Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Re-engine 737 - Part 1  
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31868 times:

The AA order makes it official and this definitely deserves it's own thread.

LEAPX was specified in the order so we now know that is a given. Same engine on the NEO? Different fan size? Whither Pratt?

I expect PR from Boeing anytime now.

301 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31847 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting delimit (Thread starter):
I expect PR from Boeing anytime now.

Good news for Boeing and it's customer base I guess. They are adepting the strategy with which Airbus has been very successful lately. The all new NB will be postponed I guess into the early 2020's, just as John Leahy (and some others) always have stated.

I expect a lot more huge NB orders for both Airbus and Boeing now the B737-NG also gets a RE version.  .


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31756 times:

Well, I expect we'll have to wait a bit for the raft of 737RE orders to start rolling in. Obviously I don't know the details, but I highly doubt Boeing's sales people have had a lot of time to work, seeing as the announcement of the re-engine was somewhat...unorthodox, shall we say?

Boeing still needs to flesh out the details of the program.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31732 times:

AB, DL and WN are on my list of possible customers  


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting delimit (Thread starter):
The AA order makes it official

Well, not quite.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1845

Quote:
In addition, American Airlines has committed to order a variant of the 737 featuring new more fuel-efficient engines, pending final airplane configuration and launch approval of the program by the Boeing board of directors.

So it seems that neither AA nor Boeing is quite sure exactly what what they've agreed to - an undefined program which hasn't actually been launched yet!   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31639 times:

Two thoughts

What a strange way to launch a major programme (the 737RE) and effectively defer the all new 797 plane that has been much talked about!

Secondly, RR's strategy of gearing up for the all new narrowbody rather than join with PW on the GTF looks like a serious error.



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31609 times:

OK true, but I really think confirmation at this point is a given. I can't conceive of the Boeing board not having at least informally consulted on this. It would be hugely damaging to Boeing to not approve a plane they've offered a customer so publicly.

User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5955 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31570 times:

If Boeing had done this 6 months ago, would AA have continued all-boeing?


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 7):
If Boeing had done this 6 months ago

Boeing may feel that with all its Defense committments, it really doesn't need civil aviation.

I believe both Lockheed and Martin went down this same road.


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6729 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31337 times:

In my opinion, Boeing has already dug themselves into a huge hole by not offering SOMETHING by now. I'm sure they thought they could just wait everything out and their customers would stay loyal. Well, as we can see, this is obviously not happening and now they appear to be trying to enter the "catch-up" game with a lot of their customers already going after another program.

Shame on Boeing. Cockiness will get you fighting for orders and pushed out of favorable position. I would push Boeing to offer their 737RE by 2014 and their 797 by 2019. Anything less would be a bad business move and more in line with a lot of the american car manufacturers that are getting their rears beaten by their global competition.

American getting Airbus is a HUGE punch to Boeing. Delta evaulating Airbus should be a high kick to their brains. And WN saying do something now and be bold should be the bullet in the spine to actually get them to quit being pompous and start being innovative (not adaptive)..

But that's my rant..



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31341 times:

Can the '737RE' even be classified as a 'paper plane' yet?


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2649 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31290 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):
Boeing may feel that with all its Defense committments, it really doesn't need civil aviation.

Well, I don't know about that. The commercial side is such a massive portion of their business. It's tough to forget the stuff you are known for and make plenty of.
I really want to see what the anticipated specs are, should be interesting to see how it compares to the NEO.
Blue



You push down on that yoke, the houses get bigger, you pull back on the yoke, the houses get bigger- Ken Foltz
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 31279 times:

Leahy won. Boeing won. The 797 lost. Despite the enthusiast in me crying out for a new aircraft, this was the most logical move for Boeing.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinemetalinyoni From Zimbabwe, joined Oct 2005, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31194 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 12):
Boeing won

I don't know how much champagne will be popped in Chicago today, more a sigh of relief? I dunno 97 planes is a big order for some airlines but from AA its alright.



Less is more. Unless you're standing next to the one with more. Then less just looks pathetic.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 12):
Despite the enthusiast in me crying out for a new aircraft, this was the most logical move for Boeing.

Agreed. The allegedly preferred alternative was odd - wait until the end of the year, then announce that an all-new 737 replacement would be launched in about 2014 and be available around 2020.

Of course, even having half launched the 737re, they may still decide to go with the NSA, but push it back a couple of years to ensure ROI on their 737RE investment.

Whatever they decide, I'm looking forward to hearing the spin about how they u-turned on the RE and the 'interesting' way the program was launched.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31069 times:

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 13):
I don't know how much champagne will be popped in Chicago today, more a sigh of relief?

No champaigne in Chicago. This was kick in the balls for Boeing. A well deserved one. Had they played their options properly, instead of delaying their decision, this would have been all-Boeing order.
Shame they did not offer all-new aircraft. 737RE is a waste of time and money, in my opinion.



All Hail Mighty Triple Seven, The MURDERER of the so-called "Queen"!!!!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 14):
and the 'interesting' way the program was launched.

It looks like a launch with a knife at their throats. An A320-NEO knife to be exactly sharpened by American John Leahy.  .


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31027 times:

I think Boeing will likely go with LEAP-X for the 737RE, mostly because of Boeing's long-time experience with the CFM56 from the 737-300 in the early 1980's to 737-900ER today.

User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30973 times:

scbriml, probably not another dance at a bar (JL and AirAsia) ?  


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30952 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):

It looks like a launch with a knife at their throats. An A320-NEO knife to be exactly sharpened by American John Leahy.  .

Southwest's knife (viz. desire for an all-new Boeing plane) must just have been sharpened as well.

I'm also wondering of the effect(s) on the C-Series general prospects..i.e. if they've changed from this.



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30878 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 15):
Shame they did not offer all-new aircraft. 737RE is a waste of time and money, in my opinion.

Uzgodniony (agreed). I am still hoping for new plane to be announced in the next 2 years or so.

Anyone has any insights on specs on this RE?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 20):
Anyone has any insights on specs on this RE?

How do you expect us to know when Boeing doesn't even know themselves?   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30706 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 15):
No champaigne in Chicago. This was kick in the balls for Boeing. A well deserved one. Had they played their options properly, instead of delaying their decision, this would have been all-Boeing order.

  

Epic fail on the part of Boeing, on the same order of magnitude as losing UA's business before deciding to launch the 737NG.

The only way the stalling tactic works is if you come out with something better than the competition, something worth waiting for.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

It's like waiting till your wife/gf is already sleeping with another dude before deciding you should do something about your relationship.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 19):
Southwest's knife (viz. desire for an all-new Boeing plane) must just have been sharpened as well.

AA has shown the way forward. Boeing should be quaking in their boots.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 20):
Anyone has any insights on specs on this RE?

Nope, neither does AA, because, as above, they're waiting on final configuration info from Boeing.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30695 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 20):
Anyone has any insights on specs on this RE?

They should at least be able to get double digit sfc improvements over the NG.



http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...re-engine-studies-very-much-alive/

Quote:
An airline fleet planner familiar with the new Boeing direction told us the studies now underway revolve around what he calls a “hybrid LEAP-X” engine, one with a 66-67 inch fan. The loss in SFC from the smaller fan would be perhaps 1%, he said, but the real issue is that the engine will be noisier than the 70-inch LEAP-X. With the prospect for Stage 5 noise standards to be adopted later this decade, noise is significant.



What the...?
User currently offlineZKNCL From New Zealand, joined Oct 2010, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 30663 times:

What a big day!

-Massive AA order
-Spin off of American Eagle
-Boeing to re-engine 737 (We kind of saw that with a thread yesterday of rumor, the AA thread, the New Airplane website update and now this)

But the launch customer is AA with 100 orders, only 1,100 to go to break even with the A320NEO. But I guess we will see those orders at the upcoming major air shows.

Z~k~N~c~L



I don't always post on threads... But when I do... It's completely irrelevant.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 25, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ZKNCL (Reply 24):
only 1,100 to go to break even with the A320NEO. But I guess we will see those orders at the upcoming major air shows.

The NEO-program only needs 1,000 sales to break even. (to my knowledge). They have already surpassed that number with the A32X-NEO-sales. A phenomenal success for Airbus.  .

[Edited 2011-07-20 05:50:44]

User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 31660 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 12):
Leahy won. Boeing won. The 797 lost.

The 797 accepted a temporary setback. We'll still see it launched sometime this decade I imagine.

Quoting metalinyoni (Reply 13):
I dunno 97 planes is a big order for some airlines but from AA its alright.

I'd say there's a little celebrating to be done. Those are 97 planes they wouldn't have sold a few days ago, and they keep AA as an ongoing customer. We could have seen the end of the 737's days at AA if Boeing hadn't gone to such great lengths to land them. Still, they really blew this order.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 15):
This was kick in the balls for Boeing. A well deserved one.

They played a game of Chicken with the airlines and lost.

Among the various other consequences, I am sure there will be new paper Fedexed off to Atlanta in fairly short order. The Delta RFP is still in play.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 32323 times:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011....re-engine-studies-very-much-alive

"A study by AirInsight, largely affirmed at least a portion of the Boeing analysis. The study, which we co-authored, shows the A319 more efficient than the 737-700 and the 737-800W and A320 about equal with the A320neo about 1% more efficient than the -800W. AirInsight did not compare the 737-900 and the A321/321neo. AirInsight did not compare the prospect of a 737-800RE with the A320neo."

Would it be safe to assume that the 737-800ER would acctually be better than the A320NEO? If the current B737-800W is considered on par with the NEO, any improvements that Boeing makes would acctually make it better. This is interesting.

Am I reading this right?


User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32203 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 27):
If the current B737-800W is considered on par with the NEO

I think that AirInsight got confused somewhere.
Maybe 737-800W with A320sharkletted (not NEO) ?



[Edited 2011-07-20 06:00:31]


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 29, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 32170 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting voodoo (Reply 28):
I think that AirInsight got confused somewhere.

Exactly. If they say the 737-800W and A320 are about equal, it's difficult to see how an A320neo could only be 1% better.   



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2053 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 31962 times:

By the way... is there yet an official/semi-official designation for sharkletted (non-NEO) A32xs?

320sh? 320sl?

[Edited 2011-07-20 06:12:45]


` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 31, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 31852 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 26):
The 797 accepted a temporary setback. We'll still see it launched sometime this decade I imagine.

Launching it now might put Boeing at risk of losing whatever tech improvements happen over the next 5-8 years that Airbus would gain by going in the 2020 time frame, but it would give it several years of an untouchable product in the narrowbody space. We would have seen uptake similar to what Airbus got with the NEO or better. Instead, we see a diving catch at AA where Boeing ends up having to spend time and money just to get back to parity with Airbus.

Quoting delimit (Reply 26):
They played a game of Chicken with the airlines and lost.

Boeing dithered away a year and a half or more.

To replay some of the history:

Quote:

DATE:28/01/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing studies re-engined 737, but is in no rush to launch
Tinseth says that a technical feasibility study into the installation of a new engine on the 737 confirms that "it will work", but will require a lot of effort.

DATE:01/02/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing forms advanced development teams for 737 and 777

Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief executive Jim Albaugh has appointed Mike Bair, current head of business strategy and marketing, and original chief of the 787 programme, to head the 737 team

DATE:01/06/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing expects decision on 737's future by year-end

Jim Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, says that a decision will be made "probably this fall".

Joining Albaugh at a recent investor meeting, Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney added that increasing cashflow once the company begins 787 deliveries will enable Boeing to "ride high for a while" heading towards 737 and 777 development.

DATE:10/09/10
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing, Embraer cool to re-engining prospects

With year-end decisions to be made by Airbus, Boeing and Embraer on the future of the A320, 737 and E-Jet programmes, only Airbus remains bullish on the prospect of offering a new engine option for its A320 family.

DATE:27/01/11
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news
Boeing hopes to lay groundwork for 737 replacement by year end

McNerney says re-engining "only makes sense if the airplane wants to be developed in 2025 or beyond.

"I think what we're learning today about what our customers need and what technologies we have available to us, we are leaning toward development in the 2020 timeframe, but we're going to confirm that as we go through it this year, reserving the option - if we're wrong - as we go through the analysis to re-engine."

Though he adds, "But I don't think it's going to turn out that way."

DATE:10/02/11
SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence news
Boeing boss green-lights all-new next generation narrowbody

Speaking at the Cowen and Company Aerospace and Defense Conference in New York City, McNerney says: "We're gonna do a new airplane. We're not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias is to not re-engine, is to move to an all-new airplane at the end of the decade, or the beginning of the next decade."

DATE:01/07/11
SOURCE:Flight International
Boeing's plans for narrowbody segment still unclear

The goal is to identify carriers' demands of a new jet that would enter revenue service in 2019 or 2020. A decision is to be announced by the time of the Paris air show in June.

Mike Bair, Boeing vice-president of advanced 737 product development, says what the market does not appear to want is a re-engined 737 that merely matches the performance of the A320neo.

"I kind of characterise it as more underwhelmed than overwhelmed and almost all of them want to know what more we can do with a new airplane," he says.

So Boeing just kicked the can a few years down the road, to the time frame where Airbus will be able to match their every move.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 31604 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
Epic fail on the part of Boeing, on the same order of magnitude as losing UA's business before deciding to launch the 737NG.

Maybe a loss, but I wouldn't call it an epic failure. If you figure the grand scale of thing, they have maintained the status quo with approx 50% of the market (O.K. the AA order was more 40-60).

As for the UA loss, painful yes, but it didn't kill the company. The AA half loss will not be as painful. And if WN ever decide on another company when expanding their fleet, it two will be painful. But that's the new world order for you.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):

Boeing may feel that with all its Defense committments, it really doesn't need civil aviation.

I'd say the reverse is true. Defense budget is being cut in half. The biggest Boeing defense program, the P-8A is linked to a commercial air frame.

Even during the hay day of the MD merger, it has always been felt that the Commercial side is the revenue producer. The defense side just keep Boeing in the black during times of crisis (like after 9-11).

bikerthai

[Edited 2011-07-20 07:02:27]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 31512 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 32):

Maybe a loss, but I wouldn't call it an epic failure. If you figure the grand scale of thing, they have maintained the status quo with approx 50% of the market.

I'm not sure it's even 50/50 still, and it's not boding well for the future.

The info I posted showed in Jan/Feb of 2010, Boeing had already ramped up both the RE and the RS studies.

Airbus was starting the NEO studies in the same time.

In that period of time, Airbus decided in a year to launch the NEO, and by six months later had 1000 orders.

In that period of time, Boeing dithered and mostly bad-mouthed the RE/NEO idea, watched the NEO take off like a Saturn rocket, and then found it had no choice but to offer the RE or lose one of it's biggest customers.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 32):

As for the UA loss, painful yes, but it didn't kill the company. The AA half loss will not be as painful. And if WN ever decide on another company when expanding their fleet, it two will be painful. But that's the new world order for you.

Actually, if the deal runs to full completion, it'll be 200 for Boeing and 625 for Airbus, so it's a 2/3rds loss.

I don't know what you mean by the new world order. This one's all on Boeing. It's shown it's inability to manage the 787 in the past, and it's inability to launch the RS in a timely fashion so they'd have 1000s of orders lined up.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinewingman From St. Vincent and the Grenadines, joined May 1999, 2099 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 31500 times:

Hehe, Airbus got caught napping with the 787 and Boeing got caught in a dead drunk coma with the NEO. It's difficult to name another company quite so narrow-minded, short term profit-driven and hobbled my such an inept management team. I'm in the payment services business myself and today is one of those days I think it is very likely I could do a better job running Boeing than the pack of dumbfounded nitwits tooling around Chicago in their stretched Caddies. If the shareholders and the Board are too stupid not to dump this pack of fools now then they deserve everything they get.

Congrats Airbus though and Vive la France! Jer tame Paree!


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 35, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 31252 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 31):
So Boeing just kicked the can a few years down the road, to the time frame where Airbus will be able to match their every move.

I think of it as follows: The huge Airbus NEO-success forced Boeing to kick the can a few (8-10 years) down the road. Both will most probably launch their all all new NB somewhere late in this decade with an EIS around 2025. And thus the two majors will stay within an inch of each other and both will take 40-45% of the market leaving the other 10-20% to other OEM's.  .


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 31032 times:

Quoting voodoo (Reply 28):
Maybe 737-800W with A320sharkletted (not NEO) ?
Quoting scbriml (Reply 29):
Exactly. If they say the 737-800W and A320 are about equal, it's difficult to see how an A320neo could only be 1% better.

Nope, the comparrison was to the NEO at Paris Air show. It has been restated many times, it is not a misprint.

It seems like if the 800RE would only be a 10% fuel consumption improvement, it would be the new plane-to-have, however, the 700RE would be on par with the 319NEO (we'll see about performace, remember the 700W is used for its performance like short fields), nothing on the 737-900RE.

Now, about the 737-900RE vs A321NEO, with the new engine, the 900RE would possibly be a better contender for 752's replacement because it is a bit lighter, however, the A321NEO is able to carry stadard LD3's (liek the 752) which might be a better fit for most airlines.


User currently offlineMUCramp From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 30435 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 5):
Secondly, RR's strategy of gearing up for the all new narrowbody rather than join with PW on the GTF looks like a serious error.

  

Given that there will only be one engine (LEAP-X) offered for the RE - will that turn out to be a disadvantage while chasing the NEO?


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 38, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 30366 times:

It's a wise decision that they ended up also re-engining their narrowbody. Would have been a shame if they lost more customers to the A320neo. It makes more sense to retain their customer base, than to wait!

Also, with the B787 in [almost normal] production, and a re-engined B737 which does not require too much changes, I doubt that there will be a lack of resources to create a completely new narrowbody in the time initially envisaged for such a project  



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 30340 times:

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 37):
Given that there will only be one engine (LEAP-X) offered for the RE - will that turn out to be a disadvantage while chasing the NEO?

This program hasn't seen an offcial launch yet. We don't know that only LEAP will be offered.


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 40, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 30224 times:

Quoting voodoo (Reply 30):
By the way... is there yet an official/semi-official designation for sharkletted (non-NEO) A32xs?

320sh? 320sl?

I don't think so. Just like the B762 and B763 with the retrofitted winglets are still referred to the same way, I think the same will be the case for the classic A320 retrofitted with sharkelts. At least ATC wise, I don't see any reason why we would differentiate  



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 41, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 30080 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 36):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 29):Exactly. If they say the 737-800W and A320 are about equal, it's difficult to see how an A320neo could only be 1% better.
Nope, the comparrison was to the NEO at Paris Air show. It has been restated many times, it is not a misprint.

That does not mean the numbers are correct. They are assumptions. I would say, the market sales success speaks for itself for the numbers of the A32X-NEO-series.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 36):
It seems like if the 800RE would only be a 10% fuel consumption improvement, it would be the new plane-to-have

No. In my opinion both re-engined airplanes will be close together performance-wise. As they have always been. But now with the larger fan diameter playing in favor of the A32X-NEO, the B737-800-NG-RE will most likely remain the better choice for the shorter stretches. The Airbus-NEO's will be better on the longer stretches. But due to the differences in fan diameter my guess is that the turning point is now reached earlier in favor of Airbus then compared to the current A320's and B737-800. That bigger fan will make the difference one way or the other.  .

[Edited 2011-07-20 08:27:47]

User currently offlineMUCramp From Germany, joined Apr 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29968 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 39):
This program hasn't seen an offcial launch yet. We don't know that only LEAP will be offered.


You're right, it has not been officially launched yet. But from what I know GTF won´t be an option due to its large diameter. Otherwise there have to be some serious changes made on the landing gear. This, however, would rather call for some sort of all-new narrow-body than "only" RE.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29853 times:

Boeing's commercial airplane senior management and decision making process is just sad, sad, sad. A (basket) case study for strategic management classes for years to come. Development of the 747-8, the 787 and now the 737 are just examples of pitiful planning and foresight.

An article by Domenic Gates has an AA official as saying "American's feeling has been, 'You guys (Boeing) haven't got your act together. You're giving us something on a piece of paper that isn't anywhere near as far along as Airbus,' " he said.

There will be those that white-wash Boeing's part of the AA order, but Airbus squarely forced Boeing -a self pronounced market leader - to alter its strategy.

If the competitor is going to determine Boeing's strategy, then what good is BCA's senior management?



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently onlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7004 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29834 times:

Boeing needed to wake up about a year ago. They really dropped the ball on this one. It is not only embarrassing for the company but for the country. Obviously the country has nothing to do with Boeing but still it just feels a bit embarrassing that the airline that is called "American" will have a new large and also great Airbus Fleet.

So we will see where this 737RE goes but I am not very confident obviously the two airlines Boeing needs to get are WN and DL, Ryan Air would help too.

As for the757 is the 739 and Airbus NEO really a good replacement? The 757 is an amazing aircraft that can used for anything from MIA-MCO DFW-ANC or JFK-BCN. This is the type of airplane every major airline needs and I just do not see the 739 or 320NEO replacing it well.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29757 times:

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 42):
You're right, it has not been officially launched yet. But from what I know GTF won´t be an option due to its large diameter. Otherwise there have to be some serious changes made on the landing gear. This, however, would rather call for some sort of all-new narrow-body than "only" RE.

First, it's been posted over and over again that Pratt has stated they can mount a GTF on a 737. Second, modification of the gear didn't necessitate calling the 330F something entirely different. Third, there are other changes made to the NEO besides hanging a new engine.

Yes there is more work to do on a 737 to than a 320 to mount new engines at comprable fan sizes, but the work does not require an entirely new frame or designation.

Now, does Boeing want to do the extra work is a completely seperate question.

Until Boeing defines the program we can't really state anything as fact.


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 46, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29683 times:

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 42):
Otherwise there have to be some serious changes made on the landing gear. This, however, would rather call for some sort of all-new narrow-body than "only" RE.

This was my first thought when I read the article! If they are going to stick on the engines that really make a difference, they will have to adapt the landing gear too, otherwise there is no point in their whole "RE"-project. What good is a 737RE with marginal fuel burn advantages. The GTF engines with a higher fuselage would be the only sensible thing at this point, I'd say.

Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
Obviously the country has nothing to do with Boeing but still it just feels a bit embarrassing that the airline that is called "American" will have a new large and also great Airbus Fleet.

I can sort of see where you are coming from. Still, the airline did was is correct, and what every airline should do!! It ordered the aircraft which it feels will accomplish their goals in the best possible way.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29681 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
That does not mean the numbers are correct. They are assumptions. I would say, the market sales success speaks for itself for the numbers of the A32X-NEO-series.

Sure, but RE's were not on the table. Now that the RE's are on the table and a possible 7-10% (738RE vs A320NEO) improvement over the NEO, remains to be seen if that trend will continue... Note B737RE, B739RE will retail the same competitive diferential, but the B738RE should have the edge over the A320NEO if they are within 1% as of now.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 48, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29706 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):

There will be those that white-wash Boeing's part of the AA order, but Airbus squarely forced Boeing -a self pronounced market leader - to alter its strategy.

Totally agree. As I wrote earlier:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 35):
The huge Airbus NEO-success forced Boeing to kick the can a few (8-10 years) down the road. Both will most probably launch their all all new NB somewhere late in this decade with an EIS around 2025. And thus the two majors will stay within an inch of each other and both will take 40-45% of the market leaving the other 10-20% to other OEM's. .

No doubt Boeing will firm up specs on the B737-NG-RE, but the smaller fan will hurt them more when re-engined then it did hurt them before. Still with a RE-version I am convinced they will secure a lot of orders from current customers. But I guess they will move to the all-new narrow-body earlier then Airbus will. That larger fan diameter will be in the A32X-NEO's favor for sure. Also when it comes to noise which is very important in noise-slot-restricted airports of which we have quite a lot in Europe.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 49, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 7):
If Boeing had done this 6 months ago, would AA have continued all-boeing?

A year ago and it would have kept AA loyal. A little late on DL too who has now looked at the A320NEO and c-series extensively.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
the B737-800-NG-RE will most likely remain the better choice for the shorter stretches. The Airbus-NEO's will be better on the longer stretches. But due to the differences in fan diameter my guess is that the turning point is now reached earlier in favor of Airbus then compared to the current A320's and B737-800. That bigger fan will make the difference one way or the other.

I agree. However, the A321NEO is *far* more economical than the older A321 OEO. So there is one more 'spanner' thrown into the works.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinejman40 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29647 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 23):
It's like waiting till your wife/gf is already sleeping with another dude before deciding you should do something about your relationship.

I KNEW my life was just like the aviation industry!  


User currently onlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7004 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 29513 times:

Quoting flyAUA (Reply 46):

I can sort of see where you are coming from. Still, the airline did was is correct, and what every airline should do!! It ordered the aircraft which it feels will accomplish their goals in the best possible way.

I agree with you 100% I am a loyal AA flyer and from that point of view I am happy they are making a big change and for the better. But from the general American Aviation fan point of view this order sucks. Also I am just not a big fan of the A320 but the NEO's will be pretty cool looking. I am sure there will be plenty in MIA.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 52, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
but the B738RE should have the edge over the A320NEO if they are within 1% as of now.

But that is an "if " which I (and the market) is not believing. Even AA selects (including options) a lot more Airbus-NEO-planes then they select Boeing 737-NG-RE planes. I think the market reflects the reality here.  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
I agree

Thanks.  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
However, the A321NEO is *far* more economical than the older A321 OEO. So there is one more 'spanner' thrown into the works.

Well, it is clear that Airbus is throwing everything they can into the base-design of the NEO-series. They will want to be competitive for around 10 years or so to come before they will launch the all new NB for an EIS in the mid-2020's. As John Leahy has stated many times over the last two years.  .


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 53, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 28887 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
I agree with you 100% I am a loyal AA flyer and from that point of view I am happy they are making a big change and for the better. But from the general American Aviation fan point of view this order sucks. Also I am just not a big fan of the A320 but the NEO's will be pretty cool looking. I am sure there will be plenty in MIA.

So we are pretty much in the same boat. I am not such a fan of the B777, but since it's the only option for Austrian Airlines loyals to long-haul destinations, you fly them anyway  

The difference being that "our" aircraft are about 20-30 years older, haha! 



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 585 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28259 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):
Boeing may feel that with all its Defense committments, it really doesn't need civil aviation.

Not true, IMHO. I suspect defense spending, at least in the US, will be under pressure for the forseable future, so that side of the business, although highly profitable, may no be as healthy as in the past.

Now, what I can envision is perhaps a spinoff of BCA into a separate company. That would be interesting.....


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28291 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 47):
Now that the RE's are on the table and a possible 7-10% (738RE vs A320NEO) improvement over the NEO,

You seem to have your numbers mixed up.

As things stand, the current factory line A32x and 737NG are pretty much on par fuel burn wise (depending on sectors flown). The A32x will soon come factory fitted (and later retrofits will be available) with sharklets offering a 2-3% fuel burn improvement, which should give the A32x a minuscule edge over the current 737NG.

The A320NEO is offering a circa 12% lower fuel burn with the LEAP-X and 15% with the PW GTF over the current A32x. IF the 737 is re-engined (737RE) with the LEAP-X, I struggle to see how it will have a 10% fuel burn advantage over the A320NEO.


User currently offlineAM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1752 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28059 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 8):
I believe both Lockheed and Martin went down this same road.

... and McDonnell Douglas.


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2529 posts, RR: 53
Reply 57, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 28086 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
Boeing's commercial airplane senior management and decision making process is just sad, sad, sad. A (basket) case study for strategic management classes for years to come. Development of the 747-8, the 787 and now the 737 are just examples of pitiful planning and foresight.
Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
Boeing needed to wake up about a year ago.

Thoughts like these show how biased and short-sighted so many on this board are. Boeing isn't stupid. They don't wake up one morning and say 'Oh my gosh, some airline is ordering Airbus aircraft! We must mount a challenge!'.

They've been studying this internally for years. And here is the important part: The technology to make a clean-sheet design isn't advanced enough to warrant the huge cost outlay right now! Sure, you may want a new design 797, but Boeing isn't stupid enough to dive in when they know the cost is too high, and the technology insufficently advanced.

The Boeing haters will grab what they can to put them down. But this decision meets what the market can bear, and what the current state-of-the-art technology can provide. Anything else is a pipe dream.

Congrats to Boeing on a good decision.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 58, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 27989 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
But due to the differences in fan diameter my guess is that the turning point is now reached earlier in favor of Airbus then compared to the current A320's and B737-800. That bigger fan will make the difference one way or the other.

Why any earlier? The extra weight and drag of the big fan and nacelles would seem to push the turning point out a bit later. However in the missions most airlines fly and the high cost of fuel, I imagine any shift in the stage length isn't all that significant, meaning the big fan wins on most of the missions of interest.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
Development of the 747-8, the 787 and now the 737 are just examples of pitiful planning and foresight.

Sad but true.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
An article by Domenic Gates has an AA official as saying "American's feeling has been, 'You guys (Boeing) haven't got your act together. You're giving us something on a piece of paper that isn't anywhere near as far along as Airbus,' " he said.

Yet they started around the same time, sigh.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
If the competitor is going to determine Boeing's strategy, then what good is BCA's senior management?

Indeed. There "waiting to hear what the customers say" has turned into "waiting to see what Airbus does".

Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
So we will see where this 737RE goes but I am not very confident obviously the two airlines Boeing needs to get are WN and DL, Ryan Air would help too.

WN still seems to hold a small and diminishing pro-Boeing bias, DL seems to open to both.

I think FR's mainly short hop network and existing Boeing fleet may keep FR on Boeing's side, but now that MOL has seen how far Boeing will bend over to win a big order it would seem that Boeing may not benefit much from a "victory".

Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
As for the757 is the 739 and Airbus NEO really a good replacement? The 757 is an amazing aircraft that can used for anything from MIA-MCO DFW-ANC or JFK-BCN. This is the type of airplane every major airline needs and I just do not see the 739 or 320NEO replacing it well.

I imagine AA has crunched the numbers and has figured out how to make the NEO work in its network, incloding some of those hops from MIA to hot/high locations.

Quoting flyAUA (Reply 46):
If they are going to stick on the engines that really make a difference, they will have to adapt the landing gear too, otherwise there is no point in their whole "RE"-project. What good is a 737RE with marginal fuel burn advantages.

Apparently about 300 orders from AA.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
A year ago and it would have kept AA loyal. A little late on DL too who has now looked at the A320NEO and c-series extensively.

Seems they had a whole lot of people looking at it since last Jan/Feb, and they came up with nothing.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 52):
Well, it is clear that Airbus is throwing everything they can into the base-design of the NEO-series. They will want to be competitive for around 10 years or so to come before they will launch the all new NB for an EIS in the mid-2020's. As John Leahy has stated many times over the last two years.

Actually, Tom Williams of Airbus was saying they were trying very hard to not do more than what is needed, but he said this before there were 1000 orders on the books!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 59, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 27792 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Congrats to Boeing on a good decision.

It would have been an even better decision if they had made it before AA defected.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 60, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 27842 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Actually, Tom Williams of Airbus was saying they were trying very hard to not do more than what is needed, but he said this before there were 1000 orders on the books!

True, but the more then 1,000 orders might have given them some more freedom to further invest in additional improvements to be introduced into the A320-series, probably starting with the NEO's.  .


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 27364 times:

Boeing appears to have thought it's regular customers would wait for it to make a decision. This move by AA signals clearly that they were very naive in their view.

Boeing could talk about how good the NG is until they were blue in the face, but things evolve and Airbus captured the imagination of the market with the NEO.

Will be interesting to see how the products stack up in the end.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 62, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 27378 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Honestly, I don't see how waiting has cost Boeing anything.

Look at the size of AA's order - 460 orders and 465 options.

At the planned production rate of 42 per month, AA would soak up almost an entire year's worth of production. Even with a delivery schedule of a decade, that would require Boeing to dedicate 9% of their monthly production quota to one customer for a decade.

I honestly don't think that would have been possible, especially when you figure Boeing would likely have secured another 1000 737+737 RE orders between WN, FR and some of their other large customers with similar delivery dates.

So even if Boeing had launched the 737RE in parallel with Airbus and the A320neo, I think AA would have split this order because that is what they had to do to get the planes they wanted. Even so, this order is soaking up almost 5% of the monthly output of both Boeing and Airbus for a decade.

     

This talk of going to 60 a month is what Boeing would need if they intend to be able to remain exclusive suppliers to customers like WN, FR, AS and others with the sheer number of 737REs they will be ordering over the next few years.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 27057 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Thoughts like these show how biased and short-sighted so many on this board are.

How can you say short-sighted? Boeing has a long history of responding rather than leading. Today's AA order is akin to UAL ordering the A320 only to have Boeing subsequently launch the 737NG. That it has happened again, my friend, show's who is short-sighted.

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
The Boeing haters will grab what they can to put them down.

I am be no means a Boeing hater! And, I don't hate Airbus. However, as a shareholder I have a direct stake in wanting Boeing to be the best - a market leader. However, public assertions by Boeing Sr. Mgt. are too often all over the board and ultimately in conflict with reality - the 787 first flight, 787 production issues, 787 deliveries, 747-8 program delays, and now the NSA vs. 737 re-engine decision. Where is the leadership? Boeing Sr. Mgt. is paid a lot of money but give the impression that they are feeling their way around in the dark at best.

Before today, the clearest strategy on the 737 was expressed by John L at Airbus.

Quoting voodoo (Reply 10):
Can the '737RE' even be classified as a 'paper plane' yet?

Sounds more like a back of the napkin plan.

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
They've been studying this internally for years.

If Boeing's best shot is to propose an off-the-shelf study, then that signals something is seriously wrong...this is more than a wake-up call. Its a sign that Boeing has systemic issues and management is out of touch with long-term realty.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26746 times:

Reading the board it seems Boeing launching the 737RE is a done deal...
But nowhere it is official. There are absolutely no commitments from both parties.

IMO today's announcment could be just a communication stunt to make AA look like they are not giving a clear win to a "highly subsidized french anti-war and lazy socialist company".



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26648 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 64):
MO today's announcment could be just a communication stunt to make AA look like they are not giving a clear win to a "highly subsidized french anti-war and lazy socialist company".

Publicly traded companies don't get to announce enormous capital commitments as a gag.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 66, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26669 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 49):
A year ago and it would have kept AA loyal. A little late on DL too who has now looked at the A320NEO and c-series extensively

Only problem with that idea is does Boeing have enough slots to provide AA with this many frames in such a short time? Don't forget that they have WN returning to taking up 30+ frames a year putting a huge dent in the avaliblity.

I'm suprised Airbus had the slots at all for this even looking at the extended time frame.


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 67, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26621 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Thoughts like these show how biased and short-sighted so many on this board are. Boeing isn't stupid. They don't wake up one morning and say 'Oh my gosh, some airline is ordering Airbus aircraft! We must mount a challenge!'.

They've been studying this internally for years. And here is the important part: The technology to make a clean-sheet design isn't advanced enough to warrant the huge cost outlay right now! Sure, you may want a new design 797, but Boeing isn't stupid enough to dive in when they know the cost is too high, and the technology insufficently advanced.

The Boeing haters will grab what they can to put them down. But this decision meets what the market can bear, and what the current state-of-the-art technology can provide. Anything else is a pipe dream.

So how did sitting around the last 18 months change anything? We all know what you write about the absence of the correct technology is true. Nobody is denying that. People are just saying that if Boeing realised this earlier, the order might have looked less balanced than it does now.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Apparently about 300 orders from AA.

LOL! You are completely missing the point I was making. Read again  



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 68, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aither (Reply 64):
Reading the board it seems Boeing launching the 737RE is a done deal...
But nowhere it is official. There are absolutely no commitments from both parties.

Even with modern telepresence, Boeing's Board of Directors can't just meet at the drop of a hat.

I fully expect formal Authority to Offer will be given at their next scheduled meeting.

It appears Boeing's Board last met on June 27th, so they may very well have given tacit permission for BCA to begin seeking customers for a 737 RE.

And as I understand it, it is common practice for both OEMs to line up MoUs and LoIs with customers prior to formal Authority to Offer being granted (after all, it's good to know whether or not anybody wants to actually buy the product you're thinking of offering for sale) so that when it is granted, you can announce your initial customers at the same time.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26547 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 11):
Well, I don't know about that. The commercial side is such a massive portion of their business. It's tough to forget the stuff you are known for and make plenty of.

As massive as the commercial side is, isn't the military side even larger? I thought the split was 60% defense 40% commercial. But I guess it could be the other way around.

Quoting wingman (Reply 34):
Hehe, Airbus got caught napping with the 787 and Boeing got caught in a dead drunk coma with the NEO.

Have you looked at the A330 order book since the 787 was launched? If they were napping it's because they were too tired counting money.


User currently onlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7004 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26507 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Thoughts like these show how biased and short-sighted so many on this board are. Boeing isn't stupid. They don't wake up one morning and say 'Oh my gosh, some airline is ordering Airbus aircraft! We must mount a challenge!'.

They've been studying this internally for years. And here is the important part: The technology to make a clean-sheet design isn't advanced enough to warrant the huge cost outlay right now! Sure, you may want a new design 797, but Boeing isn't stupid enough to dive in when they know the cost is too high, and the technology insufficently advanced.

I never said anything about a 797. They should have woken up a year ago and started planning a 737RE with maybe a few different design changes etc.. If they would have done that I see this order as flipped. 100 320s 260 737NGs and REs



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1450 posts, RR: 44
Reply 71, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26511 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 59):
It would have been an even better decision if they had made it before AA defected.

This statement assumes that AA would not have purchased Airbus aircraft had Boeing made the decision earlier. Nobody -- you, me, NOBODY -- has any evidence that such an assumption is correct. Personally, I attribute such an assumption to wishful thinking and little else. Some may *want* AA to stay all-Boeing but AA has never said that's their plan.

I agree with HAL. I think a lot of the reaction here is veeeeery short-sighted. Given the size of this order, it may have been difficult for AA to secure delivery slots from only one supplier -- Airbus or Boeing -- in the desired timeframe. There may have been other factors involved -- cost of financing, etc. -- to which we are not privy. The complexity of these factors is what makes assumptions like the one above laughable.

Personally, I do think that Boeing is getting the message that they don't entirely have their act together. But that's a far cry from "Had Boeing simply acted earlier, AA would have (gasp!) never purchased (GASP!) Airbus!"

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 63):
Sounds more like a back of the napkin plan.

Could be, but a cursory Web search for articles on Boeing's decision about the 737 will reveal that they have been studying the problem for some time, including scale mock-ups with wind tunnel testing. My guess is that they have a pretty good idea what they will be doing.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 793 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26466 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Most important questions left unanswered:
What are the names?
737-1000, 737-1100, 737-1200?



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26466 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
Obviously the country has nothing to do with Boeing but still it just feels a bit embarrassing that the airline that is called "American" will have a new large and also great Airbus Fleet

AA made the best business decision that it could. It needs to turn over it's narrowbody fleet as fast as it can, and ordering from both OEM's will help it do that.

You should be proud as an American that companies have the freedom here to make decisions that make rational and financial sense. Not ones based on emotion, pride or on government interference.

I for one am looking forward to riding on American's A32x series airplanes.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26342 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 65):
Publicly traded companies don't get to announce enormous capital commitments as a gag.

Agree but what about an airline announcing officially they would --order-- an aircraft that is not launched, not even really heard of and from a manufacturer who aparently is still largely undecided about this aircraft ... ? to me that's a bit of a gag... unless Boeing announce their decision in the coming few days.

[Edited 2011-07-20 10:37:41]


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26313 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 55):
You seem to have your numbers mixed up.

I don't it was a study made by Air Insights during the Paris Air show. Here, read for yourself:

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011....re-engine-studies-very-much-alive

I tend to believe independent studies more than Airbus or Boeing numbers...


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26285 times:

Quoting Aither (Reply 74):
Agree but what about an airline announcing officially they would --order-- an aircraft that is not launched, not even really heard of and from a manufacturer who aparently is still largely undecided about this aircraft ... ? to me that's a bit of a gag... unless Boeing announce their decision in the coming few days.

It is far more likely that Boeing is no longer undecided and offered AA a plane they will now launch.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 77, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 26006 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 75):
independent studies

The way I read this there is no way this study was "independent". These studies usually publish what the financier of the report wants it to show.  . And that is what it looks like to me. And the market success for the NEO is backing-up my impression.


User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 843 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 25845 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
And as I understand it, it is common practice for both OEMs to line up MoUs and LoIs with customers prior to formal Authority to Offer being granted (after all, it's good to know whether or not anybody wants to actually buy the product you're thinking of offering for sale) so that when it is granted, you can announce your initial customers at the same time.

True but usually you make the official announcment at the same time the first airline is ordering the aircraft or just a few hours later. It sounds like AA and/or Boeing could not wait a few weeks for an official 737 announcment and really wanted the Boeing order to be announced at the same time as the Airbus order and AA financial results.



Never trust the obvious
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 25781 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 77):
The way I read this there is no way this study was "independent". These studies usually publish what the financier of the report wants it to show. . And that is what it looks like to me. And the market success for the NEO is backing-up my impression.

So, who funded that study? It is not Boeing, nor Airbus... So, it is independent... remember the market success of the A320NEO is before the 737RE was a reality. We will see how the next 6 months will do... Remember Boeing is looking at increasing the production rate to 60/month... Do you really think it is just for show?

[Edited 2011-07-20 10:56:30]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 80, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 25804 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 79):
Remember Boeing is looking at increasing the production rate to 60/month... Do you really think it is just for show?

Boeing will need to increase production as much as possible to meet the demand of customers like WN and FR, who could place 737RE orders equal to or larger than AA's combined order.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 81, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 79):
Do you really think it is just for show?

No.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 80):
Boeing will need to increase production as much as possible to meet the demand of customers like WN and FR, who could place 737RE orders equal to or larger than AA's combined order.

Exactly my thoughts.  .


User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 82, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25700 times:

It seems like this whole thing is still vague enough and early that by the end of the year or later, this 737RE could become a 797...does anyone agree?

Also, everyone is really harsh on Boeing here but when has Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Airbus etc. ever announced an exact competitor upgrade or new aircraft so close to the competition? It seems like there is usually a larger time gap so one can leap frog the other...a constant and balanced leap frogging. Obviously Boeing was waiting for this to happen and failed but I think the times are different with all of the Asian and South American airlines ordering so many planes and the price of fuel causing airlines to panic if they don't have the most fuel efficient plane...


User currently offlineimiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 83, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25693 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 75):
I tend to believe independent studies more than Airbus or Boeing numbers...

Is critical thinking not taught in the US?

How can a 737 re-engined with the LEAP-X have a 10% lower fuel burn than an A320NEO also equipped with said LEAP-X when the current models are pretty much on par?

You can get a rough idea of the current numbers by looking at Mandala499's post here:

A320 Vs B738 Economics (by bahadir May 24 2011 in Tech Ops)


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 84, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25623 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 71):
My guess is that they have a pretty good idea what they will be doing.

And, I bet all that it is certain about it could be represented on the back of a napkin (or less). You are giving Boeing too much credit. I've seen the pictures too and they'll piece something flashy together soon. However, the Boeing file room is littered with many such plans - Sonic Cruiser, 747-600, 700. Just look at the "more similar topics..." list below. Its fife with evidence of Boeing's indecision. Orders will come, but I see this as very embarrassing (border-lining on pathetic) day for Boeing senior management no matter how you look at it.

.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 793 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25630 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting delimit (Reply 76):
It is far more likely that Boeing is no longer undecided and offered AA a plane they will now launch.

The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me. We can be pretty certain Boeing knows precisely what the 737RE will be. They want to avoid 'mission creep', which results in delayed time to market, so there are not allot of additional improvements being planned. It will not be 100% on par with 320NEO with regards to specific fuel burn....but it will enjoy a total cost of ownership that is on par or lower than 320NEO. It's a good response.

Cockpit is modernized, Interior is cutting edge. With new engines this plane will be competitive. Yeah, still has the same ugly beak and squat nacelles. And airlines will still continue to make a ton of money with it. Guess this answers the question of how Evolved the 737 will become.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25463 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 82):
It seems like this whole thing is still vague enough and early that by the end of the year or later, this 737RE could become a 797...does anyone agree?

Not at all. They've basically commited to doing just the opposite.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me.

I am not sure how you get that from my post. I am sure Boeing have an extremely good idea of what it looks like.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 87, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25512 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 84):
You are giving Boeing too much credit.

And you're giving them too little, IMO.

I do believe AA forced Boeing's hand to go with the 737RE, but I believe they had a 737RE plan in place to go with.

We know Boeing's been studying it.

We know Boeing's been talking to customers about it.

We know CFM has a LEAP-X engine design that will mount to the 737NG without requiring changes to the undercarriage, reducing the risk, expense and time to market.

We know Boeing is studying significant increases in the production rate around the time the 737RE would enter serial production (post-2017).


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1079 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25292 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 63):

Before today, the clearest strategy on the 737 was expressed by John L at Airbus.

John L said months half a year ago that Boeing would talk and talk about an "all-new frame", but in the end they will re-engine.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25201 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me. We can be pretty certain Boeing knows precisely what the 737RE will be. They want to avoid 'mission creep', which results in delayed time to market, so there are not allot of additional improvements being planned. It will not be 100% on par with 320NEO with regards to specific fuel burn....but it will enjoy a total cost of ownership that is on par or lower than 320NEO. It's a good response.Cockpit is modernized, Interior is cutting edge. With new engines this plane will be competitive. Yeah, still has the same ugly beak and squat nacelles. And airlines will still continue to make a ton of money with it. Guess this answers the question of how Evolved the 737 will become.

But of course -- you can offer us a citation or hyperlink to this information, yes?


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2529 posts, RR: 53
Reply 90, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25345 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 70):
I never said anything about a 797. They should have woken up a year ago and started planning a 737RE with maybe a few different design changes etc.. If they would have done that I see this order as flipped. 100 320s 260 737NGs and REs

I live in Renton. I have many friends who work at Boeing, in all areas of the 737 operation. To say that Boeing didn't start planning until now is wrong. The engineers have been heads-down into their computer screens for a long time, not only creating the 737RE, but comparing what is possible if they decided to make a clean-sheet design.

   Boeing has been working on the design for well over a year.

   Just because Airbus announced recently doesn't mean that Boeing is having a 'sudden reaction' to the A320NEO.

   Boeing decided that the best financial decision for the company, shareholders, and the airlines, is the 737RE.

I've been hearing about the process from my friends, who are Boeing engineers, for a long time. There simply isn't enough technology available to make the 797 work yet, so they went with the 737RE, which has been in detailed design stages for well over a year! It's not a 'spur-of-the-moment' decision.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me. We can be pretty certain Boeing knows precisely what the 737RE will be. They want to avoid 'mission creep', which results in delayed time to market, so there are not allot of additional improvements being planned. It will not be 100% on par with 320NEO with regards to specific fuel burn....but it will enjoy a total cost of ownership that is on par or lower than 320NEO. It's a good response.

Exactly!

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12420 posts, RR: 100
Reply 91, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25323 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 52):
Well, it is clear that Airbus is throwing everything they can into the base-design of the NEO-series.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Seems they had a whole lot of people looking at it since last Jan/Feb, and they came up with nothing.

I'm not sure which airframe you are discussing. If the 737RE, AA has shown an interest. I suspect they will buy to accelerate deliveries.

If you mean the C-series, it did far better than nothing. It now has enough orders to annoy Airbus and Boeing for while. 133 orders vs. 50 for the 717 at EIS. I suspect Bombardier will win more than one of the still open sales campaigns. When? Always a good question. More than a few airlines will wait for in service data. Not a bad strategy honestly.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 62):
So even if Boeing had launched the 737RE in parallel with Airbus and the A320neo, I think AA would have split this order because that is what they had to do to get the planes they wanted. Even so, this order is soaking up almost 5% of the monthly output of both Boeing and Airbus for a decade.

I agree. Now to watch DL's order.   

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 66):
Only problem with that idea is does Boeing have enough slots to provide AA with this many frames in such a short time?

Yep. As Stitch noted, destined to be split.

IMHO A321NEO for 752 replacement and partial 762 replacement.
738RE for MD-80 replacement. Some with 73G? I'd love to know the details of the order down to the subtypes ordered.    In particular, how easy it is for AA to switch subtypes.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25060 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 83):
How can a 737 re-engined with the LEAP-X have a 10% lower fuel burn than an A320NEO also equipped with said LEAP-X when the current models are pretty much on par?

The study suggested that the current B738W is basically on par with the A320NEO (w/ Leap-X). So if that is true, as the study suggests, then it is also true that you could possibly see the 10% improvement.

Also, nobody mentioned fuel burn, it is an operating cost analysis.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 4
Reply 93, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 25041 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):

I don't know what you mean by the new world order.

Boy this forum moves fast if you get caught napping.  

The new world order I am referring to is that Boeing will have fewer and fewer exclusive operators. They will lose their strangle hold in the Japan market. But they will survive to be profitable as a commercial aircraft supplier.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
Airbus squarely forced Boeing -a self pronounced market leader - to alter its strategy

LOL, this have not been and nor it will be the last time. And the true market leader, Airbus, had to alter its strategy to to counter Boeing's offer (AKA 787). It happens . . .

bikerthai.



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12037 posts, RR: 47
Reply 94, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Apparently about 300 orders from AA.

Strictly speaking, 100 commitments plus 60 options. Presumably dependent on AA actually liking what the 737RE is when Boeing can tell them.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 95, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24793 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 92):
The study suggested that the current B738W is basically on par with the A320NEO (w/ Leap-X). So if that is true, as the study suggests, then it is also true that you could possibly see the 10% improvement.

the reason the current 738 isn't that different overall than the A320NEO is because it would be insane for Airbus to price the A320NEO any different than nearly equal overall lifetime cost to the current A320. Customers will buy the NEO over the OEO with equal overall operating economics for the performance benifit and less risk due to increased fuel prices altering the capital Vs operating cost equasion in the future. So Airbus should be getting higher margins on the new plane.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 96, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 24621 times:

Quoting imiakhtar (Reply 83):
How can a 737 re-engined with the LEAP-X have a 10% lower fuel burn than an A320NEO also equipped with said LEAP-X when the current models are pretty much on par?

Says who? I've yet to see anyone show proof that the fuel burn of the two current products are "on par." The A320 has had a lower real cost to buy, and considering that fuel burn in cruise is not as important a factor in narrowbody operations, the TCO's v. Revenue potential, combined with the availability of the two models, makes the two aircraft are comparable. That is all the 50:50 sales split tells us.

Further, there is only one model of each sold in large enough numbers that can be compared 1:1 based on size and performance. 73G v. A319. The 738 is larger than the A320 and has better range, so it's hard to make a direct comparison, and the A321 is larger than the 739, so ditto.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 97, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24414 times:

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 5):
Secondly, RR's strategy of gearing up for the all new narrowbody rather than join with PW on the GTF looks like a serious error.

Not if they are planning open rotor.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 7):
If Boeing had done this 6 months ago, would AA have continued all-boeing?

No.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 9):
Cockiness will get you fighting for orders and pushed out of favorable position.

And what will making hasty decisions based on hype and emotion get them?

Quoting voodoo (Reply 10):
Can the '737RE' even be classified as a 'paper plane' yet?

Yes and no. Yes it exists on paper, likely disk space actually. No, there is not a paper plane since there are likely several versions.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
It's like waiting till your wife/gf is already sleeping with another dude before deciding you should do something about your relationship.

No, it's not. There are tons of other women out there not sleeping with the other guy.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
In that period of time, Boeing dithered and mostly bad-mouthed the RE/NEO idea,

Yeah, it's not like they might have other people actually studying potential options.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
WN still seems to hold a small and diminishing pro-Boeing bias, DL seems to open to both.

The only bias of any airline in a free market is towards making money.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 63):

You're either getting caught up in the hype or you're the world's worst investor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 98, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24325 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
It's a good response.

Response being the key word. Boeing management should be leading rather than looking up Airbus' tailpipe.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me.

My guess is that they have been shopping around slightly different configurations to all the majors. Essentially, AA, by putting a gun to Boeing's head, has precipitated the final design. If Boeing is smart, they'd stop by SW HQ on their way home to explain why SWA didn't get the opportunity.

I, too, am amazed - by the notion that somehow every Boeing misstep is a "it will be good for them" proposition, that "Boeing will get its act together now" or "management must be aware of the solution to the problem." Why so much faith in senior management when these moments keep adding up?

I want the best for Boeing (especially as an employer of hard working people), but as a Boeing fan and shareholder, my beef is against senior management. I have no loyalty to them past their ability to deliver a higher share price than EADS. Go to Bloomberg.com and compare the two. You will see what the raw consensus (not mine) about who is delivering the Boeing vs. EADS

With a little perspective, its clear the AA split order is more than a watershed event. Worse, it is evidence that Boeing senior management continues to lack a solid grip on reality until late in the game.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinessublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 515 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24274 times:

Based on the following article, it would appear Boeing HAS decided to re-engine. Basically the last paragraph of the article:

Quote:
Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh said uncertainty over the ability of the production system to cope with a completely new airplane had contributed to Boeing's decision to follow Airbus and put new engines on the 737, which competes with the Airbus A320, rather than attempt a complete overhaul.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...bus-production-idUSWEB076920110720


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24233 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 98):
With a little perspective, its clear the AA split order is more than a watershed event. Worse, it is evidence that Boeing senior management continues to lack a solid grip on reality until late in the game.

Completely agree. + one on respect for that.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 793 posts, RR: 2
Reply 101, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting delimit (Reply 86):
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me.
I am not sure how you get that from my post. I am sure Boeing have an extremely good idea of what it looks like.

No worries, never meant to imply your posts suggested that at all.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 102, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 24080 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 97):
You're either getting caught up in the hype or you're the world's worst investor.

I'm diversified and my EADS shares have been doing quite well.

Quoting HAL (Reply 90):
I've been hearing about the process from my friends, who are Boeing engineers, for a long time. There simply isn't enough technology available to make the 797 work yet, so they went with the 737RE, which has been in detailed design stages for well over a year! It's not a 'spur-of-the-moment' decision.

Funny, AA seems to think so: "American's feeling has been, 'You guys (Boeing) haven't got your act together. You're giving us something on a piece of paper that isn't anywhere near as far along as Airbus,' " he said. Quoting Dominic Gates at the Seattle Times.

Listening to Senior Management the past few months and the RE option was a Plan B option at best.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinejackhi From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23844 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 43):
Boeing's commercial airplane senior management and decision making process is just sad, sad, sad. A (basket) case study for strategic management classes for years to come. Development of the 747-8, the 787 and now the 737 are just examples of pitiful planning and foresight.
Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
Boeing needed to wake up about a year ago.

Thoughts like these show how biased and short-sighted so many on this board are. Boeing isn't stupid. They don't wake up one morning and say 'Oh my gosh, some airline is ordering Airbus aircraft! We must mount a challenge!'.

They've been studying this internally for years. And here is the important part: The technology to make a clean-sheet design isn't advanced enough to warrant the huge cost outlay right now! Sure, you may want a new design 797, but Boeing isn't stupid enough to dive in when they know the cost is too high, and the technology insufficently advanced.

The Boeing haters will grab what they can to put them down. But this decision meets what the market can bear, and what the current state-of-the-art technology can provide. Anything else is a pipe dream.

Congrats to Boeing on a good decision.

HAL

Couldn't agree more. Bias and naivety seem to rule this forum more often then not.


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 104, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23775 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
We can be pretty certain Boeing knows precisely what the 737RE will be

No, we can't!

The 737RE has not yet even been launched. Since this is going to happen towards the end of the year, naturally "what it will precisely be" is going to change another dozen times.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 105, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23728 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 71):
This statement assumes that AA would not have purchased Airbus aircraft had Boeing made the decision earlier. Nobody -- you, me, NOBODY -- has any evidence that such an assumption is correct

Nor do we have any information that it'd have been incorrect had Boeing introduced a 737RE on the same timeline as the A320NEO.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 71):
I agree with HAL. I think a lot of the reaction here is veeeeery short-sighted. Given the size of this order, it may have been difficult for AA to secure delivery slots from only one supplier -- Airbus or Boeing -- in the desired timeframe.

Who knows? Having too many orders to fill is a classy problem to have. AA is already a 738 customer. The only real natural opening in their fleet would be for A321NEO which will probably have an advantage on the long hops due to its larger fan. By not having its act together, Boeing will see a lot of A320NEOs placed that I feel could have been 738RE instead.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 94):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 58):
Apparently about 300 orders from AA.

Strictly speaking, 100 commitments plus 60 options. Presumably dependent on AA actually liking what the 737RE is when Boeing can tell them.

  

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
It's a good response.

It's a tepid response, about 1000 orders too late.

Here's what Albaugh is saying:

Quote:

He added that after speaking with customers "who want certainty" on delivery schedules, the manufacturer opted to proceed with the re-engined 737.

It had nothing to do with Airbus forcing your hand, right Jim?

I think JL is right: that must be some strong stuff that the Boeing execs are smoking these days.

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-behind-opting-for-re-engined.html



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 106, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23453 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
Congrats to Boeing on a good decision.

It was the right decision. But why did it take so long when

Quoting HAL (Reply 57):
this decision meets what the market can bear, and what the current state-of-the-art technology can provide. Anything else is a pipe dream.

As you say. Which makes waiting a year only to be forced into a very embarrasing and very hurried public "U" turn even more puzzling

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 75):
I don't it was a study made by Air Insights during the Paris Air show. Here, read for yourself:http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011....re-engine-studies-very-much-aliveI tend to believe independent studies more than Airbus or Boeing numbers...

The most independent studiers that you will find on offer are the customers themselves - the marketplace.
In the marketplace, the current A320 and 738NG are almost completely on a par - in fact the A320 has had a narrow market lead for a long time now.
As far as total economics of ownership go, that's all we need to know.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 92):
Also, nobody mentioned fuel burn, it is an operating cost analysis.

I'd love you to show me the cost element where the 737-800 has a 10% operating over the A320.......

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 96):
Says who? I've yet to see anyone show proof that the fuel burn of the two current products are "on par."

And yet the respective manufacturers FCOM's which do exactly that have been posted on the forums regularly, and are even referred to in post #83 of this thread. They are operating documents, not sales blurb.
They show that, compared to an unwingletted A320, the wingletted 737-800 has a roughly 4% better fuel burn at about 200nm, equity at 800Nm, and the A320 with a 4% advantage at 2500Nm+

Of course fitting the winglets to the A320 give it roughly parity at short range, and between 7% and 8% better fuel burn at longer ranges, and that's before the re-engine.
That can't be ignored.

(As an aside, I think we're going to find that the newer wing with the winglets also adds some 2t to the fuel capacity - an area where the A320 has been seriously disadvantaged up to now, and one which causes the sometime transcon difficulties. The wingletted A320 classic will be a substantially different beast to the current plane, even without the re-engine)

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 96):
The 738 is larger than the A320 and has better range, so it's hard to make a direct comparison

The market seems to have little difficulty in doing exactly that...

Rgds


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 107, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 23412 times:

Cross posting from another thread:

AA B738s have 16J(@40" pitch) and 144Y(@31" pitch). Given that A320 is about 6.25 feet shorter, one would expect the A320 in AA configuration to hold two less Y rows, or 12 Y seats. The current A320 is nearly 3,000 lbs. heavier than B738.

It has been suggested by others that AA may use B738(RE) for shorter routes and A320NEO for longer routes due to the advantage of lower fuel burn for A320NEO from its higher BPR engine on longer flights.

It seems to me that a lighter B738RE with 12Y seat advantage should be competitive against A320NEO on many AA routes.


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 23299 times:

Quoting flyAUA (Reply 104):
Since this is going to happen towards the end of the year

You know that how?


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 109, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 23069 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 108):

You know that how?

...since the flight global article from this afternoon quotes boeing stating this.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 110, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 23058 times:

Thanks! I totally missed that! Have a link handy?

Damn job, getting in the way of my hobby!

[Edited 2011-07-20 13:11:42]

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 111, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 23056 times:

Interesting that in the Leeham comment about the 66 inch fan, they also said the following:

Quote:

She grudgingly acknowledged the 737-700 and 737-900 aren’t as efficient as the A319 and A321, in response to a question from The Seattle Times’ Dominic Gates.

So AA is really optimizing with the A319, 737-800, and A321 current generation planes for delivery in 2013.

I'll repost this over there.

NS


User currently offlineflyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 56
Reply 112, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 23053 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 110):

No prob! Just found it  

The exact wording was "The airframer aims to launch the programme "some time this fall", said Albaugh." so take a pick whether it will be September or December  



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22892 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 107):
I'd love you to show me the cost element where the 737-800 has a 10% operating over the A320.......
http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/airinsight-costs.jpg
Source: AirInsight. The study focused on the CSeries and it is the baseline in the above table. However, the comparisons between the A319neo and the 737-700W and the A320neo and the 737-800W are clear. AirInsight concluded that on an operating cost basis, the A320neo is 1% better than the 737-800W, affirming the Boeing conclusions.

Full article: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...e-or-nsa-odds-now-favor-re-engine/

[Edited 2011-07-20 13:19:24]

User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1486 posts, RR: 2
Reply 114, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22829 times:

Quoting flyAUA (Reply 112):
some time this fall

So within the next 12 months.  


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 115, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22829 times:

That Airinsight chart compares the A320neo to the 737-800. Not the A320 to the 737-800.

NS


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 116, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22532 times:

Quoting delimit (Reply 76):
It is far more likely that Boeing is no longer undecided and offered AA a plane they will now launch.

I'm going with neither. My guess is Boeing never dreamed that AA would even consider an Airbus offer and got complacent, and when they showed what they had to AA, it wasn't nearly as good as the NEO. So AA said, no thanks, try again. So it's back to the drawing board for the 737RE.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 85):
The number of people suggesting that Boeing has no idea of what the 737RE will look like ... and yet offered it ... amazes me. We can be pretty certain Boeing knows precisely what the 737RE will be.

That's just as bad. They know what it looks like but it's not good enough. That would certainly explain the huge discrepancy in this "split" order.

Quoting HAL (Reply 90):
I live in Renton. I have many friends who work at Boeing, in all areas of the 737 operation. To say that Boeing didn't start planning until now is wrong. The engineers have been heads-down into their computer screens for a long time, not only creating the 737RE, but comparing what is possible if they decided to make a clean-sheet design.

Well if that is indeed true then Boeing should fire them all because what they've come up with clearly isn't good enough to match the NEO. If this is true, this AA order is an even bigger embarassment for Boeing. It's one thing to be priced out of the market but it's a whole other thing to have a product that is "crap".


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 117, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22559 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airbazar (Reply 116):
My guess is Boeing never dreamed that AA would even consider an Airbus offer and got complacent, and when they showed what they had to AA, it wasn't nearly as good as the NEO.

Or it couldn't do everything AA needed. Boeing might have been spending the past six months trying to get a TATL 737-900 and a 737-800 that can do TCONs in even the most adverse winds, but couldn't. So AA went with Airbus for those missions, because they can.

But the 737RE will be lighter and that will give it the edge on the shorter missions, so AA still found a role for it to play and placed a commitment to it.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 118, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 22180 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 116):
Well if that is indeed true then Boeing should fire them all because what they've come up with clearly isn't good enough to match the NEO.

And you can determine all of that based on one order for which Boeing seemed to scramble to even offer a re-engined 737, which could be one of any number of permutations likely floating around Boeing's computers few, if any, of which we know anything of substance about? Where can I buy that magic 8-ball?

How can we go from the extreme certainty that a new plane from Boeing would not render the NEO uncompetitive to extreme certainty that strapping the same engines to a 737 would make something uncompetitive with the NEO?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22038 times:

The next investors Conference should be pretty interesting.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 120, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22039 times:

Quoting ssublyme (Reply 99):
Based on the following article, it would appear Boeing HAS decided to re-engine. Basically the last paragraph of the article:

Pretty sad statement.

Boeing has so destroyed their manufacturing know-how that they can't figure out how to build a new aircraft.

Imagine if they had said that about the 727 or 707? No 757 or 767...

Quoting gigneil (Reply 111):
So AA is really optimizing with the A319, 737-800, and A321 current generation planes for delivery in 2013.

I believe this. I think it's been pretty clear that, all things considered, the A319 has been a more desirable aircraft than the 73G, the 738 more desirable than the A320, and the 739 just hasn't sold well at all while the A321, when used on the missions it is best at, is the best choice out there. Again, this isn't just about "fuel burn" but about overall operational efficiency (profitability).

The problem for Boeing is that the 739RE will still be constrained by it's design limitations. The 73GRE won't become an A319 killer, and the 738RE will still likely be the only "winner" of the bunch. But will it be so much better than the A320NEO to keep customers? If Airbus adds 2 rows to the A320 body, the 737 may be replaced simply because nobody will be choosing it over the A320 for anything but availability...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 121, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21802 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 120):
Pretty sad statement.

Boeing has so destroyed their manufacturing know-how that they can't figure out how to build a new aircraft.

Frankly I find it a bit refreshing to see Boeing management apparently accepting that they can't work wonders just by wishing it so.

And now we're hearing AA was interested in the NSA/797, but they had to have absolute guarantees Boeing could deliver it to plan.

And with the NSA/797 requiring a new design, a new facility to assemble it, and a new supplier chain to support it (for even if Boeing choses many of the same suppliers they use now, they want them to be in the same general geographic area), realistically, how likely is all that going to come together perfectly? Even if Boeing hadn't augured the 787 and 747-8 into the ground, I'd be skeptical.

With the neo, Airbus is offering airlines real improvements with no real risk and realistic delivery dates. Airbus has a wealth of real-world data to offer customers like AA to show them exactly how the Classic will perform for them on all of their missions and can do so with the neo with a high degree of confidence.

Boeing can't offer that level of security with the NSA/797. But they can offer it with the 737RE.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 122, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21692 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 121):
Frankly I find it a bit refreshing to see Boeing management apparently accepting that they can't work wonders just by wishing it so.

And now we're hearing AA was interested in the NSA/797, but they had to have absolute guarantees Boeing could deliver it to plan.

And with the NSA/797 requiring a new design, a new facility to assemble it, and a new supplier chain to support it (for even if Boeing choses many of the same suppliers they use now, they want them to be in the same general geographic area), realistically, how likely is all that going to come together perfectly? Even if Boeing hadn't augured the 787 and 747-8 into the ground, I'd be skeptical.

But by losing a major 757 customer to the A320NEO, they have now made it harder to profit from the NSA when it finally comes.

It would be really sad if the NRLB had a hand in this. If Boeing was unsure they could build the NSA in South Carolina, but also knew they couldn't easily build it in Washington AND keep the 737 line open, then what? I have a hunch that the South Carolina situation contributed to the "we just can't do it" mindset, which would mean that more US jobs shipped overseas because government interference to "protect" jobs.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 123, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 122):
But by losing a major 757 customer to the A320NEO, they have now made it harder to profit from the NSA when it finally comes.

This assumes the NSA would have had an airframe with the size and performance of the 757-200.

The 757 seems to be still popular primarily with United States carriers. Not a great deal of them are still in service with the rest of the world. Most of their mission can be effectively handled by the A321-200 and, to a lesser extent, the 737-900ER. And the A321-200neo, especially if it comes with TOW and fuel volume increases, will eat into the remaining missions where the 757-200 stands alone.



Even taking the "easy route" is not always risk-free. Many have commented that with the 787's troubles, it was unfortunate that Airbus didn't put the new generation of engines developed for the 787 onto the A330 family because it likely would have sold exceptionally well.

It probably would, except those folks forget GE and Rolls both royally stuffed those new engines and themselves incurred years of delays getting them back close to spec.

So chances are, if Airbus had announced the A330neo in 2004, every one of them would have been delivered with CF6-80Es and Trent 700s because the GEnx1A and Trent 1700 would still be on a bench.



Boeing's track record with new commercial aircraft programs is not an envious one. And frankly, neither is Airbus'. Both took big risks and both fell flat on their faces and the cost to airlines was real, calculable and extensive.

We look at the penalties and extra costs Airbus and Boeing have incurred for being late on the A380 and 787 (and perhaps the A350). And those are programs with planned production rates of 4 to 10 per month.

A new narrowbody would have a planned production rate somewhere north of 40 a month. Probably north of 50.

You cock that up, and god help you.


I would not be surprised one bit if the re-engine programs were more to make their customers comfortable then they were to make the OEMs comfortable.


User currently offlinedavidkunzVIE From Austria, joined Mar 2007, 431 posts, RR: 4
Reply 124, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 21239 times:

To me, this seems to be a Pyhrric victory for Boeing. They did win this order for fear of losing one of their most important customers - but at what cost? Airbus offered a plane which AA wanted. Boeing didn't offer anything at all and more or less invented an unplanned paper plane in agony. I am not sure the AA order was worth postponing the devlopment of a new narrowbody plane that would definitely be able to challenge any future Airbus NBs.


DH3 DH4 CR1 CR2 CR7 CR9 F70 732 733 734 73G 738 752 762 763 772 742 743 319 320 321 333 343
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 125, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19469 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 106):

As you say. Which makes waiting a year only to be forced into a very embarrasing and very hurried public "U" turn even more puzzling

It's not a uturn...it's choosing one of the options they have publicly and repeatedly said they had open to them.

Boeing has been saying for over a year that customers would prefer an all new plane but re-engining is still an option. Almost every statement about an all new plane included the possibility of an RE. They took the time to research the possibility of going all new and found the reality of the concept lacking. As a result, the RE...or whatever they decide to call it.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 116):

I'm going with neither. My guess is Boeing never dreamed that AA would even consider an Airbus offer and got complacent, and when they showed what they had to AA, it wasn't nearly as good as the NEO. So AA said, no thanks, try again. So it's back to the drawing board for the 737RE.

I am willing to bet that AA has been telling Boeing all along that 320's are a serious option. The public isn't let into every phone call and meeting. Whether or not Boeing took them seriously is another matter, but considering their past relationship, I'd say the lines were pretty busy for quite some time before today.



What the...?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 126, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19367 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 125):
It's not a uturn...it's choosing one of the options they have publicly and repeatedly said they had open to them.

One they themselves repeatedly said customers found "underwhelming" and they themselves repeatedly said was unlikely.

If you don't believe me, how about this article from Dominic Gates, who gets paid to report on aerospace?

Quote:

The offer is a striking turnabout from signals all year that Boeing executives preferred to design an all-new small airplane that could replace the Renton-built 737 toward the end of the decade.

Yes, the execs always left themselves the option of the RE fallback, but they clearly signaled it was just that, a fallback.

Clearly they made this U-turn under duress.

I don't know about you, but I don't make my best decisions under duress.

But hey, Boeing widened the 707 to it's now-classic dimensions when they were about to lose an order too...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 125):
They took the time to research the possibility of going all new and found the reality of the concept lacking

Something Leahy told them months ago for free.

[Edited 2011-07-20 17:39:05]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 127, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19002 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):

One they themselves repeatedly said customers found "underwhelming" and they themselves repeatedly said was unlikely.

I don't know about you, but I don't make my best decisions under duress.

It wasn't exactly duress...in fact, the opposite. Boeing has said they will take whatever time they needed to make the best economic decision for the company. All of the customers were aware of their timetable and Boeing was well aware of the customers deadlines.

AA stated that neither company could build all of their order so regardless of what they did, according to AA, Boeing wasn't going to get the entire order. Of course, why should we take the customers word for this. Speculation is so much more accurate.

At no time did Boeing ever rule out re-engining the 737, so again, no uturn.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 126):

Something Leahy told them months ago for free.

I doubt their research is going to go to waste. 200 planes going out the doors buys a lot of solace.



What the...?
User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 128, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18609 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 106):
It was the right decision. But why did it take so long when

I actually think and McNerney/Albaugh have said this today, that technically the NSA was feasible but Boeing don't have their head around the production process yet. No doubt the AA situation has forced them into action and we don't know how much has been going on behind the scenes. Quite a bit I suspect. But the Boeing Board would need to know with some certainty that the NSA can be produced at X units per month from 2019. If that can't be guaranteed, then the RE is the next best thing.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 129, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18478 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 127):
It wasn't exactly duress...in fact, the opposite. Boeing has said they will take whatever time they needed to make the best economic decision for the company. All of the customers were aware of their timetable and Boeing was well aware of the customers deadlines.

No offense, respected fellow A.net member, but me and Dominic Gates disagree with your characterization of the events.

Have you read the article I linked in #128?

Here's a snip for you:

Quote:

According to three industry insiders, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Airbus came close to winning the entire order. Before anyone at Boeing knew about it, last month the airline signed an initial memorandum of understanding to buy A320neos, which will come with new fuel-efficient engines.

To head off that loss, within the last 10 days Boeing gave American a new proposal that offers the 737 jet equipped with similar engines, the sources said.

Boeing sales teams worked furiously the past weekend to salvage the deal, according to a person with knowledge of the developments.

So much for Boeing's timetables.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 127):
200 planes going out the doors buys a lot of solace.

Easy to say now, after the diving shoestring catch has been made.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18431 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 113):
. AirInsight concluded that on an operating cost basis, the A320neo is 1% better than the 737-800W, affirming the Boeing conclusions.

However, there is no comparison with 737RE. It is not necessarily a good idea to assume while fuel cost of 737RE will undoubtedly drop, the other cost will not rises as compared to 737NG.

[Edited 2011-07-20 18:30:12]

User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1450 posts, RR: 44
Reply 131, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18319 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 84):
And, I bet all that it is certain about it could be represented on the back of a napkin (or less). You are giving Boeing too much credit. I've seen the pictures too and they'll piece something flashy together soon.

I'll take that bet. Also, I'm not giving Boeing credit, so much as I realize a few engineering-oriented things after seeing the same pictures you reference. Wind tunnel testing is not "back of the napkin" stuff. By the time you have a model in a wind tunnel, the following is true:

-- A set of specific design parameters have been defined.
-- Drawings have been made for the model. I'm not talking about some minor sketch on the back of a napkin. I'm talking drawings that can be fed to a machine tool capable of making the model.
-- The model has been built. I'm not talking about some guy with a styrofoam knife making minor cuts here or there. These models have to accurately mimic the potential end result to yield suitable experiental data.
-- Wind tunnel time has been allocated.

Wind tunnel tests are costly. They are not (indeed, cannot be) done on a whim based on "back of the napkin" ideas. They require planning and investment.

Another reason I'll take that bet is that I understand the purpose of wind tunnel testing: to gather data via direct measurement. Interpretation of that data is most potent when there is a set of expectations against which to compare them.

If you aren't an engineer, or even technical, you can be given a pass for not knowing these things. However, I hope they illustrate that it is possible to think in a more detailed fashion about this issue that simply giving somebody credit -- whatever that is. The truth is that none of us know how far along Boeing is in the detailed design for 737RE, but my money says that they are beyond "back of the napkin". It's amazing what you can realize from a couple of pictures -- if you know how to interpret them.

If you own Boeing stock, perhaps you should consider selling it. Since you think Boeing doesn't know what it's doing, I don't why you'd keep it.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18272 times:

Boeing's RE launch looks more like a duct-tape solution given the timing at this AA order which in reality favors Airbus even to the dumb.

IMHO, the greatest challenge is the industrialization of a new NB to 40-60 units per month. Even if Boeing can design a new NB, there is no way they can ramp up fast enough by which time NEO would have sold thousands. So simply put it, when Boeing did not raise the gears when designing NG, the destiny is set. Boeing will need a new NB to compete with NEO and RE is only able to get scraps because Airbus cannot make everyone happy. NEO will be the primary choice, while RE will play a role when there are slots limitations, multiple fleet requirements, or existing infrastructure advantage.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 133, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17984 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 127):
It wasn't exactly duress...in fact, the opposite.

If it was under duress, that is where Boeing could be making a mistake.

And Boeing hasn't really done anything that cannot be undone. 100 orders!? 100 orders doesn't force a manufacturer like Boeing to do anything. That's nothing in the big scheme of things. Had American decided to launch the re-engined 737 200-250 orders Boeing could be on the hook. But for a measly 100 orders? Boeing should carry on and dot their i's and cross their t's and if the calculus changes go back and tell American there has been a change in plans.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 134, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17946 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 41):
That bigger fan will make the difference one way or the other.

And if it does not, in other news, gravity will not apply to all re-engined 737s.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 77):
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 75):
independent studies

The way I read this there is no way this study was "independent". These studies usually publish what the financier of the report wants it to show. . And that is what it looks like to me. And the market success for the NEO is backing-up my impression.

So independent that the link has "independently decided" that is it not there?????

That chart you showed is a bit of a laugh fpetrutiu unless you can back up the increased mx and other costs for the A320 NEO. You might as well add another row entitled "ADD BIAS" and enter 130% for the A320 and 82.5674% for the 737 into this extra row. That will fix it.

As Astuteman says, have a look at the sales numbers.

It is all a bit like a batsman at cricket complaining about this that and the other in relation to his dismissal and the bowler commenting, "check in the newspaper tomorrow and you will find you were out". And in this case Airbus seems to be bowling and the umpire is looking more like "Quick finger Jack" with every order that passes.   


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 135, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17902 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 129):

With all due respect, I'll take AA's version of events over 'industry insiders'. The fact is, it doesn't matter when Boeing made the sales...it made the sales. Nobody is a victim here. Airbus did better but Boeing did pretty damned good. Since AA is a heavy 757 user, it makes sense to get the 321 since that makes a better 757 replacement than the 900er, so given that one fact alone, it is unlikely that AA was ever going to give all the sales to Boeing.

Until today, a 200 aircraft order was an all time record...now it's a disaster. What a difference a few weeks make.



What the...?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 136, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17787 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 131):
Also, I'm not giving Boeing credit, so much as I realize a few engineering-oriented things after seeing the same pictures you reference. Wind tunnel testing is not "back of the napkin" stuff.

I think the picture we're talking about is:



Ref: http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...rcraft-boeing-probably-wont-build/

And indeed it isn't the product of someone sitting down with a pen knife and a block of styrofoam.

But the article is titled "Here’s the aircraft Boeing probably won’t build" and says:

Quote:

Models aside, Boeing executives have suggested they are more likely to launch a replacement aircraft that aims to enter service around 2020.

Another set of tire tracks indicating Boeing's U-turn with regard to its narrowbody plans....



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 137, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 17645 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 136):

Another set of tire tracks indicating Boeing's U-turn with regard to its narrowbody plans....

That model is a study...testing a concept in a wind tunnel. Not every wind tunnel model becomes a production model.

It's only a uturn if they changed their mind about a decision. Since they hadn't decided, no uturn.

If they decide to not do an RE after today, then it's a uturn.



What the...?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11925 posts, RR: 25
Reply 138, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17234 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
The fact is, it doesn't matter when Boeing made the sales...it made the sales.

Clearly the fact that they made the sale is paramount.

It's also very important, IMHO, for a company's leaders to provide clear direction to their customers and their investors.

If they don't, why will they be believed in the future?

I've shown where two different aerospace reporters for two different Seattle news outlets who've reported that Boeing's guidance was that the all-new narrowbody was Boeing's main thrust.

If going with the re-engine is not a U-turn, then IMHO it's at least several dizzing laps around the roundabout whilst reading the map trying to figure out which exit to take.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
Since AA is a heavy 757 user, it makes sense to get the 321 since that makes a better 757 replacement than the 900er, so given that one fact alone, it is unlikely that AA was ever going to give all the sales to Boeing.

Yes, I feel that the A321 was the natural fit for AA's needs, but I also see them also taking loads of A319s and A320s which really doesn't make much sense for an existing B737-800 customer to do.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
Until today, a 200 aircraft order was an all time record...now it's a disaster. What a difference a few weeks make.

I've just scanned this thread and you're the only one using the word disaster.

In another thread, I've used the term "epic failure" and so I'll stick with that.

It's an epic failure when Boeing only takes 200 out of the 625 orders on the table (using your definition of "order") and the customer is an all-Boeing shop that hasn't bought an Airbus product since 1987.

I'll also go on record saying that it'll be an epic failure for Boeing if Airbus gets 2/3rds of WN's next fleet renewal.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17222 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 115):
That Airinsight chart compares the A320neo to the 737-800. Not the A320 to the 737-800.

True, nut see below

Quoting cerecl (Reply 130):
However, there is no comparison with 737RE. It is not necessarily a good idea to assume while fuel cost of 737RE will undoubtedly drop, the other cost will not rises as compared to 737NG.

True, however with only 1% margin the planned improvements will definitely put the 738RE on top. It would be hard to imagine that they would even touch the 738 if that is not the case. I was just saying that it seems that the B738RE has great potential. As for the other models the most they can hope for is to match or make it close enough where fleet comonality would make sense for the the added expense.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 140, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16834 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 138):
Yes, I feel that the A321 was the natural fit for AA's needs, but I also see them also taking loads of A319s and A320s which really doesn't make much sense for an existing B737-800 customer to do.

I don't think they will take a single A320 oeo.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 139):
True, however with only 1% margin the planned improvements will definitely put the 738RE on top.

Idk where you're getting that. That graph shows a significant advantage for the A320neo, 11%. Not 1%. Look again.

i.e. the 737-800re has to improve at least 11% to win. With a tiny fan, I'm not so sure it can beat 11%.

NS


User currently offlinecerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16751 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 139):
however with only 1% margin the planned improvements will definitely put the 738RE on top

There is nothing definite about 738RE. Further, Airbus has the capacity to change the picture as not all of the costs are set in stone. I also have no idea why A320NEO has a 7% disadvantage with "crew" when compared to 738, and would appreciate some education.
At the end of day, as some respected members have already pointed out, this alleged 1% difference triggered an order fest.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 139):
I was just saying that it seems that the B738RE has great potential.

This we can agree on. Which again begs the question: What took Boeing so long? It doesn't look like they took time to work out more details about RE either. The program they offered to AA seemed so primitive.,


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 142, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16766 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 140):
Idk where you're getting that. That graph shows a significant advantage for the A320neo, 11%. Not 1%. Look again.

i.e. the 737-800re has to improve at least 11% to win. With a tiny fan, I'm not so sure it can beat 11%.

NS

You are looking at only fuel burn. I am talking operating costs. If fuel burn is improved by 6-10%, it will give a decisive advantage given the rest of the numbers stay the same. I am again, talking operating costs.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 143, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16720 times:

Yeah, I think the rest of the numbers are bs. I don't see any way they can vary on crews or maintenance costs. You know?

NS


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 144, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16725 times:

Quoting cerecl (Reply 141):
I also have no idea why A320NEO has a 7% disadvantage with "crew" when compared to 738, and would appreciate some education.

Same crew requirements, less seats.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 145, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16661 times:

That makes sense i suppose.

NS


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 146, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16661 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 143):
Yeah, I think the rest of the numbers are bs. I don't see any way they can vary on crews or maintenance costs. You know?

Read the entire article, link posted in one of my first posts in here.

Crew costs are higher because it has less seats yet it requires the same crew. You are also dealing with a fully fly-by-wire system which costs more to maintain than cables and polleys. You have actuators, miles of wiring to be checked, computer and software updates, backup systems that are electronic in most parts. While the system is much better at controlling the aircraft (some pilots would disagree) it does have higher maintenance costs.

Think no further than an annual on a Cessna 172 with classic gauges and one that is equiped with the G1000. The costs difference in in the thousands of dollars, $3000 to be exact. Again this is a Cessna, now imagine a system at that scale.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3048 posts, RR: 5
Reply 147, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16522 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 66):
Only problem with that idea is does Boeing have enough slots to provide AA with this many frames in such a short time? Don't forget that they have WN returning to taking up 30+ frames a year putting a huge dent in the avaliblity.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 80):
Boeing will need to increase production as much as possible to meet the demand of customers like WN and FR, who could place 737RE orders equal to or larger than AA's combined order.

What are the chances that Boeing will open up an additional 737 line in Charleston in order to meet these production goals?



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 148, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16575 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 125):
It's not a uturn...it's choosing one of the options they have publicly and repeatedly said they had open to them

And repeatedly said was the one they didn't want to do..... No U turn?   

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 127):
Boeing has said they will take whatever time they needed to make the best economic decision for the company

So why are they scrabbling about saying they've just launched a 737RE but will not formally decide to offer it until Q3... Some "launch"......

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 128):
I actually think and McNerney/Albaugh have said this today, that technically the NSA was feasible but Boeing don't have their head around the production process yet

Perhaps this was another part of Boeing's grand strategy, which you so eloquently described to me a while back, to "dupe" Airbus into the unrecoverable "mistake" of launching the A320 NEO......   

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 132):
IMHO, the greatest challenge is the industrialization of a new NB to 40-60 units per month. Even if Boeing can design a new NB, there is no way they can ramp up fast enough by which time NEO would have sold thousands

  
Nailed on, my friend.
But even more importantly (IMO), not just the NEO, but the C919, MS21, etc etc

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 133):
Boeing should carry on and dot their i's and cross their t's and if the calculus changes go back and tell American there has been a change in plans.

And I don't disagree. So why are they telling everyone they've "launched" the 737RE when in fact they haven't.
If they'd have played a harder ball with AA, then perhaps we might have seen the 260 frame Airbus order, and it might have looked like an Airbus whitewash.
But I'm pretty certain AA would still have been open to whatever offer they think Boeing have just made, when the end of Q3 comes around, if is was that good an offer.

They gain nothing but eggy faces doing it the way they have.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 135):
Until today, a 200 aircraft order was an all time record...now it's a disaster

A 200 aircraft order is indeed a thing of beauty. But Boeing haven't got one   .

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 113):
However, the comparisons between the A319neo and the 737-700W and the A320neo and the 737-800W are clear. AirInsight concluded that on an operating cost basis, the A320neo is 1% better than the 737-800W, affirming the Boeing conclusions.

How many buses would you like driving through this "data"?

Fuel is 50% of the overall cost of ownership?
737-800's crew cost 7% less than an A320's crew? Why?
The 737's fees are less than the A320's even though it has a higher MTOW?
The 737 only burns 11% more fuel than an A320NEO?

What Airinsight have done is stuff their 737 full of seats and then calculated on a "per-seat" basis. And then done the calcualtion based on about a 200Nm sector, over which distance the 737's fuel burn shows up most favourably, and then made fuel an infeasibly large part of the overall cost for a short-haul operation

If the 737"W" is so damned good, then
a) why is it outsold (even if only slightly) by the A320 classic, even without winglets, and with a limited fuel capacity to boot, and
b) why are Boeing scrabbling around, desperately trying to stave off an A320NEO avalanche by being forced, by their customers, to offer a better, re-engined aircraft?

Sorry. But the behaviours in the marketplace tell you way more than a snapshot of fabricated numbers with only a tenuous link back to reality.

If your (and Boeing's) assertion were correct, and the 737NG really was as good as the A320NEO, then we'd be seeing a completely different set of behaviours, both from the market, and from Boeing   
Don't be fooled into falling for hype

Rgds


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16556 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 147):
What are the chances that Boeing will open up an additional 737 line in Charleston in order to meet these production goals?

They just openned up an old painting hangar, Charleston, not a chance, the factory does not have the capacity. Give their union problems, I wouldn't put it past Boeing opening up a plant in another country...   


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 150, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16415 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
So why are they telling everyone they've "launched" the 737RE when in fact they haven't.

To save face I guess, it doesn't seem like a good idea.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
If they'd have played a harder ball with AA,

That's probably what they should have done. Tell them to enjoy the NEOs, and add that after 2020 they'll have a knife at the gunfight.

Hopefully Boeing will learn and start telling customers that they can go get at the end of the Airbus line, but while they're waiting they might have to watch competitors start flying re-engined 737s or get an all new airframe delivered in a similar timeframe.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 304 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16398 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 138):
It's an epic failure when Boeing only takes 200 out of the 625 orders on the table

Where are you getting the 625 number? Are you counting the Airbus options in your tally, but not the Boeing ones? American ordered 460 planes today, and the split is much closer if you look at the firm orders: 200 to 260 in favor of Airbus.

I'm not giving Boeing management an excuse, but both of these companies have had their ups and downs. A few years ago, Airbus couldn't seem to get anything right. The A380 was way behind schedule and their management team was under investigation for insider trading. They didn't take the 787 seriously, with Leahy claiming they could just slap new wings and engines on the A330 and beat Boeing. That failed with customers, so then they proposed an all composite design, that was considered too narrow, so they finally came up with the A350XWB. Now they are hitting it out of the park and Boeing is the one that looks out of touch. I'm sure that will be reversed again at some point in the future.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9836 posts, RR: 96
Reply 152, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 146):
You are also dealing with a fully fly-by-wire system which costs more to maintain than cables and polleys.

  
Holy cow.....

Quoting msp747 (Reply 151):
and the split is much closer if you look at the firm orders: 200 to 260 in favor of Airbus.

If you look at FIRM orders, the split is, er, 0 to 260 in favour of Airbus..........

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29684 posts, RR: 84
Reply 153, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16458 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TSS (Reply 147):
What are the chances that Boeing will open up an additional 737 line in Charleston in order to meet these production goals?

They don't need to. They have a third line at Renton (for the P-8) which has significant amount of available production capacity and is designed to build commercial models of the 737 as well as military.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 16297 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
If your (and Boeing's) assertion were correct, and the 737NG really was as good as the A320NEO, then we'd be seeing a completely different set of behaviours, both from the market, and from Boeing

Simple, because of fuel costs fluctuations and the foresight of fuel costs going up. BTW, that study was done independently of B or A or the other B for that matter.

BTW, both aircraftsm, the B738W and the A320NEO have the same MTOW, 79 metric tonnes. The A320NEO still has less seats...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_800tech.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ier-than-existing-a320-models.html


User currently offlineAA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2541 posts, RR: 28
Reply 155, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 152):

No it isnt..... they ordered more 737NGs anyway.

Lord. The drama. Boeing got slapped today. Big deal.... everyone is talking like this is the end of the world for them. Clearly it isn't, and clearly it will not be.

This whole thread is overflowing with speculation, and people arguing over that which they have no idea........ NO ONE KNOWS what exactly is going to happen yet.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 156, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15788 times:

So what do they call it ?


737-100 through -900 designations are all taken.



737RE 100 ?!



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 157, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15770 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
And repeatedly said was the one they didn't want to do..... No U turn?

Nope. They made a selection from two choices. It might not have been their preferred choice, but still not a uturn.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
So why are they scrabbling about saying they've just launched a 737RE but will not formally decide to offer it until Q3... Some "launch"......

True...not technically an order for the but solid enough for AA to say they are pleased to commit to the order as soon as the plane is officially launched and solid enough to give a delivery timeframe. If it's good enough for the customer, it's good enough for me.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
A 200 aircraft order is indeed a thing of beauty. But Boeing haven't got one

See above. Tell you what, would you like to make a little wager on whether or not AA officially orders the RE?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
b) why are Boeing scrabbling around, desperately trying to stave off an A320NEO avalanche by being forced, by their customers, to offer a better, re-engined aircraft?

Where's the desperation? Boeing has been saying since before the NEO was on offer that they will decide on going all new or to re-engine the 737. Now, they have made their decision and their first, (soon to be official), customer seems quite happy with it.

If Boeing was desperate, they would have pulled the trigger when Airbus released the NEO for sale. Quite the opposite; they showed enough patience to wait until their data clearly showed them the better, for now, choice.

Airbus came to the market with the NEO first so it's only expected that they would get orders first. I have no doubt that the success of the NEO steered the decision towards the RE but it was just one factor.



What the...?
User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 158, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 15653 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 148):
Perhaps this was another part of Boeing's grand strategy, which you so eloquently described to me a while back, to "dupe" Airbus into the unrecoverable "mistake" of launching the A320 NEO......

You are very predictable and no matter what I say you will add a rolling head Never mind, but both Albaugh and McNerney did say they could build the NSA for 2019 but they couldn't produce it to the numbers required by the market. And they said it today. You go find the quotes.

No bugger it, here's what Albaugh said today(Bloomberg)

Boeing decided to revamp the 737 after hitting a “stumbling block” in the effort to build an all-new jet, its preferred choice, Jim Albaugh, the commercial airplanes chief, said yesterday in an interview. While the technology for a new jet is available, it wasn’t clear that Boeing could achieve high-volume output to permit the 2020 launch that carriers were demanding, he said.

“It came down to talking to customers, and when we talked to them about the prospect of a new airplane pushing out to the right, it became pretty apparent there was a bias to do something now, to do the new engine,” Albaugh said.

[Edited 2011-07-20 23:05:31]

User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21416 posts, RR: 60
Reply 159, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14790 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 138):
It's an epic failure when Boeing only takes 200 out of the 625 orders on the table (using your definition of "order") and the customer is an all-Boeing shop that hasn't bought an Airbus product since 1987.

Enough with the all Boeing lie.

Just because B bought MD doesn't mean all of a sudden AA has a history of ordering only Boeings.

Boeing ordered Boeings, Airbuses, Fokkers and MDs. When MD and Fokker went away, they ordered Boeings to replace other Boeings and some DC/MD aircraft. But recall, the DC10s and MD11s replaced Boeings.

AA has no loyalty to Boeing, and never has. So this idea that this was an all Boeing shop is a fallacy.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 158):
“It came down to talking to customers, and when we talked to them about the prospect of a new airplane pushing out to the right, it became pretty apparent there was a bias to do something now, to do the new engine,” Albaugh said.

This was a concern I had about the 2025 talk. What until then? 737RE is at least something. Will it be enough? Who knows, but 2025 was too late and doing nothing is not an option...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.