SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3135 posts, RR: 26 Posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 15311 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
This is a continuation thread from part 1 which can be found here: Boeing Board Approves B737 Upgrade (Part 1). As always, the moderators would like to request that all members post according to the rules-and regulations of the website. This is in order to make the forums an enjoyable experience for all members.
On behalf of the moderators, I would like to thank you for your co-operation in this regard and hope you continue to enjoy the forums.
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2983 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 15205 times:
In the previous thread there was some talk about Boeing possibly using the raked wingtips of the P8 on the 737MAX (nahhh... I'm not crazy about that name either), but I think that's highly unlikely because it would require wider gate spaces at airports, and I can't see either airlines or airports welcoming the idea of having to realign already crowded gate space for what is at best an interim model. One exception to this might be the 737-9, which would be replacing some of, and logically using the same gates as, existing domestic 757s.
Of course, this would depend on four factors:
1. Do spiroids provide a real-world decrease in fuel burn over winglets on a 737?
2. Can spiroids be (relatively) easily integrated on to the 737 wing?
3. Can a spiroid-equipped 737MAX use the same gate spacing as a winglet-equipped 737NG?
4. How much more will spiroids cost?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1404 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 15036 times:
I read recently that they had dropped the development on spiroid designs.Also
If Boeing were to go "raked" they would show "raked" but they show BW's and state min cost development max commonality.
Boeing has re engined and "parity" is resumed.So Boeing will still have a slight advantage on the 7/ shorter routes just as Airbus still has the advantage with the 321/longer routes. It will come down to individual Co requirements.
However (as has been discussed so many times). If - if Airbus can get the 321 er NEO to do economic TATL then they alone will have a section of the 757 replacement market to themselves.What that is worth is a mute point however.
But generally parity is restored.
What this means to Bombardier is however another matter entirely.We have all seen the "double order of 40" and wonder. I personaly believe having a new state of the art MAX7 is even worse news for them!
The FCOM's for the current planes suggest that (specifically), the 737-800 burns c 4% less fuel than the A320 (current) at short ranges (200Nm - 500Nm), and c. 4% more at long ranges (2 000Nm - 3 000Nm)
Bearing in mind that the A320NEO is also inheriting sharklets which give it another 3.5% fuel burn reduction at longer ranges, as well as also having a somewhat more optimised engine solution than the 737MAX, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the A320NEO may well sport an 8% or higher fuel burn advantage over the 737MAX at longer ranges, and yet STILL have a 4% fuel burn disadvantage at shorter ranges.
Recognising your innate tendency to get extremely agitated at the merest hint that an Airbus might even remotely challenge a Boeing in any positive characteristic, I am at pains to hurriedly point out that I don't think that the long range fuel burn advantage I hypothesise for the A320NEO is a) unreasonable, or b) an issue for the 737-8MAX.
Most sectors aren't that long a range, and the 737-8 has a natural capacity advantage over the A320, so I can forsee many sectors, or missions, where the 737-8MAX will be at least as good a solution as the A320NEO.
If you still don't think that's a balanced view...........
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 279): Do you really assume that the A320NEO will have three times the weight increase of the 737MAX?
It's just an opinion, but I think it will be about that.
The fan diamter increase of the NEO is of the order of 11" to 14" depending on the engine choice, whereas that of the 737MAX will be in the 5" to 7" range. That should make the 737's engine weight increase quite a bit less.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4286 posts, RR: 37 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks ago) and read 14751 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 4): Recognising your innate tendency to get extremely agitated at the merest hint that an Airbus might even remotely challenge a Boeing in any positive characteristic
Very carefully selected words for something that is not so sensitive at all. The market accepts easily the stretches where the B737-NG has the advantage, where it is equal to the A320 series, and where the A320 series clearly has the advantage. Overall they are very close in performance and TCO. With the new "battle" NEO vs. MAX most likely that will remain more or less the same.
Due to the reasons you also mentioned, the overall advantage will have grown a (little?) bit in favor of the NEO since it will get the bonus of wing-lets too. Though they hurt on the shortest stretches of course. We want to keep a balanced view here. .
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2688 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14578 times:
The SW news is not surprising, as Albaugh was quoted as saying the "majority" of the 496 were "from outside North America". Really, I think AA is the only US customer so far. Then again, I don't expect SW to order hundreds right away. They tend more to order planes in batches.
In other (good) news for the 737MAX, I have it on good authority that none of the commitments so far are conversions of existing orders. Thus, all are new!
AirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2203 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14387 times:
I don't know if I have missed it, so sorry for asking a question again if it has already been answered, but will the 737MAX be a Fly-By-Wire aircraft or is it still all mechanical? I guess it will make a big difference in the economics of the aircraft, both in terms of weight savings, but also maintenance.
On a sidenote; I am a little disappointed that Boeing didn't decide to do an all new narrow body airliner. The A320 has a wider cabin and a larger cockpit, which Boeing just can't do anything about with the current design of the 737.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28574 posts, RR: 84 Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14370 times:
Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 10): I don't know if I have missed it, so sorry for asking a question again if it has already been answered, but will the 737MAX be a Fly-By-Wire aircraft or is it still all mechanical?
Boeing is said to be considering some FBW control surfaces, but the bulk will remain mechanical.
AirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2203 posts, RR: 22 Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14303 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Boeing is said to be considering some FBW control surfaces, but the bulk will remain mechanical.
Quoting scbriml (Reply 13):
Neither of which have stopped Boeing selling thousands of 737s.
Very true, but the A320 has catched up quite a bit despite it not being introduced before the late 80s. It was not directly a criticism of Boeing, but it seems like FBW is the way to go in order for better economics. But like in the 787, they could still keep the yoke.
I expressed my disappointment because I love Boeing and want them to do well and I think a whole new A/C would give them the advantage they really need.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2677 posts, RR: 58 Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 14191 times:
I don't want to sound negative to the 737MAX, I like the design changes, it makes the A/C look more modern and it will be a fine competitor to the NEO. The Aviation world will benefit from this fight of 2 good A/C.
There is one thing about Boeing management that I wonder a bit over however:
1. When their tack was NSA their party-line was "and we don't want to re-engine the 737 because it will only bring so and so much (rather low and uninteresting values compared to a NEO), and by the way we have studied it very carefully so we know what we are talking about.
2. Now the story is (today at Leeham) "we are better then any NEO and also a couple of percent better then the C-series in fuel burn".
I think it is really fantastic how Boeing has found an almost 50% improvement for the re-engine in only 4 months, especially since there is many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on .
Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5030 posts, RR: 29 Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14142 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 15): I think it is really fantastic how Boeing has found an almost 50% improvement for the re-engine in only 4 months, especially since there is many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on .
It sucks having two options, picking the one that you "think" you're heading for, then marketing for it and "against" the other. Then switching gears and having to re-market your ideas.
In the end, though, it doesn't really matter. As long as they get it right in the end, this is all just window dressing, posturing, etc.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4286 posts, RR: 37 Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 14127 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 15): Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...
Marketeers at any company usually do not care much about the (recent) history of the products of the company they campaign for. I do not expect those of Boeing to be any different in this department. Of course the claims are mostly BS, but the data provided by the manufacturers to the airlines will most probably be fairly correct, especially if they are part of the sales contract guarantees. .
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5264 posts, RR: 30 Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 13999 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 15):
Given the tarnished credibility from the recent aircraft projects I would have tried to be a bit more low key with how fast I would swing the story...
The PR guys can spin any story they like...but once they make commitments to customers, they have to put up or pay the price. They will have to make specific performance guarrantees to customers to get them to buy and not have to pay penalties.
Those are the figures I'm interested in. Until they publish those specs, as far as I'm concerned all numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
That being said, like most reasonable folk in here, I have no doubt that whatever specific specs Boeing offers, they will be good enough to essentially maintain the status quo.
QFA787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 13965 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 8): In other (good) news for the 737MAX, I have it on good authority that none of the commitments so far are conversions of existing orders. Thus, all are new!
Have heard the same myself from a very reliable source. Very good news. If WN aren't yet on board I think it's pretty safe to assume that Ryanair are. Taking AA out of the equation there are 396 firm orders for 4 carriers. I suspect 1 of those will order at least 150 frames.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12375 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 17): data provided by the manufacturers to the airlines will most probably be fairly correct, especially if they are part of the sales contract guarantees.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18): Those are the figures I'm interested in. Until they publish those specs, as far as I'm concerned all numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Quite so. Which makes you rather wonder who in heck the marketing BS is directed at. If in public you are stating X% better, when in private you only state Y% where Y is markedly less than X%, I would have thought the subsequent conversation would be more difficult than it need be if your X had been closer to Y????
If it is the shareholders, that could get tricky if you get sued and the US is suesville. The puzzle deepens.
As ferpe writes, all this for a design "with many things not yet decided like Fan size, MTOW (Tinseth), wing tips and so on".
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28574 posts, RR: 84 Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12260 times:
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22): Which makes you rather wonder who in heck the marketing BS is directed at.
It's just sound bites to fill a minute or two of the 24-hour news cycle.
Quoting Baroque (Reply 22): If it is the shareholders, that could get tricky if you get sued and the US is suesville.
Hence the reason they don't give specific situations. "Oh, when we said the 737NG was 4% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, that was over a distance of 100 yards on push back from the gate without a tug. But we only had two minutes for the sound bite, so that extra part was left on the cutting room hard drive by the news agencies."
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5030 posts, RR: 29 Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12185 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 23): Hence the reason they don't give specific situations. "Oh, when we said the 737NG was 4% more fuel efficient than an A320neo, that was over a distance of 100 yards on push back from the gate without a tug. But we only had two minutes for the sound bite, so that extra part was left on the cutting room hard drive by the news agencies."
Sad, but true.
If we could just flash ahead five or six years now, that'd be great.
25 JoeCanuck: AA must have some numbers and the comparison figures won't be included in any contract. Those are just for the PR folks. Contracts will be based on a
26 Rheinwaldner: From the other thread: And? I spoke about customers who are not tied to one vendor. Like QF. It is absolutely not a given that a group like QF must ha
27 JoeCanuck: Some months ago, (March), Boeing said a re-engined 737 would burn 11-12% less fuel...just like they are saying today. http://www.flightglobal.com/cha
28 InsideMan: yes, but even Boeing doesn't know yet where they will end up. AA Will have performance guarantees of some sort and that's all they need. If Boeing mi
29 JoeCanuck: Boeing just has to have firm minimum specs...and will, no doubt, attempt to beat them. It's up to the customers to decide if those minimum specs are
30 Baroque: You mean I should use the "remote" a bit more. I still reckon the best bet is a circuit and bump on a day with a favourable wind. Yes, well of course
31 EPA001: I think these customers will do so rather sooner then later. The prospect of a re-engined and further optimized B737 is too good for existing custome
32 TP313: For existing customers, absolutely! Why incur in fleet conversion costs when there is a fine new competitive 737 out there. For new ones, it is trick
33 TaromA380: Let's get back to fondamentals. Present days A320 and B737 were on par. Marketshare fifty-fifty. Pretty soon: A320NEO is getting 78/80" engine + wingl
34 TP313: If Boeing restrains from messing with the ailerons, the spoilers and flaps should be quite doable. If they get to work on the ailerons, IMHO, they ri
35 Baroque: Or, put the other way round, the NEO can benefit from whichever of these new engines proves to be best. The Max has bet on the Leap being at least co
36 Rheinwaldner: Look at the second part of the statement to see what I meant. "a couple of percents" is not what Boeing promises for the 737MAX...
37 fpetrutiu: Salut, If you look at a recent article (I believe you can find the link in part 1), that particular study seems to indicate that the MAX will end up
38 EPA001: Since several details are yet to be decided by Boeing, how can there already be "a study" (which of course should be independent, otherwise it is all
39 delimit: Given that the 738's advantage comes from a combination of lower weight and higher capacity, I would imagine the MAX vs. NEO situation will stay abou
40 fpetrutiu: Bigger engine, bigger weight, bigger drag, although more trust. Efficiency decreases with size increase, so the bigger the engine, yes you can sage f
41 par13del: This is based on repair cost, building cost or selling price, the economics that is, FBW is not tied to the type of interface side stick or yoke.
42 EPA001: Also the NEO will receive aerodynamic improvements and will go through a weight loss operation. But that does not make your post less true, because a
43 TP313: I've been thinking a little bit more about this, and the way for Boeing to avoid "mission creep" is to stick to a "FBW for wing surfaces only" develo
44 InsideMan: look, the capacity difference will not grow, quite the opposite, the A320 gains 3 more seats. Therefore that argument is a moot point. the A320 engin
45 fpetrutiu: There is not way that would happen. 4% yes, 8-10% you must be smoking something really good. Give me some too. What data do you have to back up your
46 EPA001: And they are thw holy grail in aviation? . I guess we better return to quads for the large aircraft classes. The VLA's are still quads too. .
47 fpetrutiu: No they are not. But are you with your claims? I trust their opinions a lot more than any A.nutter here, including myself.[Edited 2011-09-02 06:30:31
48 EPA001: And I do not. I will do my own math which I am quite confident of, and will let the market speak for itself. Which speaks out of real world experienc
49 fpetrutiu: Good idea. Before the NEO and the MAX, the market was 50-50% basically with slight favor on the 737. Now, the NEO got a lead because it came out firs
50 EPA001: No, the market was almost 50-50 with a slightly overall sales advantage for the A320-series. But let us not nitpick on such details. Now that the NEO
51 Cerecl: Source? I doubt Airbus projected that they will capture a large number of 737 operators. I also doubt Airbus considered it was likely Boeing would le
52 Rheinwaldner: Good question! A lot of people seem to have long explanations that use many words and still lack the striking logic of your comparison. Only regardin
53 fpetrutiu: "Airbus was aiming to capitalise on Boeing's perceived indecisiveness on the future of the 737. However, those familiar with the European airframer's
54 Baroque: While it is true there is a balance, it seems pretty likely the optimum is not down where the 737 fan size looks like being. I am waiting for the dev
55 fpetrutiu: I agree that the optimum is probably not where the MAX's is, but also the 737 is a lot lighter than the A320 and offers more seats. In my opinion it
56 delimit: That same constraint on the engine that works against the MAX with regards to fan size works in its favor for weight. Although the size will increase
57 gigneil: Only the 738 is lighter or offers more seats than the A320. NS
58 cosmofly: The next battle may actually be production rate. We know the market will need more NBs. Whoever can design and sustain higher production rate with qu
59 fpetrutiu: 737-600 is lighter than 318 80,031 lb (36,378 kg) vs 87,000lbs (39,500kg). Seats: 108 vs 107 (standard 2 class config) 737-700 is lighter then A319 8
60 astuteman: I completely share in your utmost confidence in this respect. Mind you, it's a confidence that seems extraordinarily ironic given the intense sceptic
61 par13del: Since AA just bought some OEO's and B6 operate's some, how does that advantage not assist them in being able to avoid some fuel stops in the USA tran
62 Stitch: Friends (and I call you friends because I know you too well to call you Ladies & Gentlemen - Benny Hill), you need to look at this not as Boeing B
63 EPA001: As always a very good analysis from Stitch with which I can only agree. .
64 worldliner: Glad to hear this announcement! Can't wait to see who has ordered it, can see Southwest ordering it but not immediately. I hope BA will of retire up t
65 BMI727: Which is precisely why Boeing needs to do more with the 737 now to produce a differentiated aircraft that is definitively more efficient on shorter r
66 JoeCanuck: We could bash numbers back and forth about where one plane out efficiencies the other but where it counts is the bottom line. Will the plane make mone
67 PlaneAdmirer: If Boeing had NOT gone with the MAX, those 496 commitments would be going NEO by year end in all likelihood as those buyers were clearly waiting.[Edit
68 Stitch: I guess it comes down to me not being nearly as pessimistic about Boeing's chances in the marketplace as you (and a few others). The 737MAX has secur
69 astuteman: The current A320 tanks 18.6 tonnes of fuel max, and the 737 tanks 20.9 tonnes. So the 737 tanks about 12% more fuel. When I look at the range/payload
70 ContnlEliteCMH: Funny, I thought his comparison was too general to have striking logic or to make a serious point, especially given the complexity of airliners. What
71 travelhound: One of the arguments against the C Series is they have built too much range into it. If the plane had been optimised for shorter routes, it would hav
72 Viscount724: Ironically, Boeing's former CEO is now running a company that builds a few models for the European market using "MAX" in the name. Ford S-MAX. http:/
73 EPA001: Which weight advantage are you talking about? As Astuteman already posted: The B738 has a passenger advantage over the A320, although the new galley
74 BMI727: This isn't about the MAX. It will be fine. Not great, but fine. The issue is the opportunity Boeing has now and what comes next. Boeing waited and go
75 travelhound: The one where 737MAX is 4% more efficient than A320NEO!!!!!!! My information has the A320 at 42,600 kgs as compared to Astuteman at 41,345 kgs. Consi
76 EPA001: That is also absolutely true in my opinion. But I am also not advocating that fan size is the primary indicator, though it is an important one. .[Edi
77 JoeCanuck: I agree...as long as one takes them with a grain of salt...and doesn't take any of this too seriously. Speculation can be quite entertaining.
78 planemaker: Amen, brother! There are indeed many factors other than "0-60" and "mpg" that airlines analyze long before purchase... and it is unfortunate that the
79 PlanesNTrains: If they indeed preferred a 797, then it was in their (Boeing Management's) best interest to portray a re-engined 737 as INferior. Were they to have f
80 328JET: That remains to be seen. Boeing has to do some changes which increases the weight as well, so i am not so sure anymore about a weight difference as b
81 astuteman: Which is ok, but the manufacturers are paying Airbus, not the other way round.... Rgds
82 CALPSAFltSkeds: I'm seeing a discussion that the 320 has an advantage over the 737NG as range increases. Does this have anything to do with the 737NG not having doors
83 PlanesNTrains: Life is good. Still, they probably would prefer not to make custom engines for every airframe out there right now. -Dave
84 gigneil: The thing is, they do. No two engines for any two airframes are, today, identical. They're all custom in some way - software definitely, wiring harnes
85 Stitch: You believe Boeing made this decision by choice. I believe they were forced to. If they had waited, all their customers may very well have ordered th
86 Baroque: That is interesting. I knew they softpedalled the quick change from one type to another as "normal" event but did not know that followed. An enormous
87 PlanesNTrains: Well, then I stand corrected. I am a little surprised that they are that willing to develop and certify that many different powerplants, but if it wo
88 BMI727: When Boeing decides that they are going to upgrade the 737 and then decides that upgrade means just new engines and a few other tweaks, yes, that is
89 InsideMan: sigh.... this is the case today and the A/C are more or less on par depending on mission length. Will the MAX add more seats and lose more weight? No
90 PlanesNTrains: Define "better". I understand your position, but I'm not sure what more there is to say that you haven't already said on this topic. The fact of the
91 cosmofly: It would be interesting to know what Boeing has been proposing to airliners before they recognize that they need to re-engine to prevent exodus to NEO
92 BMI727: More efficient, with that much more technology incorporated, having somewhat more mature technology, and the opportunity to skip technologies that mi
93 Stitch: Airlines were leery of the 797 because of the risk involved in both creating it and then pumping 60 of them a month out within 24 months of EIS. If B
94 PlanesNTrains: So you think that a few years difference in EIS of two competitive narrowbody's will create that much of a difference? If there was going to be such
95 BMI727: But they all wanted the benefits. Boeing should have split the difference. Re-certification would have to be part of the package, but the benefits wo
96 Stitch: They wanted all the benefits years before Boeing could give it to them and well after Airbus (and Bombardier) could give them much of them. Depends o
97 astuteman: Either way, the Leap-X on the C919 and GTF on the MS21 WERE optimised for those airframes, and those airframes ARE in the A320 class for size and wei
98 TP313: By launching the 737MAX, Boeing is going to build the best plane they can, in an unfavorable strategic context. Will it be the best aircraft overall
99 EPA001: I keep coming back to John Leahy who has stated this policy for Airbus and Boeing all along multiple times. He was (especially here of course) heavil
100 PlanesNTrains: Well, other than you saying it, there's nothing that says Boeing can't indeed be 1-2 years behind. I'll just repeat what I already said on this since
101 BMI727: Plenty of orders, but what about profits? Boeing is putting a product out there that is more or less identical to any number of competitors so they w
102 Stitch: We already know Boeing is willing to lose an order if it doesn't bring them sufficient profits, so I can't see them having launched the 737MAX just t
103 planemaker: Any number of competitors?? While a few OEM's names are often throw into the ring as competitors, the truth... the facts are that they will have abso
104 TP313: IMHO it is the best plane they can build in the current circumstances. Could Boeing spend 10 to 15 $Billion developping an all new short/medium haul
105 BMI727: That's a fairly low standard. They're also offering more range than most customers will ever need. Boeing should try and trade some of that for a fur
106 planemaker: No it doesn't... the facts are the facts. It is easy to throw out OEM names without actually looking at reality and being able to back up assertions.
107 TP313: That is still more than double to three times the ammount spent by Airbus on the same market segment to get something roughly equal. I think the Max
108 BMI727: China has a lot of say in what their airlines do. Significant government influence for local airlines to purchase planes from COMAC could eat into th
109 Stitch: Better than not making any margin because all your customers are buying A320neos. They offer that range through available fuel tankage. If airlines d
110 TP313: But those are the ranges where the MAX should show some advantage over NEO. As for the C-series they only compete with the -7. The -8, or -9 should r
111 planemaker: That is another "pat" answer that is often thrown out without taking reality into account. "When" and "how many" frames? I am sorry if I seem a bit d
112 BMI727: ...but not as good as having larger margins since your plane is more efficient. Except that the tanks themselves have weight, and the aircraft has st
113 planemaker: But it doesn't matter one bit what A or B produces as those "China sales" would have been lost sales anyway... which makes it irrelevant to Boeing's
114 JoeCanuck: The problem is, all of those changes cost money, engineering resources, commonality benefits and while a new wing might make the plane more competiti
115 BMI727: It is better if the aircraft doesn't need to rely on price and commonality to compete. Boeing should design a plane such that they don't need to eat
116 InsideMan: very smart guys at Boeing went through probably hundreds of iterations and scenarios and the best business case they came up with is what was present
117 planemaker: Why might it not look so good in 2018?
118 EPA001: That would be the ideal scenario for every OEM. Unfortunately the competition forced them to take a different path which will also be less risky to B
119 Stitch: True, but do you know what the cost-benefit ratio is for a heavily-updated 737 versus the 737MAX? I'm sure Boeing does and I expect so do the custome
120 BMI727: There's merit to that argument, but I have to think that some of the management at Boeing might be scared after the 787. It's one thing to be conserv
121 travelhound: I think this is the dilemma for Boeing. I know we are constantly stating that Boeing and Airbus share the NB market evenly with a 50:50 split, but if
122 Stitch: But would all those carriers, already A320 operators, have waited another decade for the 797? I think not. Boeing didn't launch the 797 for one of tw
123 par13del: A few years ago those same smart folks were content to allow Airbus the NB market without much competition as they were satisfied with the higher val
124 PlanesNTrains: Well, then by definition, if someone comes along with "something better", Boeing wouldn't be first to market, and if they wait a few years, could fol
125 BMI727: Yes, but at that point Boeing will have already thrown billions into a new plane. The idea is that Boeing uses the advantage they have now by creatin
126 JoeCanuck: The simple truth is customers were not willing to wait the time it would take Boeing to do an all new plane and produce it in large numbers, and a hea
127 planemaker: And that wouldn't change anything with regards to your assertion about "any number of competitors".
128 Revelation: Unfortunately the premium you speak of is not guaranteed. Note that Boeing punted on the 797 not because they didn't think the technology was there,
129 EPA001: A very good post with which I mostly can agree with. Though when I wrote "competition", I meant Airbus and the other manufacturers involved in new ai
130 Rheinwaldner: True, a lot of different factors can have a large impact on aircraft sales. But between A320 and 737 the slogan "if everything else is equal" is actu
131 brons2: In the end, the opportunity costs of waiting for a brand new airframe were higher than the opportunity cost of re-engining.
132 Stitch: Because the A320 was a greater overall leap over the 737 Classic than the A320neo will be over the 737MAX. The 737NG was a significant upgrade of the
133 planemaker: He should work for poiticians with the amount of spin and selective parsing of history that he posts.
134 BMI727: It's one thing to be prudent, it's another to go into a shell. Learn the lessons, but at the same time have a short memory to take the next shot when
135 Stitch: Airbus announced some 667 orders and commitments for the A320neo from some dozen customers during the four days of the Paris Air Show and we were fall
136 planemaker: They didn't go into a shell. No relevance... totally different dynamics. Full production is not more or less limping along. A new wing would not prov
137 Revelation: Both A and B face similar problems with the narrowbody market: how can you replace a product that's at record production and backlog levels? I don't
138 BMI727: I wouldn't say that. I think Boeing management is scared to act almost as much as they are scared to not act. I'm not convinced that is true. Boeing
139 TP313: I have to disagree with you here, Rheinwaldner. The 734 passenger count and payload are very different from the 738, and the MAX-8. In fact the 9 ext
140 Stitch: A commitment implies an intent to purchase, so I expect they have LoIs and MoUs ready. I think it shows how popular the 737MAX is with customers and
141 planemaker: They didn't go into a shell and they certainly aren't "scared" to act or not act. You're not convinced based on what? What would you know about 737 w
142 JoeCanuck: The 737 Classic managed to sell 2000 frames against the all new A320 and the NG has managed to sell over 3000 against the same competition...not exac
143 BMI727: They got the crap scared out of them by one order, so they half launched a nebulous 737 upgrade. After being scared by what happened with the 787 the
144 planemaker: They didn't get the "crap scared out of them". And the the MAX is not "nebulous". No, they did what made business sense... not indulge enthusiasts. Y
145 BMI727: Boeing saw what happened with the American order and they ran for cover. The result is that they are going to knowingly bring to market a product tha
146 planemaker: No they didn't run for cover. Not so... it depends on the mission. There is a cost/benefit for everything... and the MAX provides the best cost/benef
147 Stitch: The true hubris would have been after the 787 fiasco to then announce another all-new airplane with a "short" time to market (assuming launch in late
148 ContnlEliteCMH: After years of reading this site, I am convinced that this point is lost on the majority of A.netters. It is not necessary to have the superior produ
149 BMI727: And Boeing had the opportunity to better tailor their product to the majority of missions (particularly for their incumbent customers) and didn't. Th
150 planemaker: Like what? And at what cost? All you have done is is voice "feelings" and nothing to substatiate your "feelings". Yes it was. Without numbers your th
151 Revelation: Compare: A) Airbus studies the market, decides in less than a year to do a NEO, is confident enough to launch product with zero orders, has 1000 orde
152 BMI727: Hopefully whatever upgrade that might be is better than what they have talked about. If they can't get an upgraded 777 in the air before 2021, they m
153 planemaker: From your posts you certainly don't demonstrate that you understand the basics. Furthermore, you admit to not knowing any numbers yet come up with co
154 PlanesNTrains: If Boeing didn't have formal Board approval, they certainly couldn't confirm American's order. If Boeing was still studying the possibilities, it's l
155 BMI727: They're based on logic and conjecture. Not as good as numbers, but nobody will give me numbers, so I go with what I have. You don't have to believe i
156 planemaker: But logic and conjecture has to be based on facts... yours is not. You are ignoring all the facts that are out there which negate all your assertions
157 JoeCanuck: ...and gets almost 500 commitments almost immediately after officially launching the product...Five Hundred sales...for what some are saying is the o
158 travelhound: I'd suggest there were many years of market research and engineering studies of the A320NEO before Airbus announced their intentions. There may have
159 Rheinwaldner: That may be true, though I question that the difference was big at all. The 734 was a shiny new design as well. Sure, far from it. The classics are g
160 BMI727: The 787-10 that was shown to the public was rather underwhelming. If they cannot stretch the plane more without giving up too much range, they are be
161 InsideMan: let's not forget, that at the time Boeing was in a more or less monopoly situation and customers hate that. So no matter how big the difference in pe
162 travelhound: This is an interesting article. http://www.centreforaviation.com/ana...cy-in-a320neo-b737max-battle-58023 Some other interesting points on LCC's and w
163 fcogafa: And the article implies that the MAX may be outselling the NEO by November - two months away!
164 Stitch: Seriously? The A320 was a significant technological leap over the 737 Classic and I would think you'd be one of the first to claim as such. Honestly,
165 Revelation: Doing some googling, I've found some of Albaugh's comments on the July 27th earnings conference call: And: Ref: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/
166 planemaker: No it is not... there is already a body of evidence with regards to cost/benefits. You are wrong. I am not the one throwing out assertions. I am not
167 Stitch: I think the customers did not believe Boeing could figure out how to ramp up to 60/month (within two years). And they were right to believe that. Boe
168 BMI727: But not from people looking at the A350-1000. Boeing needs to have an answer for that (a 777NG showing up in 2021 is not it) rather than two answers
169 TP313: Is this **** what passes for objective analysis these days? Yeah, conjuring up fantasies based exclusively on Boeing's PR figures is realy informativ
170 planemaker: The risks are a totally different order of magnitude... and you should know that. You should know that if it is discovered in flight testing it is to
171 travelhound: I wasn't expecting that one! CAPA are a well respected aviation consulting firm. They're not the media, so I'd suggest what they have to say has some
172 Hamlet69: I've stood by quietly chuckling to myself, but this is now getting ridiculous. . . According to who? It doesn't need more range. It already has more r
173 JoeCanuck: There are 500 commitments that say they whatever Boeing is offering, is sufficient that for the customers, it IS the superior plane, FOR THEM...regar
174 Revelation: Just curious to know what you and/or others think will trigger A and/or B to launch an all-new narrowbody. It seems to me replacing a strong-selling
175 BMI727: Me. The 787-10X Boeing showed is not going to be large enough to compete with the A350-1000 much at all. The 787-9 should compete with the -900 in a
176 flyorski: The 787 was developed to replace the 767, as the A330 was eating its lunch. To more effectively compete against the A350-1000 Boeing will look at a 7
177 gigneil: The 787-10X is the size of the 777-200ER, so, that certainly does make sense now doesn't it? NS
178 JoeCanuck: Basically, the market will tell them and the market killed any idea for an all new plane for now...not forever. By 2020, composite technology, exotic
179 PlanesNTrains: Of course. Everyone has their own needs and abilities. So now the 777 is irrelevant? I thought the 777NG was the -1000 competitor, but I guess I was
180 BMI727: This is part of where Boeing really screwed themselves when they botched up the 787. They were pressed for time and manpower so they dropped the modi
181 rheinwaldner: It is almost funny but I don't. You may remember that I always argued that even if the NSA would only be 5%-10% better than the A320NEO it would not
182 JoeCanuck: Well, presumably those who made commitments had looked at the NEO before making said commitments and they chose, (or will choose), the MAX. I would b
183 planemaker: It is BMI727 that is making the claim that Boeing should put a new wing on the MAX... with no "proof" - none, that it has a positive cost/benefit...
184 Stitch: If reports are to be believed, the aero is good enough that the loss of the 4m of span aren't really going to hurt and it does make the 787-9 a bit e