Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737 Max Development Cost To Be Twice A320NEO  
User currently offlineeaa3 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1015 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22973 times:

Flightglobal has an interesting article today. Apparently the B737MAX will be twice as expensive to develop as the A320NEO. This is pretty interesting. Apparently moving the engines a little bit higher on the wings to get proper ground clearance for larger engines is difficult and very expensive. In addition raising the nose gear is going to cost something. I however did not realize that the difference in what needed to be done was so great.

It also brings into question the decision to update the B737 as opposed to building a new plane from scratch, although I´m sure Boeing did the math.

I´m hoping that both Boeing and Airbus will experience a bit of "Mission creep" because I´m sure there are lots of improvements that can be made to the 80´s era designs. Hopefully keeping their delivery dates though.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...to-be-twice-a320neo-report-367314/

[Edited 2012-01-25 07:59:20]

167 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 22703 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):
It also brings into question the decision to update the B737 as opposed to building a new plane from scratch, although I´m sure Boeing did the math.

Money was not the reason Boeing shelved the NSA in favor of the MAX. It was Time to Market issues.

Customers were ready to order 1000 MAXs if Boeing could get the plane to market before 2020. They evidently were not ready to order 1000 NSAs if Boeing could only get the plane to market after 2020.


User currently offlinebringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22427 times:

Even with that factored in , the Market share would more then make enough ROI for them if they get it right....As mentioned the Problem with the NSA had nothing to do with cost , but TIME...An interim between the NG and NSA that can sell 1-2 thousand is going to be more then profitable...

User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22252 times:

From what I can tell, this article is all supposition and "calculation", no definate numbers from Boeing. How reliable is it? And should the thread title not contain the word "Possibly"?


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9634 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 22118 times:

Quoting eaa3 (Thread starter):

I´m hoping that both Boeing and Airbus will experience a bit of "Mission creep" because I´m sure there are lots of improvements that can be made to the 80´s era designs. Hopefully keeping their delivery dates though.

Boeing already has that going on as the article mentions fly by wire spoilers and a relofted tailcone. Those can be considered mission creep or general improvements timed to the delivery of the MAX.

Both Boeing and Airbus continuously improve their airplanes. I have read numbers that a new build 737NG is 7% more efficient than the original. I have also read that the A320 once sharklets are installed will be 9% more efficient than original. It takes a lot of money to do that over time.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 22055 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Boeing already has that going on as the article mentions fly by wire spoilers and a relofted tailcone. Those can be considered mission creep or general improvements timed to the delivery of the MAX.

The tailcone might be as much about production costs as it is about operating costs. If they can reduce parts count and labor costs in assembly, they might be able to pull out a huge pile of money. Even small savings here are huge when you start talking about 1000+ frames.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 21848 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Money was not the reason Boeing shelved the NSA in favor of the MAX. It was Time to Market issues.

I have said all along that while Boeing could re-engine the 737, they would spend a lot more to get less gain than would Airbus. That was why I was hoping they would go for the NSA; but it seems clear that they decided that they could not do it on a schedule that the airlines would accept. Perhaps if the 787 hadn't blown its schedule so badly they might have, but I'm quite sure that the customers at this point are figuring that if Boeing promises delivery of an all-new airplane in 2021, say, that they might possibly see it in 2024. No airline can live with uncertainty like that with their bread-and-butter airplane. While the MAX project also poses a timeline risk, it is much less than a new aircraft would be.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21630 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 4):
From what I can tell, this article is all supposition and "calculation", no definate numbers from Boeing. How reliable is it? And should the thread title not contain the word "Possibly"?

Well. Since these programs are but in their earlier stages we can assume that Boeing DON'T, nor Airbus, know what they will cost. But an estimated budget clearly has been made based upon what Boeing, and Airbus, think it will cost.
So it is with the report behind this article. And based upon what tasks Boeing choose/needs to do with the MAX, compared to Airbus with the NEO, it's calculated that the cost will be double.
Maybe it will be less, maybe more.
Who knows for sure? I think more. Twice as much? Possible!


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5459 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 21609 times:

It's an analyst report. In the end, slightly more useful than a ouija board, but only slightly.

I also find the report's estimates of fuel burn interesting... currently a 4-5% advantage for the 737NG, and near parity between the MAX and neo? Even if the comparison is based only on 738MAX vs. A320neo, that's still more optimistic for the MAX than other sources.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 19000 times:

Investing this much money in a 60's era design is nuts !


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18932 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Investing this much money in a 60's era design is nuts!

You could have argued the same two decades ago with the 737NG.

The RoI on that ended up being pretty good.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18914 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):

You could have argued the same two decades ago with the 737NG.

Two decades ago the 60's were a hell of a lot closer !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5455 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18197 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):

Physics hasn't changed a lot in the past few decades....and more importantly, neither has demand. You build what will sell...the MAX sells.



What the...?
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17804 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):

Investing this much money in a 60's era design is nuts !

but investing the same money in a 70's era design is the best decision the industry has ever seen!!!!

lol.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17482 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):

Physics hasn't changed a lot in the past few decades....and more importantly, neither has demand. You build what will sell...the MAX sells.

Its a shame Boeing has allowed this design's natural progression, evolution and development to be held back and artificially constrained by Southwest.


If it were not for them it would have a completely new nose section and an up to date Cockpit.



Instead we have a cramped, noisy little cockpit with old fashioned manual trim wheels whizzing around, a very poorly designed overhead including a pressurisation panel that is prone to mismanagement contributing to at least one fatal accident, an electrical panel that requires you to place generators on manually (even the DC9 did this automatically)


An Autoland system that is not fully redundant, having no roll out capability, thus not being cleared for the lowest of visibility approaches and systems that are not really up to ETOPS requirements forcing operators in a 'band aid' solution to leave the APU running on these sectors.



It is an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot be updated adequately to put it on a par with todays modern Aircraft.


Boeing has made a big mistake here.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinevctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17432 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
It is an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot be updated adequately to put it on a par with todays modern Aircraft.


Boeing has made a big mistake here.

Two words:

"It sells."


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17420 times:

Quoting vctony (Reply 15):

Two words:

"It sells."

And a better Aircraft could sell a lot better (nine words)



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
Its a shame Boeing has allowed this design's natural progression, evolution and development to be held back and artificially constrained by Southwest.

Southwest is some 10% of the current 737MAX Order/Commitment Book. Heck, SK darn near matched them with the order they placed today.

Clearly, what Southwest likes is what many, many Boeing 737 operators like.

The only mistake was not launching the MAX in 2010 instead of 2011.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 17322 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Clearly, what Southwest likes is what many, many Boeing 737 operators lik

That's because the other operators have had no choice. Boeing have allowed Southwest to veto any changes or upgrades to the cockpit design.


Sw specifically insisted on the overhead staying the same on the NG, it could easily have been upgraded to 75/67 or even 777 standard.


Similarly SW insisted on the antiquated 'round dials on glass' efis display which completely eliminates the use of the lower display and, perversely preserves displays a 'steam guage' cockpit layout in a 777 age.

Again, deliberately holding back technological advances for one customer.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1913 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17283 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):

And yet they sell thousands of them and airlines operating make millions.

Horses for course, you could always start your own airframe manufacturer and build a more sophisticated one if you wish



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10023 posts, RR: 96
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 17212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 6):
I have said all along that while Boeing could re-engine the 737, they would spend a lot more to get less gain than would Airbus. That was why I was hoping they would go for the NSA; but it seems clear that they decided that they could not do it on a schedule that the airlines would accept.

Even if the MAX IS going to cost twice as much as the NEO to develop, I'm pretty sure that both of those numbers will be in the trivial range compared to launching an all-new aircraft.

Double a small number can still be another small number....

I'm guessing the NEO to be around $2Bn to develop

Rgds


User currently offlineBarney Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 965 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16829 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
Similarly SW insisted on the antiquated 'round dials on glass' efis display which completely eliminates the use of the lower display and, perversely preserves displays a 'steam guage' cockpit layout in a 777 age.

Which was a customer specific option, had no bearing on design, can be converted with a software update - and oh yea, is a display layout we no longer use (we converted the the PFD/ND display a few years ago). But interestingly, many operators still use the 'sic pack' configuration.

While your opinion of SWA's influence on the NG's design is certainly flattering (   ) it is largely urban myth. Did SWA contribute to customer surveys for the NG? Of course. Did Boeing ask for our input? Sure. But if you honestly think that Boeing disregarded what the buyers of the OTHER 4500 NG airframes wanted to satisfy the desires of SWA and their 350 orders - well that simply fails the financial logic test.



...from the Banana Republic....
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5576 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16729 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):
Quoting vctony (Reply 15):

Two words:

"It sells."

And a better Aircraft could sell a lot better (nine words)

Too bad the going rate is about $1 Billion per word.  
Quoting Barney Captain (Reply 21):
But if you honestly think that Boeing disregarded what the buyers of the OTHER 4500 NG airframes wanted to satisfy the desires of SWA and their 350 orders - well that simply fails the financial logic test.

Pretty much!

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16614 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 16):
And a better Aircraft could sell a lot better (nine words)

By your definition the A320 is hugely "better" and should sell a lot better...but it doesn't. They're nearly dead on 50/50.

Boeing (and Airbus) are building what customers obviously want to buy. This can be tremendously annoying to pilots and engineers alike but, in the world of competition, that's the only definition of "better" that actually matters.

Tom.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 556 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16299 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
It is an antiquated, obsolete platform that cannot be updated adequately to put it on a par with todays modern Aircraft.

And what modern aircraft would u be speaking of?



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
25 Max Q : Point made, it was still a remarkably poor use of the available technology at the time. It is hardly flattery, or urban myth. Fact is, SW was the lau
26 PlanesNTrains : Bummer. Well, I think you'll be really pissed when WN launches the all-new 737 SUPERMAX-9 in 2025. I guess I miss the big deal about it. There is roo
27 flyingAY : What other options would they have had? Airbus could not have ramped up the A320 production that much (especially for a short period of time before t
28 Post contains links flyingAY : What about SWAs influence on MAX's design? Southwest's launch customer status will guide MAX development: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...will
29 JoeCanuck : Actually, we have proof that this is not correct...For over a year, Boeing pushed like hell to get customers for their NSA, and not one airline publi
30 autothrust : The A320 is from ergonomic, cockpit concept and systems hugely better then the 737NG. However the bigger cabin and size doesn't it make lighter and t
31 flyingAY : Seriously, I don't expect that you or Boeing could imagine a situation where NSA, a narrowbody that is the most efficient plane in its class, would E
32 Post contains images Barney Captain : Way, way, WAY too long. That has all changed. We are finally up to industry standard (AFAIK) with full use of AT's, AB's, VNAV and .1 RNAV curving RN
33 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Well, obviously there was not enough people banging on their door to convince them then. What's more, why spend $10 Biliion for hundreds or even thou
34 Rara : Exactly - that's why you can't rely on airlines to be your driving force in what is essentially a prisoner's dilemma for them. Boeing should have gon
35 JoeCanuck : It doesn't matter what I think or Boeing thinks...it's what the customers thought that made the difference. They were not wiling to wait a decade to
36 Post contains images EPA001 : Very true. And in the end the launch of the MAX did protect Boeings customer base, and by viewing the numbers it is doing so in a highly successful m
37 garpd : I've said it once before, I'll say it again: I'm glad you're not in the driving seat at Boeing, as you'd drive them into the ground with your complet
38 eaa3 : Boeing should have done a new plane. In the short term they would have to accept that Airbus would have the upper hand. However if Boeing were able t
39 garpd : With no orders and no interest and not enough of an advance in technology to even justify the expense? Figures published time and time again showed t
40 JoeCanuck : Let's say it cost 10 billion to build the nsa, and realistically, it wouldn't arrive before 2021. That's 5 years of sales, almost exclusively to the
41 Post contains links autothrust : Wrong, there was interest and not from a unimportant person : Boeing should develop new family to succeed 737 - Udvar-Hazy http://www.flightglobal.co
42 garpd : Yet still, the MAX is selling. Clearly it's what 737 operators want. SUH has been wrong or off mark before.
43 JoeCanuck : Lots of potential buyers expressed interest...but none of them were willing to commit to the NSA. I believe if Boeing could have garnered even one si
44 travelhound : JL from Airbus has already stated Airbus got a " get out of jail free card" when Boeing announced the MAX. There us more to aircraft economics than j
45 parapente : The competition between these 2 aircraft maufacturers and indeed between the 3 engine manufacturers (not to mention 'outsiders' like the 919) has resu
46 JoeCanuck : Well...they would have lost AA, for one...except for an NG topup order. That analysis isn't even the worst case scenario...but look at how many order
47 ncfc99 : How do you know they had no intrest? The first I knew about anything being decided at Boeing was when AA anounced the order in the summer. Some 320oe
48 travelhound : I did my own analysis on this about 9 months ago. It took into account assumptions about product life cycles and yields / returns. Hopefully I will g
49 JoeCanuck : Excellent...thanks.
50 flyingAY : Yes, year 2010 and 2011. It has been stated in this thread that NSA would not haved EISd before 2020 (though I don't understand why). How many other
51 garpd : Do you see any orders, committments or MOUs for a Boeing NSA? Apparently not, hence the NEO and MAX
52 eaa3 : It would have been really great if Boeing had started working on the NSA B737 replacement in about 2007 instead of updating the B747-8. If they had d
53 notaxonrotax : And give the whole VLA market to A380 for decades?? Airbus would have loved that! With the A380F they would have had at least a hundred orders more!
54 Post contains images cmf : I think the OEMs made the right decision but I do not agree with the above. Customers are buying the best things available. It does not mean it is wh
55 Stitch : The crux of the reason Boeing did not just forge ahead with the NSA is because customers publicly and privately expressed skepticism that Boeing would
56 JoeCanuck : Actually, it has been proven. Do a quick search...Boeing said for over a year they are proposing a NSA and shopping it to airlines. The big problem w
57 Post contains images rheinwaldner : There are no such improvements, that Boeing could apply (to an 80's era design) Profitable is fine, but not the whole picture. Boeing also must take
58 Burkhard : What has changed are rules to get new parts certified - an all new design means that you burn certifications you have worth many many billions, which
59 Rara : How could an airline have ordered a plane that wasn't even proposed yet? There was no NSA, so nobody could have ordered it. I'm sure Boeing did a lot
60 Burkhard : I see the playing field now to be leveled, with two competitors nose to nose more or less who both will continue to improve these extremely mature bac
61 seabosdca : Right now the demand is such that it's about who can build more, not which one is marginally better. The small differences between the two products (
62 Post contains images Stitch : As a shareholder, that would be pretty sweet since to maintain those profits with that few sales, the margin per sale would be 97% compared to today'
63 rheinwaldner : Was there ever a better product that was put on the backburner in production? Show me where production rates in aviation has not reflected quite good
64 flyingclrs727 : If it's that expensive to redesign the interface between the wings and the engines, why not redesign and lengthen the main landing gears?
65 tdscanuck : There is no such design. The options before Boeing were do the MAX and hold about 50% of the market, or do the NSA and cede more of the market for th
66 nomadd22 : Because they wouldn't fit in the bay anymore when retracted. Even getting a few inches on the nose gear requires moving stuff around so they can make
67 ncfc99 : But if both Airbus and Boeing are going to 60 aircraft per month, there is demand for 120 aircraft per month, not 75. The 737NG will still sell more
68 bikerthai : Not an urban myth. The nacelle fan cowl of the NG was changed from honeycomb composite to metal skin-stringer design because Southwest wanted a fan c
69 KC135TopBoom : Yes, 'possibility' should be in the title. I doubt the numbers are reliable at all. They are simply a guess from a writer who has written a series of
70 eaa3 : That´s gonna be the result anyway.
71 seabosdca : Both Airbus and Boeing are already increasing their production capacity as fast as they know how. It's not trivial or easy. When Boeing overreached i
72 cmf : No it has not been proven. What has been proven is that the design Boeing offered wasn't enough for when they could offer it. Even you wrote that SW
73 cmf : At this time frame. That is the key. Well, the proposed timeline was much shorter than that. Key is that the benefits were not enough to justify the
74 Daysleeper : As I posted in the Norwegian order thread the statistics regarding this are surprising. I know this is early days and Boeing haven’t yet announced
75 Post contains links and images MLI717fan : Maybe I am the only one here, but who cares. The design is old, but it still works. The cost of the original 737 design was depreciated a long time a
76 B767 : In this disqussions we often hear how old the 737 is,and that it is crazy to update a 60,s design.But how is this crazy??? I mean after all if you are
77 Daysleeper : They aren’t anti-Boeing at all, they are just news articles reporting facts. It’s ludicrous to call a reporter biased just because you don’t li
78 ncfc99 : If thats the case, then I think I'm giving the engineers far too much credit. I'm strugling to believe a NSA from either OEM cannot gain 5-10% worth
79 Stitch : That common sense view could stand to be embraced by a few Airbus Aficionados on this site, as well. Anyway, $2 billion or $4 billion, it's chump cha
80 cmf : It isn't just about being able to deliver higher efficiency. It is also about what it takes to deliver them. Are the much more expensive materials wo
81 Post contains images EPA001 : Interesting. But I also remember John Leahy (yes, him again ) saying that the moment was not there yet to introduce deciding differentiating technolo
82 JoeCanuck : Boeing got hundreds of orders for the MAX before the board even approved it for sale. We still don't know much more about the MAX than a range of spe
83 N14AZ : And this reporter even himself said he is rather a Boeing supporter simply because he is an US American. If you count the number of reports about Boe
84 Rara : Then again, that's what I would say as well if I was him. Both manufacturers choosing to re-engine is clearly the optimum scenario for Airbus, so tha
85 odwyerpw : I like this statement. As enthusiastic wannabeee armchair aeronautical engineers / project planners we want the planes to be the best they can be...
86 tdscanuck : Each OEM had three major choices...do nothing, re-engine, or new aircraft. There are six possible combinations (Airbus/Boeing): nothing/nothing: Pari
87 KC135TopBoom : he mixes facts with speculations, like the story we are talking about her, the MAX will cost twice what the NEO costs to develope. I have not seen an
88 Max Q : That is a big change and, as a Pilot I am sure it's a welcome one. As far as building an all new Aircraft, I still think Boeing could have continued
89 Rara : I see that a little different, because as I wrote above, I see the A320 as having a slight advantage over the 737. But I must add that this is mostly
90 Post contains images SEPilot : Depends what you consider trivial My guess is that the NSA would cost between 4 and 6 times as much. To me that is in the same order of magnitude, al
91 Max Q : Boeing has allowed Airbus to control the future of the narrowbody market with their misguided move to develop the 'Max' They will be spending a signif
92 Post contains images seabosdca : Once 787 deliveries start in earnest, and with the planned 777 and 737 rate increases, Boeing will have the cash available to do whatever it wants. T
93 Max Q : Latest estimates for break even on the 787 are at 1000 Airframes and climbing, it will take many years to get there.
94 seabosdca : It's not a matter of profit, but of cash flow. The costs on the 787 are already paid for. What comes in over the next few years from 787 deliveries m
95 astuteman : I think it was a bit mosre subtle than that. From memory, boeing was telling us that their customers WERE pressing them for a new aircraft. UNTIL Air
96 garpd : I don't need to. Look at the flow of NEO orders. At the same time Boeing was dangling the NSA carrot in front of their customers, Airbus launched the
97 Burkhard : Which Airbus, if they are a bit intelligient, and I don't doubt this, will transform into a higher margin and not a higher market share. Airbus is co
98 Post contains images Daysleeper : Sorry to go off topic, but are you using VPN software? It’s either that or I’m seeing things, as it looks like the “old glory” next to your n
99 Rara : True - but then again, let's all keep in mind that in aviation, it doesn't really take much for your design to be superior, because intense competiti
100 StickShaker : One crucial issue that hasn't been mentioned much is that of the risk associated with launching any radical "game changing" design. With the mess of t
101 Post contains images scbriml : Yes, they also insisted they couldn't make the business case for a re-engined 737 work - to the point that, less than a year ago, McNerney said they'
102 sweair : This will only make the NSA better, with more time to mature. The team that worked on NSA up until the Max was announced is still working on the NSA.
103 astuteman : Which is fine. However, the underlying point here is that Boeing believed, and a lot of A-netters believed, that, because Airbus were stuffed into th
104 Daysleeper : I see them both releasing a new airframe in the 2020’s with an EIS for the middle of the decade, This would allow for almost 10 years production fo
105 travelhound : Lion Air is in a very competitive part of the world where first mover status is crucial. Air Asia and Jetstar had both ordered the NEO and if Lion Ai
106 astuteman : I don't disagree with the early 2020's release, although I think EIS will be late-to-end decade, not mid, giving some 13-15 years of production for t
107 seabosdca : Fuel is a much bigger part of the overall expense of flying for widebodies on long haul. Tiny differences in fuel burn are more consequential. In the
108 travelhound : The 737-900ER had it's rear bulkhead changed from the standard 900 model. Did this allow for more seats? Considering the MAX is showing one less join
109 Daysleeper : I think the success of current projects is what’s going to dictate any advantage one might have over the other. For Boeing this comes down to the 7
110 sweair : I know F35 uses a newer gen of composites than the 787, but in 10 years time what advances do you think we will have over present tech? How much effic
111 tdscanuck : Yes. Lowering the joint count, by itself, doesn't change the seatcount. If they go all flat a la the -900ER bulkhead, that would provide a bump to th
112 bikerthai : The F-35 being a high performance fighter with Mach 1+ capabilities require a higher temperature composite than the 787. The basic material used on t
113 Stitch : A valid point, but the delivery rate for narrowbodies is many, many, many multiples that of widebodies. Because of this, neither OEM is able to handi
114 seabosdca : Do you happen to know whether this has been examined for the -800? It seems like it would extend the -800's advantage over the A320 for all but the v
115 cmf : Absolutely convinced Boeing understand life cycle management. That is why they pushed NSA for so long even though it would come out much later than n
116 SEPilot : I don't disagree, but 2 to 4 billion in my book is not a small number. The consensus (which I agree with) seems to be that Boeing really, really want
117 Stitch : I don't believe it is entirely accurate to claim that airlines didn't think NSA was going to be sufficiently better than the A320neo to wait for it. B
118 RoseFlyer : Don't forget that Boeing Commercial engineers are the ones designing the 767-Tanker as well. It's not a trivial design like the 767-300 based tankers
119 Post contains images EPA001 : That is imho a great summary of a fantastic good post. Thanks for your effort. I guess that puts you on my respected members of the forum list. .
120 Post contains images bikerthai : Alas, to be a good management material, the presentation should have been on a PowerPoint. bt
121 garpd : Welcome to my respected users list.
122 flyabr : I'm jumping in a bit late in the discourse, but if it's true that the MAX is gonna be perhaps twice the cost of the NEO...why in the heck doesn't Boei
123 XT6Wagon : It its GTF compatible. Pratt has said there is no issue making a engine that fits the 737. I personaly don't believe them as they have way too many e
124 flyabr : So, if Ryan Air went to Boeing and said we'll buy 300 MAX aircraft today if you hang a couple GTFs under the wings...there is nothing Boeing could do
125 Stitch : I wonder if they didn't have a choice. While Pratt have said they could get an 80" fan on the 737NG, that CFM can't leads me to believe Pratt overest
126 tdscanuck : I have no knowledge one way or the other but it seems so obvious that I have to assume it was at least considered. The flat bulkhead does weight more
127 odwyerpw : The flat bulk head is standard on the 900ER of course, but it is also an option on the 73G and 738. Airlines have exercised that option on those frame
128 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Boeing says it just ain't so... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ax-development-cost-report-367504/
129 Max Q : In this case, the lowest cost is only being provided to the manufacturer. You can warm up an old design only so much, this 'Max' the warm up of an an
130 JoeCanuck : Boeing only has to warm up the MAX enough to maintain parity with the NEO...and it seems airlines believe they will. It doesn't matter how they do it
131 maxter : But to be perfectly honest, Boeing's history in respect of their corporate communications over the last few years especially in respect of the 787 de
132 XT6Wagon : Perhaps you would like to explain why the 737NG commands higher sale prices new, higher sale prices used, and higher lease rates than the A320? That
133 Daysleeper : I’m hoping they are going to take the same conservative approach Airbus has with the A350. As has been mentioned above one of the reasons they had
134 sweair : The problem for a narrow body was that it needed about the double thickness compared to a widebody, however was it quick step(aus) that hade 50% of t
135 packsonflight : Totally agree with you Why are they denaying this. It seems perfectly natural that Boeing is facing a bigger bill than Airbus since they have to buil
136 Daysleeper : As I mentioned above, they are being clever with the wording by only referring to costs relating to mounting the new engine, and presumably the wing
137 Stitch : If Boeing's biggest mistake results in them delivering thousands of said mistakes at 10%+ margins, as a shareholder, it's a mistake I want them to ma
138 mffoda : He also said: "including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source" And: "This also represents only the airframe
139 Daysleeper : I’m a little confused as to why Airbus would have to pay for the development of the engines. I thought the NEO was basically born because these eng
140 Post contains links Revelation : Interesting info and discussion, but I don't think it matters much, because both A and B are committed to moving forward on NEO and MAX. As we've see
141 tdscanuck : Not true. There is no way that an NSA would be cheaper to the operator overall given that they'd have to live with the current NG for another 10+ yea
142 PlanesNTrains : 1. I am somewhat surprised that after countless examples of why the MAX was the better route for Boeing to go, that you still stand by the claim that
143 Stitch : I think some folks just... • overestimate Boeing's ability to move to serial production of ~500 NSAs per annum • underestimate Airbus' ability to
144 sweair : It seems there has to be more advances in technology before anyone moves with a clean sheet NSA.
145 packsonflight : This is simply not true. Bernstein is estimating that MAX program cost is double the cost of the NEO program and Boeing is disputing that. The only w
146 Post contains images astuteman : Soory, Tom. But both parts of that sentence are incorrect. The Leap-X going onto the A320NEO is essentially the same engine, and has the same fan dia
147 JoeCanuck : That's the crux of it, right there. They cost what they cost and the folks paying for them think the programs are worth the costs and we won't find o
148 Daysleeper : I have to admit I've not been paying much attention to the development of the COMAC, C-series etc and although I remember reading a press release sta
149 Stitch : As Airbus have stated that figure is for airframe modification and development costs, I imagine it will cost them that much (at least projected).
150 Daysleeper : Ahh, it does make sense that they would have taken into account any contributions from PW and that the $1.32 billion is the total cost they will incu
151 Post contains images scbriml : It hasn't done Boeing much harm thus far, has it?
152 rheinwaldner : Why bother if the NG would haven been be as good as the NEO will be? Boeing believed that NG's would bridge any gap until the NSA would come (against
153 garpd : I think you're reading too much into the PR statements. I'm willing to bet Boeing knew it wasn't good enough. Any PR about the NG being as good as th
154 RickNRoll : It is a gamble, and it paid off with the 77W. I think Boeing would be glad they didn't take the same gamble on the 787. Which way will the dice roll
155 JoeCanuck : Exactly. The NG+ improvements were a nifty name for some further continuous improvements to the NG, which Boeing fielded to airlines as a stopgap to
156 cmf : Or not. Boeing is not known to release that kind of information.
157 Rara : I don't think that's something we can conclusively decide here. There are times in which you have to make a bold move in order to stay in business. W
158 garpd : Touché
159 Stitch : Boeing did sell about half as many 737NGs (625 net) in 2011 as Airbus sold A320neos, which was more than they sold in 2010 (508) and a feat at least o
160 flood : 625 gross, 551 net. This includes the 150 MAX order for WN, leaving us with 401 or roughly 1/3 of the NEO's 1226 orders.
161 Stitch : They had both 625 gross and net in 2011 (Boeing defines it as Net In Year of Order). The 551 counts cancellations and conversions in 2012 of orders p
162 Post contains images flood : Ah, ok. Yet you completely disregard the 244 A320 (OEO) orders, which makes no sense as they would essentially cancel out the equivalent number of NG
163 Post contains images rheinwaldner : Correct, we had considerable PR noise. But what they said was not the only evidence that they'd believe it. It was also fully supported by their acti
164 RoseFlyer : It wasn't decades. Boeing has been working on studies to put the CFM LeapX on the 737NG since it was launched in 2008. CFM even stated in May 2008 th
165 Daysleeper : I learned in another thread recently that since the 787's launch in 2004 the A330 has sold 717 frames, in terms of market share that would be 54% to
166 Post contains images InsideMan : yes, availability
167 garpd : He certainly does. But you can't compare orders for a (then) paper aircraft with that of one in production. Once the 787 comes online with more airli
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...
Delta Low-Cost To Be Announced Today posted Wed Nov 20 2002 07:55:12 by NBC News1
737 Max To Be Built In Renton posted Wed Nov 30 2011 10:42:25 by adipasqu
Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production posted Tue Sep 27 2011 07:56:02 by KarlB737
737-600 To Be Broken Up For Parts posted Fri May 21 2010 00:29:55 by oykie
New Low Cost Pier At CPH To Be A Disaster? posted Wed Mar 31 2010 05:31:01 by SKAirbus
KLMs 737-300s To Be Scrapped posted Wed Dec 9 2009 07:54:30 by NA
Will All 737's Have To Be Grounded For Checks? posted Wed Nov 19 2008 22:45:58 by Beaucaire
Low Cost Airline To Be Established In Jamaica? posted Thu Nov 22 2007 07:51:04 by A388
I Want To Be A 737 Pilot! How? posted Thu Dec 14 2006 22:45:25 by Captainsimon
A350 To Cost US$12 Bn And To Be Composite posted Sat Nov 4 2006 16:46:58 by NYC777