a.netters are downplaying Boeings chance of creating a monopole, whereas the pro-Airbus users trust in Boeing to do so
: But that situation is likely not to last. Those who are at the top and creaming the profits on an old concept often get outdone by the new kid on the
: Yes they could have, if they wanted to close the lines down more quickly, but shuttering a production line is not a quick process. No argument there,
: As I said, I think a monopoly or market dominant situation is a dangerous thing - look what happened to Microsoft - but in all my years on a.net I've
: This thread is just painful to read. The A320 and 737NG are both great airplanes and compete well and the A fans and B fans who are arguing appear to
: I'm on record as having been an ex-Boeing employee and noting that if there only could be one commercial aircraft OEM, I would want it to be Boeing,
: I don't think we have to call on the governments to prevent one of the two from dropping too far beyond. The *customers* will simply not let that happ
: So whose open rotor engine would they have used for the 7J7? You can tell anything you like but bedtime stories are rarely true. Right...how can you?
: Agreed; it is a substantial albeit incremental improvement, IMO. The nicety is in the timing. Just about perfect. Sorry, rheinwaldner, time to demur.
: Mmm, how I have been viewing it also; however a couple of a-netters, far more knowledgeable than me in this area, have tended to support the "panels"
: Mainly based on two articles by Geoffrey Thomas, brindabella - see Post 183 above. The most recent one quotes Udvar-Hazy (not the big operator that he
: Patents are used as red herrings as often as they are used to get actual protection for things. It is also very important that the shareholders see t
: This thread has gathered more than 300 replies and will now be locked. Please continue discussion here: Boeing Will Do 737NEO And Not 797 (Part 2) (by