Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Details&numbers About 737MAX And A320NEO  
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16251 times:

I have found an interesting analysis by leehamnet, that deals with expected figures of the two new re-engined NB's:
http://airinsight.com/2011/10/05/airbus-takes-on-max/

The report is based on the first profound defence from Airbus against Boeing's creative number measuring methodology. The report was presented at the ISTAT conference.

Depending on who tells you something e.g. the numbers for fuel per seat vary between +7% and -8%. See here:
http://airinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/blockfuel-neo-v-max1.jpg

Some quotes to whet your appeitie:

Quote:
The controversy might be summed it with this question: If CFM had to upsize the fan on the LEAP to be competitive with the GTF on the neo, how can it now downsize the fan for the MAX and achieve the same result?
Quote:
Airbus, which has up to now claimed the NEO is “up to” 15% better than today’s A320 family, revealed for the first time that this is “conservative,” ... the A319neo will be slightly more than 15% better than today’s A319 at 500nm and about 17% better at 2,500nm. Airbus concludes that the A319neo will be 7% better than the 737-7 (MAX) on a per-seat and a per trip basis.

According to Airbus, Boeing used the following tricks to reach their conclusions:
- Deny any improvement from PIP's for the A320
- Pick the oldest and weakest A320 engine for the comparison
- Pick the most favorable range for the 737 and the worst for the A320

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The only number that is going to matter is what each plane does in an airline's specific configuration on their specific routes using their specific mission rules.

The rest - especially from the OEMs - is just noise.


User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1442 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16187 times:

There are way too many variables in this maze of sales and marketing to come to a reasonable "draw". One of the most important factors, often overlooked by many, is: what will my plane cost over the lifetime that I own it?
ACQUISITION COST can make that total number make or break a deal.
Both Airbus and Boeing try to build a plane for the least amount of money and highest potential amount of profit. There are many ways to get there...



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16146 times:

Until Boeing fix an engine size, thrust level and OEW for the MAX all these comparisons are a meaningless.

[Edited 2011-10-12 06:17:45]


BV
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12804 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Given the sales we've already seen for the A320neo and the commitments that Boeing say they have for the 737MAX, it's clear that both will sell in large numbers regardless of which one may or may not be better on any specific mission.

The only potential I can see for Airbus to clearly "trump" the 737MAX would be if the GTF is significantly better than the LEAP-X. Frankly, I'd be shocked if we saw anything other than a 50-50 (plus or minus 5%) market split.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15983 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The only number that is going to matter is what each plane does in an airline's specific configuration on their specific routes using their specific mission rules.

Do you think the range Boeing picked for their communications (500nm) is a good average to get a good impression how good the aircraft will be in reality? Have you noticed that in this Airbus report there are specific improvements mentioned for different ranges?


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13440 posts, RR: 100
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15927 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
Quote:
The controversy might be summed it with this question: If CFM had to upsize the fan on the LEAP to be competitive with the GTF on the neo, how can it now downsize the fan for the MAX and achieve the same result?

Boeing is also neglecting the 'Sharklets' that will help the A320.

Interesting numbers. IMHO the 738 is at a little more advantage to the A320 than the charts suggest, partially as it has room for another row of passengers.

Due to weight, the 738 will still do well on shorter missions. The question will be, at what mission length will the A32X family have a clear advantage? The Airbus view of the 738MAX is definately for the EIS configuration. Once the CMC turbine is installed, the 738MAX will gain a few more percent.

Something isn't adding up. For example, the A320NEO will benefit far more than 15% on TCON missions. Currently, those missions are too close to the plane's range, when going against the wind, for great economics. The 738 (current) has a nice advantage on TCON missions (US).

Quoting peanuts (Reply 2):
One of the most important factors, often overlooked by many, is: what will my plane cost over the lifetime that I own it?

   Which also includes resale. Due to the high commonality, 738s should be easier to place by leasing agencies.

Pratt is supposed to be keeping 4% fuel burn in reserve. If that is the case, than the A320 and A321 will *almost* have TATL range. To say the least, that will have a large number of 752 operators knocking on their door for those last few hundred nm of range. The same can be said about the 738.

Any way we look at it, the new engines will make the 739ERMAX and A321 much more economical airframes. IMHO, both the 738MAX and 739MAX will sell well for Boeing. For Airbus, I expect a large shift, in the long run, to the A321NEO. I consider the 73GMAX and A319MAX loss leaders that will have sales analogous to the 735/736.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10183 posts, RR: 97
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15694 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
Something isn't adding up. For example, the A320NEO will benefit far more than 15% on TCON missions Currently, those missions are too close to the plane's range, when going against the wind, for great economics. The 738 (current) has a nice advantage on TCON missions (US).

Bear in mind that the A320 without winglets carries 18.6 tonnes of fuel vs 20.9 tonnes for the 737NG. I have heard it said on here that in severe headwinds, current gen A320's can sometimes be MTOW limited, and that may be at least in part due to a need to minimise drag in order to make the still-air distance on 18.6 tonnes of fuel.
On the NG, you just load her up to 20.9 tonnes of fuel, 12% more than the A320 can carry, and job's a good un.

A CFM powered A320 may have a 4% fuel burn advantage AT LONG RANGE over a 737-800 (according to the FCOM's), but with 12% less fuel, is going to fly 8% less distance if fuel limited.
With winglets, the A320 should have a 7%-8% fuel burn advantage AT LONG RANGE, but will still fall 4%-5% short on range when fuel limited.

I'm still wondering if Airbus, in their wing mods to accommodate the sharklets, may have found some extra wing tank volume.
If they have it may change the picture completely.

Rgds


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 15554 times:

Again, the chart is from Airbus's point of view with their rosy point of view and the absolute worst of Boeing, that chart is meaningless to be just like Boeing's numbers are at the moment.

Everyone knows that on normal under 1000 miles runs, currently, the 738 has a slight advantage over the 320. Over that, the 320 has a slight advantage. In other words, the 2 aircraft are comparable. That is just common knowledge. The chart puts the B738 at a 7% disadvantage as it stands today, that is simply not true, especially if we count the extra capacity (passengers, payload, range) of the 738.

There is no way, in my opinion, could the MAX be only 3% better than the current A320, and that the NEO will be 12% better than the B737-8MAX. There is no way Boeing would have even considered the MAX if they will have a 12% disadvantage out the door to the NEO.

These numbers are bogus, from both ends. I think the truth is really down the middle. They will end up being comparable and maintain the status quo. The MAX will continue to have a slight advantage at under 1000nm, and the NEO have a slight advantage over that over that. But that slight advantage will no way be 12%.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 15493 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 8):
Again, the chart is from Airbus's point of view with their rosy point of view and the absolute worst of Boeing, that chart is meaningless to be just like Boeing's numbers are at the moment.

Which point of view? This data for the first time goes a little deeper, so we can actually go into the details and point out the tricks Boeing used to "shine". And we can judge them as unfair. So I ask what are the tricks Airbus uses?

Does Airbus quote the 738-numbers without any pip's or just the oldest engines? Is the capability of the 738 judged unfair in any ways by Airbus (e.g. uncorrect seat capacity)? It is time to clarify things on this level now....

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 8):
The chart puts the B738 at a 7% disadvantage as it stands today, that is simply not true, especially if we count the extra capacity (passengers, payload, range) of the 738.

The chart is specific enough to mention "block fuel". From that and the other fixpoints we can derive the fuel-per-seat metrics. The chart contains all these information in a transparent ways. To question the conclusion you have to question hard things like the corrected seatcount.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15389 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
Something isn't adding up. For example, the A320NEO will benefit far more than 15% on TCON missions. Currently, those missions are too close to the plane's range, when going against the wind, for great economics. The 738 (current) has a nice advantage on TCON missions (US).

The A320 can do transcon, but has issues with winter headwinds once in a while. I thought the 738 didn't have the legs for true transcon (like JFK-LAX).
Anyone want to throw down some range statistics for the current A320 family vs the current 737NG family?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
Given the sales we've already seen for the A320neo and the commitments that Boeing say they have for the 737MAX, it's clear that both will sell in large numbers regardless of which one may or may not be better on any specific mission.

So true.   

Quoting scbriml (Reply 4):
The only potential I can see for Airbus to clearly "trump" the 737MAX would be if the GTF is significantly better than the LEAP-X.

That would be my expectation too.  .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 6):
Boeing is also neglecting the 'Sharklets' that will help the A320.

Well, that might be the basis or their original bogus claim that the current B737-NG would still be better then a NEO-A320 version.  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I'm still wondering if Airbus, in their wing mods to accommodate the sharklets, may have found some extra wing tank volume.
If they have it may change the picture completely.

They still have not released any details about fuel capacity on the NEO-versions. That is a number also I am very curious about.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
Does Airbus quote the 738-numbers without any pip's or just the oldest engines? Is the capability of the 738 judged unfair in any ways by Airbus (e.g. incorrect seat capacity)? It is time to clarify things on this level now....

These numbers are for sure a lot more honest then the earlier "studies" we have seen being posted here. But in the end the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So we will have to wait till 2017 or so to make real world comparisons between the two dominating narrow body airliners around.

Both planes will be highly successful, though I do expect the NEO to have the upper hand in sales and performance. The big question is how much will that influence the all deciding factor, the TCO?  .

[Edited 2011-10-12 09:02:43]

User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 15172 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 10):
The A320 can do transcon, but has issues with winter headwinds once in a while. I thought the 738 didn't have the legs for true transcon (like JFK-LAX).

Haven't seen too many complaints here about the 737-800 transcon.

I have seen complaints on SEA-HNL for the -800 and transcon on the 737-900ER (and the latter is usually about weight limits or blocked seats more than fuel stops).


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13440 posts, RR: 100
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15138 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
Bear in mind that the A320 without winglets carries 18.6 tonnes of fuel vs 20.9 tonnes for the 737NG.

Good point. It is interesting how there is a 'double crossover' in when each of the current 737NG vs. A320 match each other's economics. It makes discussions on the two type very interesting. Only a double crossing due to the 738s lighter weight and greater fuel carrying capacity. The interesting trade offs of A/C design.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
With winglets, the A320 should have a 7%-8% fuel burn advantage AT LONG RANGE, but will still fall 4%-5% short on range when fuel limited.

  

and if Pratt has held 4% fuel burn in reserve.   

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
I'm still wondering if Airbus, in their wing mods to accommodate the sharklets, may have found some extra wing tank volume.

I know Airbus is working on more fuel for the A321. I do not know anything more than MTOW studies are being done. And Pratt promised to deliver an engine with room for an "easy" 2K of thrust increase.   Then again, Pratt still hasn't delivered the PW4175 as promised.  

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15023 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 8):
Again, the chart is from Airbus's point of view with their rosy point of view and the absolute worst of Boeing, that chart is meaningless to be just like Boeing's numbers are at the moment.

Which point of view? This data for the first time goes a little deeper, so we can actually go into the details and point out the tricks Boeing used to "shine". And we can judge them as unfair. So I ask what are the tricks Airbus uses?

Does Airbus quote the 738-numbers without any pip's or just the oldest engines? Is the capability of the 738 judged unfair in any ways by Airbus (e.g. uncorrect seat capacity)? It is time to clarify things on this level now....

I think the point is that the chart that you showed on this page is Airbus' view and then Airbus' interpretation of Boeing's view. It's not an analysis by a third party. It is an article based on a briefing given by Airbus and the charts are Airbus derived. The article states how confusing the situation is:

AirInsight received a briefing from Airbus at the ISTAT European conference in Barcelona, Spain, September 20. During this briefing, Airbus provided its analysis by sub-type, in detail—something Boeing has so far declined to do for its 737NG and 737MAX.

Boeing, in media briefings prior to the Paris Air Show, confined its direct comparison to the 737-800 and the A320. Following the roll-out of its MAX, Boeing provided some general data to illustrate its assertions that the 737 family is more economical than the Airbuses.

And later in the article

It took a long time to get here, but now let’s talk about the Airbus briefing we received at ISTAT. The following three charts illustrate the current airplanes vs the competitor and the re-engined aircraft vs the competitor. A key element to keep in mind is that Boeing talks about total costs: ownership and direct operating costs. Below, Airbus is only talking about block fuel comparison. Thus, we’re talking about apples and oranges, regardless of the benchmark that is being used. Boeing doesn’t talk about block fuel comparison and Airbus doesn’t talk about total costs.


In general my personal opinion is that it is too hard to do a total analysis of the comparison in costs. It's hard enough to compare the 737NG and A320 on a total cost of ownership basis now. Usually plots show that the A320 has lower trip costs and lower fuel burn, but the 737-800 has lower costs per seat. 73G vs A319 and 739ER vs A321 plots are similarly confusing. However what I find most interesting is the attempt at an objective comparison at the end of the article, which shows:

737-7 vs A319neo

Fuel burn per seat: NEO is better by 3%

COC per seat mile: NEO is better by 4%

COC per trip: NEO is better by 1%

737-8 vs A320neo

Fuel burn per passenger: MAX is better by 4% (with 12 more passengers)

COC per seat mile: MAX is better by 4%

COC per trip: NEO is better by 3%

737-9 vs A321neo

Fuel burn per passenger: NEO better by 2%

COC per seat mile: NEO better by 1%

COC per trip: MAX better by 4% (at 5% less capacity)

That information shows some A320NEO advantages and some 737MAX advantages depending on situation.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 7):
Bear in mind that the A320 without winglets carries 18.6 tonnes of fuel vs 20.9 tonnes for the 737NG. I have heard it said on here that in severe headwinds, current gen A320's can sometimes be MTOW limited, and that may be at least in part due to a need to minimise drag in order to make the still-air distance on 18.6 tonnes of fuel.
On the NG, you just load her up to 20.9 tonnes of fuel, 12% more than the A320 can carry, and job's a good un.

A CFM powered A320 may have a 4% fuel burn advantage AT LONG RANGE over a 737-800 (according to the FCOM's), but with 12% less fuel, is going to fly 8% less distance if fuel limited.
With winglets, the A320 should have a 7%-8% fuel burn advantage AT LONG RANGE, but will still fall 4%-5% short on range when fuel limited.

How often do 737s and A320s actually fill their tanks to their max capacity? I was under the impression that range is rarely limited on fuel capacity.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 14):
Fuel burn per passenger: MAX is better by 4% (with 12 more passengers)

Thats interesting, I was under the impression that the A320 could hold 180 pax going up to 183 with the new galley and the 738 could go up to 186.

Fred


User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10183 posts, RR: 97
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 14):
How often do 737s and A320s actually fill their tanks to their max capacity? I was under the impression that range is rarely limited on fuel capacity

Not very often, I suspect. But there IS a tendency on here to focus on the very occasional shortcomings of an A320 on the more challenging transcons as if it were representative of the difference between both aircraft in all cases.
And in this particular case, then space in the fuel tanks might well be a differentiator.

As Lightsaber also suggests, it might be relevant if there is a REAL push to get the NEO's up to some sort of TATL capability

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 15):
Thats interesting, I was under the impression that the A320 could hold 180 pax going up to 183 with the new galley and the 738 could go up to 186.

Ryanair's 738's have 189 seats.

And Easyjet's A320's ALREADY have 183 seats, albeit on a 1" shorter pitch than FY's 738's

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/eas...s/easyJet_Airlines_Airbus_A320.php

Rgds


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14671 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 16):

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 15):
Thats interesting, I was under the impression that the A320 could hold 180 pax going up to 183 with the new galley and the 738 could go up to 186.

Ryanair's 738's have 189 seats.

And Easyjet's A320's ALREADY have 183 seats, albeit on a 1" shorter pitch than FY's 738's

Depending on airline, the difference is between 6 and 16 based on airlines operating both types and comparisons of max density configuration airlines.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14162 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 5):
Do you think the range Boeing picked for their communications (500nm) is a good average to get a good impression how good the aircraft will be in reality?

It might very well be, if the majority of 737 missions are 500nm or less.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 5):
Have you noticed that in this Airbus report there are specific improvements mentioned for different ranges?

Yes. But if those improvements are at their maximum benefit at longer stage lengths, then it is not a surprise Airbus is using longer stage lengths.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14047 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
According to Airbus, Boeing used the following tricks to reach their conclusions:
- Deny any improvement from PIP's for the A320
- Pick the oldest and weakest A320 engine for the comparison
- Pick the most favorable range for the 737 and the worst for the A320

Sounds good. Isn't that what PR is all about? Is Airbus going to show in their numbers the most favorable comparison for Boeing? I wouldn't expect them to.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 14):
I think the point is that the chart that you showed on this page is Airbus' view and then Airbus' interpretation of Boeing's view.

It's an important point. It's as much propaganda as the Boeing numbers are.

These birds are so far off, it's silly. Until the engines test, it's meaningless.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9701 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13901 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

It might very well be, if the majority of 737 missions are 500nm or less.

Average trip is closer to 900 miles. Average stage length is about 2 hours for the 737NG and A320.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Thread starter):
According to Airbus, Boeing used the following tricks to reach their conclusions:
- Deny any improvement from PIP's for the A320
- Pick the oldest and weakest A320 engine for the comparison
- Pick the most favorable range for the 737 and the worst for the A320

Sounds good. Isn't that what PR is all about? Is Airbus going to show in their numbers the most favorable comparison for Boeing? I wouldn't expect them to.

I think that's why Airbus numbers are showing fuel burn while Boeing numbers show trip by seat and total operating costs. They both show what makes their models look best and avoid even comparisons. It makes it easy to always show that they are best. I think the article showing the per seat and total costs per model was very interesting because it shows how there is a lot of parity and no one is better than the other in all cases or even a significant majority of the cases.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10183 posts, RR: 97
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 20):
I think the article showing the per seat and total costs per model was very interesting because it shows how there is a lot of parity and no one is better than the other in all cases or even a significant majority of the cases.

Which is of course equally reflected in the respective market shares  

Rgds


User currently offlinefutureatp From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13696 times:

Can anyone tell me the fuel burn in lbs per hr at a given cruise altitude, at max take off weight (minus fuel it took to get there) of any of these airplanes? Then what the fuel burn numbers would be after 3hrs in flight? Since I have seen that no airframe is created equal (Ive seen aircraft swaps that resulted in a 200lb planned increase in fuel?!!) im thinking a range or approximate numbers would suffice. Oh, and standard day conditions  

User currently offlineplanewasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13650 times:

The A330 can can compete, and even beat the 777 on lots of routes. And the A330 has much smaller engines than the 777! Why would this not apply to the A320NEO vs 737MAX?

[Edited 2011-10-12 12:38:00]

User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 798 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 13573 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 3):
Until Boeing fix an engine size, thrust level and OEW for the MAX all these comparisons are a meaningless.

I totally agree with you! I think still has no idea how the MAX actually will look like (of course they've got artist impressions but there is no real idea of what the MAX will be, I am sure it will incorporate fly-by-wire   ).

Quoting planewasted (Reply 23):
The A330 can can compete, and even beat the 777 on lots of routes. And the A330 has a lot smaller engines compared to the 777! Why would this not apply to the A320NEO vs 737MAX?

And again, I agree! The A330-300 is actually superior to the B777-200(ER) for basically all the missions up to 8 or 9 hours.


25 RoseFlyer : It shows close to parity between the A320 and 737NG. Airbus impressed and got many orders for the NEO with its projections. We'll see what happens wi
26 cosmofly : From the chart, Airbus says NEO is 12% better than MAX. Boeing says NEO is the same as MAX. Simply take the average and we have NEO being 6% better th
27 ikramerica : You say you are 100% smarter than me. I'm saying I'm 1100% smarter than you. So on average, maybe I'm only 500% smarter?
28 nicoeddf : Sorry guys - totally false logic. The a320 and the 737 are equal or next to equal in seating capacity, range, purpose, mission profile. They use basi
29 abibus : First how can some of you compare the neo with the max if we do not have any info o lets say real info about the max??? How can you give the 739 max a
30 cosmofly : If you can back up the claims with substance, you are probably not far from the truth. I am only pointing out the probability here and the face value
31 travelhound : Yes, but I think the greater the range advantage the NEO has over the classic the greater its chances of becoming a worthy 757 replacement. Just for
32 ikramerica : Not really. My point was that without anything but marketing claims, and nothing to back it up, saying that you can average the claims and arrive at
33 JoeCanuck : This is my favorite bit...I find it ironic that they are playing the bigger fan is better card when they are essentially doing the same thing for the
34 Post contains images lightsaber : Pratt did that with the PW4098. Worked great! Ok, seriously a new very efficient core will bring efficiency to an engine. That is what Pratt tried to
35 Baroque : Well, where to start? The higher thrust XWB will have a larger core for higher mass flow, but expect some interesting redistribution between fan and
36 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Well, the numbers are 15% more power from the same sized fan. I don't think they were predicting a 15% reduction in SFC since they are still saying t
37 rheinwaldner : Airbus does not use any specific stage lengths anymore. They have outlined their product on any range. Airbus, in this briefing, brings transparency
38 flipdewaf : That sounds like a fairly good reasoning behind a good guess to me. Being is claiming ~12% better fuel burn and are using a ~12% bigger fan. Airbus c
39 JoeCanuck : Um...says who? Far different in what respect? The comparison is between the -900 T-XWB and the -1000 version, and the LeapX offerings...engines in th
40 rheinwaldner : The Trent XWB for the 1000 is smaller than for the 900?
41 travelhound : At the end of the day the superior aircraft will come at a premium and the inferior aircraft will be discounted. On a life cycle cost basis a $2-3 mi
42 JoeCanuck : Is it? I hadn't heard that. I have no idea how the line you quoted; ...actually says that. What RR has said, (and I have repeated), is that they plan
43 rheinwaldner : It seems they don't have to, because possibly (I hardly dare to say) because they are not inferior. At least nobody was able to explain me where Airb
44 JoeCanuck : Airbus, in that very diagram admits they have a different interpretation than Boeing so obviously, not everyone agrees. I, in fact, have pointed out
45 sirtoby : Sorry, but this is a completely wrong metric - a very much better metric is the area of the fan: PI* [D_Fan(outer)^2 -D_Fan(inner)^2]
46 Post contains links Baroque : Just keeping repeating it does not make it true. TSFC is expected to be lower for the higher thrust variant. The manufacturer will not increase the fa
47 JoeCanuck : As Airbus is claiming with their XWB's, fan size is not the only determiner of power or efficiency. It seems neither diameter or area tells the whole
48 flipdewaf : On a basic level propulsive efficiency scales with fan diameter and not fan area, do the maths, you'll see. Fred
49 SEPilot : Which is why the 77W is the 777 model that is selling like hotcakes. As to the 737MAX vs. the A320NEO, I suspect that we will not have any realistic
50 Post contains images EPA001 : I guess you are quite correct here. . But is it also the same type of fan, with the same capacity and aerodynamic profile, qualities and made of exac
51 RoseFlyer : I thought I had in reply 14 and also posted the numbers that seemed to be an objective interpretation of both Boeing and Airbus views that the articl
52 travelhound : Yes, you are probably correct, but the "back of envelope" analysis wasn't intended to be definitive. It's intention was to show the numbers being quo
53 ikramerica : But again, this points to why all of this is pretty pointless until maybe 2015. Look how engines have failed to perform in the past 5 years, and then
54 odwyerpw : I like that reasoning. The fuel burn is only one part of total cost of ownership. So maybe there are a bit closer or a bit farther. But, I agree with
55 JoeCanuck : It's really not off topic in the least since fan size and related efficiency is specifically brought up by the opening poster. Using other examples t
56 odwyerpw : For airinsight to actually include a quote from a customer that says the leapx engine is a paper engine is really disingenous. Work has been progressi
57 travelhound : I agree. The intent of my posts are not to make definitive statements of fact about the performance of one aircraft over the other. On the same point
58 StickShaker : That is predicated on all other variables being equal - which they aren't. A fair bit of Airbus' market share is due to their cost leadership (discou
59 rheinwaldner : So why was that quote from post #1 your favorite bit then? The quote questioned that making the LEAP X larger first to match the GTF and then making
60 Post contains images flipdewaf : As far as I can tell travelhound you were correct originally, my back of the envelope calculations do show that propulsive efficiency scales with rad
61 Post contains links JoeCanuck : So what did RR do with the -1000 engine? They decided that they don't have to increase fan size to increase power and maintain sfc...with me so far?
62 rheinwaldner : And if not? Any engine familiy scales up and down regarding power. You seem to assume that fuel burn would scale down and up linearily. Changing thru
63 Baroque : No. And if anyone is with you at that point they are likely wrong. Sfc is not the same. That is simply not how it is. Why not read the answers that h
64 Post contains images EPA001 : Which was exactly my point earlier made. Probably later on in the development process RR will release some more information to us on that specific an
65 RoseFlyer : I'll agree that based on the limited information CASM might be too specific, but Fuel Burn per Seat is still a more fair representation, so I persona
66 seabosdca : I agree with you here, and this is nothing new. I think we cannot rely on what the manufacturers claim to answer this question, but we have to look t
67 Jacobin777 : Actually, aside from the recent tsunami of A32NEO orders, orders for both NB's have been equal the past 4-6 years. Also, the NEO does have the advant
68 rheinwaldner : Absolutely, block fuel has not much meaning for comparison. At least it allows quite precise conversion in fuel-per-seat. But I would also say that a
69 SEPilot : It isn't that simple. It depends very much on the trip; all the tables I have seen show the 737NG with the advantage on short trips but the A320 with
70 seabosdca : I think sales are very much the best indicator of potential profit. But that has both revenue and multiple cost components; efficiency is only one pi
71 JoeCanuck : Why not read the quotes I provided in reply 36? RR specifically says there is no change in SFC. Though that is from the 93,000lb to the 97,000lb engi
72 Baroque : Alas what it actuallysays is King said the manufacturer had the capability to build a larger core to increase thrust to 97,000lb with the same fan di
73 flyglobal : One question regarding seat capacity of A321 vs 739. While the 738 is about 2m longer and Boeing And airbus agree on 150 seat vs 162, which makes sens
74 Avi8 : Are there any firm orders for the 737 MAX? My guess for probabble orders are: Copa Airlines United Airlines American (we all knew that) Aeromexico Sou
75 par13del : Increased size and volume seems to have benefitted the A330 over the 767, but does not seem to have the same effect with the 737G over the A320 Have
76 flyglobal : Of course I coonsidered some of the items. That the 73 series is a bit smaller I notice mostly when going in and out with my hand carry. In the 73x i
77 Post contains images astuteman : When you look at the 737-800 and A320, both aircraft are, in fact, almost exactly the same length. Within that, the 737-800's pressurised fuselage is
78 Post contains images seabosdca : Don't forget that the pressurized portion of the 737-900ER's fuselage is longer by about one row, relative to the aircraft, than that of the 737-800,
79 Post contains links fpetrutiu : You are talking 737-900 I presume, the ER version has the legs for most transci The number of seats that the 2m fits, is not directly proportional to
80 JoeCanuck : As it turns out, my focus on fan diameter is exactly the same focus Airbus has on fan diameter in relation to the leapx. They are using that as the m
81 SEPilot : I suspect it is the fact that the A330 has a distinct and measurable (but not really large) CASM advantage over the 767 and, while being larger, is n
82 Stitch : Does not the A320-200 lose a row due to having lavatories positioned behind the seats? Airbus will be offering a new single-lav option that restores
83 Post contains links Clipper136 : Almost. Airbus has found a way to squeeze both lavs and a galley at the rear pressure bulkhead (Space-Flex), allowing for 1 galley and 1 half row of
84 fpetrutiu : True, but you are still loosing a lav as opposed to the 737-800. If Boeing decided to do away with a lav, they can gain more seats as well. If you co
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Questions About Markair And Britt Airways posted Sun May 16 2010 21:37:52 by viajero
Question About TAM And The Star Alliance posted Wed Apr 28 2010 16:27:45 by AirCanadaA330
Question About AZ And AP Relationship posted Sun Apr 4 2010 13:03:26 by NWA330nut
How About Southwest And Spirit Merger posted Sat Mar 13 2010 15:20:39 by wwtraveler99
Questions About DL And The 77L posted Wed Aug 5 2009 10:43:32 by EA772LR
Question About Iberia And The A-330 posted Sun Jun 21 2009 19:15:00 by Plairbus
Question About BR And SN Flights In Early 80s. posted Thu Apr 30 2009 15:40:21 by N702ML
Question About SIDs And STARs posted Wed Mar 4 2009 14:20:26 by 787seattle
Tail Numbers For Sterling And Ryanair Flights posted Sun Dec 7 2008 09:47:40 by Nickbbu
Questions About Taag And Their 777 posted Sat Aug 23 2008 08:47:37 by Speedbird741