a380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1006 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5335 times:
I'm not sure of all the reasons why Airbus and Boeing do not build smaller airplanes. Bombardier, China, Russia, Embraer, they all seem eager on leapfrogging on Airbus and Boeing's smaller planes.
The most successful will one day produce a competition to Boeing and Airbus. Why aren't Boeing and airbus building smaller planes to try to weaken them before they really threaten them?
Is it possible to think that either Boeing or Airbus could lose money entering this market? They are so powerful that they will almost mechanically conquer a huge chunk of the market and therefore make a profit. And they would surely weaken their most likely competitors. So why aren't they competing on the entire passenger jet range?
Also, why is Dassault and other business jets builders staying away from the regional jet business?
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5247 times:
Quoting a380900 (Thread starter):
I'm not sure of all the reasons why Airbus and Boeing do not build smaller airplanes. Bombardier, China, Russia, Embraer, they all seem eager on leapfrogging on Airbus and Boeing's smaller planes.
Because they tried and it wasn't too successful for them. Boeing had the 717 and the 737-600, which combined sold a slightly over 200 a/c and Airbus sold barely 81 A318s. One of the issues was that in the case of the 736 and the A318, they were shrinks of existing, which never sell too well. The 717 was an inherited a/c that had garnered a decent number of orders, but the bulk of those orders were from two airlines and other than those two airlines, no other airline ordered them in significant numbers. In addition, the 717 was viewed by some airlines as a "warmed over DC-9" even though it has different engines and a modern flight deck.
Quoting a380900 (Thread starter): Also, why is Dassault and other business jets builders staying away from the regional jet business?
Because they have more than enough demand for their business jets to not need to venture into the commercial jet market. Dassault tried to enter the commercial jet market in the 1970s with the Mercure, but failed to garner orders and delivered a total of 10 Mercures. They courted Air France as well as some US carriers but those orders never materialized. Gulfstream never really ventured into the commercial airliner market beyond having G-159 Gulfstream I a/c operated by some commuter carriers and a few of them were stretched to hold 37 passengers.
goosebayguy From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5105 times:
Its probably a case of lower profit margins on smaller aircraft. Barrier to entry in the market is lower so there are more competitors lowering profit margins further. Its a market where you need to have a very competitive advantage such as extremely low wages and other costs.
As a business do Boeing or Airbus want to use valuable capital chasing low profit margins? No not really. Far better to invest in high end business which has a very high barrier to entry and you can make higher profits by increasing production rates and refining the product which further act as a barrier to entry from others who would need to make technical advances greater than the current suppliers and afford being able to lose $bn's when it fails.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5074 times:
A&B need to grow their NBs in the future as competition is nagging at their heels, I will not be surprised to see 752 sized NBs from A&B for the next generation of NBs.
They have shed the smallest market(A318/736) and are about to shed the next smallest(737-700/A319). So what will they do, I guess grow upwards to close the gap to the smallest WBs.
woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
Smaller companies have demonstrated that they are the future of the small jet, but also that the small, "regional" jet is a small market in which it is not easy to break even these days. Right now the 50 seat RJ is being phased out due to its uneconomical operating costs and the rest of the RJ flying market is left to the regional carriers which the Legacy carriers are happy to do. Aircraft like the Superjet 100, C-Series from Bombardier and the current generation of E-Jets have, so far not sold in numbers that would warrant interest from Boeing and Airbus. Restart of the Fokker line has proven to be a pipe dream and Boeing and Airbus sold so few of their smaller narrowbodies that they have no reason to think that the market will change. Bombardier seems to think that they will be able to sell enough C-Series to break even but right now, this seems to be either unlikely or at least something that wont happen anytime soon. If anything, Embraer and Bombardier probably have their sights on the larger NB market more than Boeing and Airbus have thiers on the smaller NB market. There is no doubt that there will be a need for smaller NB aircraft but it looks like the real market growth is in the 170+seat range and orders for aircraft of this size clearly demonstrate this.
The only real recent hope for a flexible, stretchable NB aircraft was the 717 and Boeing made sure to kill that project.
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 8, posted (2 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3434 times:
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 6): If anything, Embraer and Bombardier probably have their sights on the larger NB market more than Boeing and Airbus have thiers on the smaller NB market. There is no doubt that there will be a need for smaller NB aircraft but it looks like the real market growth is in the 170+seat range and orders for aircraft of this size clearly demonstrate this.
Then you have companies like Mitsubishi with their MRJ program which has garnered two significant orders from US airlines (50+50 options from Trans States and 100+100 options from the parent company of SkyWest and ExpressJet.). Their MRJ70 and MRJ90 are definitely aimed squarely at the CRJ-700/900 and E-170/175/190 and while Bombardier has brought updated versions of the CRJ-700 and CRJ-900 to the market, Embraer has yet to announce an expected update to the E-Jets.
Boeing and Airbus are likely not worried by the CS300 even though it competes with their 737-700/737 MAX7 and A319/A319neo a/c. The CS300 has 82 orders and half of them are from Republic Airways Holdings, presumably for their Frontier Airlines subsidiary.
The sub-125 seat market is likely going to be a battle between Bombardier, Embraer, and possibly someone like Mitsubishi or Sukhoi. 70 seats will be the low end of the regional jet market, and if a city cannot support that size of an a/c, they may be likely to lose service unless a smaller carrier that is unaffiliated with an airline (other than having a ticketing and interline agreement) comes in with a turboprop a/c.
cornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 215 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3295 times:
Don't forget that at one point Boeing owned DeHavilland Canada. They divested it, in part, because they saw what DHC did as being too far outside of their core business.
FI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1054 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3195 times:
[quote=cornutt,reply=9]
Don't forget that at one point Boeing owned DeHavilland Canada. They divested it, in part, because they saw what DHC did as being too far outside of their core business.
Agreed, they should stick with what they do best. Large commercial aircraft.
737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
art From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Quoting FI642 (Reply 10): Agreed, they should stick with what they do best. Large commercial aircraft.
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7): The market would appear to be already saturated.
A and B will reconsider size when designing the next generation of NB's in the next decade. Who knows, they might decide to produce 2 designs with some commonality between them to make themselves unbeatable over the range of 125-250 seats.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5479 posts, RR: 35 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
Quoting srbmod (Reply 8): Embraer has yet to announce an expected update to the E-Jets.
FYI, in early January EMB announced their second gen EJets program with PW GTFs with target EIS 2017-18 but could be moved up to 2016. Furthermore, a year ago EMB announced their improvement program on the current Ejets to reduce fuel burn by as much as 5.5% in addition to aero, maintenance and cabin enhancements, etc on the current Ejets.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (2 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2488 times:
I even question whether Boeing needs the 737-7 MAX and whether Airbus needs the A319neo. The trend now in all areas of the industry, from RJs to widebodies, is to the larger members of the families due to the demand for lower fares, high fuel prices, and increasing airport and ATC congestion.
I'm not certain but I don't believe Boeing has received any orders for the 737-7 MAX. I'm not sure how many orders there are for the A319neo but I believe the number is very low.
While there is a lot of commonallity with the larger members of the two families, there must still be some added certification and development costs and I question whether they could simply drop the -7 MAX and A319neo and focus only on the -8 MAX and -9 MAX and A320/321neo.
It's my feeling that the -7 MAX and -319neo could turn out to be repeats of the 737-600 and A318.
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1995 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
If Boeing and Airbus were to drastically lower the weight of its B737-600 and A318, perhaps they'd get a bigger share in the small planes market, specially with orders from airlines already having B737 and A320-family fleets.
Things may be even easier for Boeing than Airbus since it had the B737-100 and could - probably, at least in paper - upgrade it to a B737-100MAX.
bobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1352 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): I even question whether Boeing needs the 737-7 MAX and whether Airbus needs the A319neo.
The development costs on each given the 737-800MAX AND A320-NEO are probably close to zero,. There is only upside from adding the same tech to the 73G and A319.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
Quoting cornutt (Reply 9): Don't forget that at one point Boeing owned DeHavilland Canada. They divested it, in part, because they saw what DHC did as being too far outside of their core business.
EADS owned Socata and did the same thing, selling them to Daher.
A new clean sheet plane would require investment ion a separate manufacturing facility. the small 737/A320's could come off the same lines as the big sellers, but stick a totally different body/wing in those lines and chaos would impede everything.
As many mentioned, they didn't have much luck before since downsizing left a heavy product, so they are leery of Billions on a new design, new factory and infrastructure, test and support only to see the existing manufactures take 90% of the orders. Plus there would be no commonality selling point.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5479 posts, RR: 35 Reply 19, posted (2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1556 times:
Quoting a380900 (Thread starter): I'm not sure of all the reasons why Airbus and Boeing do not build smaller airplanes. Bombardier, China, Russia, Embraer, they all seem eager on leapfrogging on Airbus and Boeing's smaller planes.
Just to remind, the small airframe arena has been a graveyard of programs, plans and ambition. To name a few... F100 (Rekkof), RJX, N2130, FD928, BRJ-X, ATR Airjet 300, KHI YPX and of course... AE317.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4989 posts, RR: 29 Reply 20, posted (2 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1413 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14): I even question whether Boeing needs the 737-7 MAX and whether Airbus needs the A319neo.
Except for a relatively insignificant, (since the 737-8MAX and A320NEO will have already been certified), cost for certifying the aircraft, they have no reason not to offer the smaller jets. The only major difference between the siblings will be the length of the fuselage.
If, by some chance, they do receive some orders, it will be quite simple to slot those orders into the assembly line.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, RR: 24 Reply 21, posted (2 months 14 hours ago) and read 1131 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 20): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
I even question whether Boeing needs the 737-7 MAX and whether Airbus needs the A319neo.
Except for a relatively insignificant, (since the 737-8MAX and A320NEO will have already been certified), cost for certifying the aircraft, they have no reason not to offer the smaller jets. The only major difference between the siblings will be the length of the fuselage.
If, by some chance, they do receive some orders, it will be quite simple to slot those orders into the assembly line.
But they presumably still have to build at least one for testing/certification purposes. If it turns out there's no demand, they could avoid doing that.
mjoelnir From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 335 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 months 13 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21): But they presumably still have to build at least one for testing/certification purposes. If it turns out there's no demand, they could avoid doing that.
Airbus has orders for the A 319neo, so the frame or two for certifying is already sold.
Boeing has no orders as it is for the 737-7MAX, but there are still a few years until a possible EIS.
Both, I think want to have them for there business jet sales.
davs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 357 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (2 months 11 hours ago) and read 966 times:
Quoting woodsboy (Reply 6): Bombardier seems to think that they will be able to sell enough C-Series to break even but right now, this seems to be either unlikely or at least something that wont happen anytime soon. If anything, Embraer and Bombardier probably have their sights on the larger NB market more than Boeing and Airbus have thiers on the smaller NB market.
I think you hit on it in the second sentence...Embraer, and to a greater extent, BBD, are trying to use the 100-149 market as a "step" from which they can better attack the 150+ market where the majority of $$ will be in the future. I also think it's important to keep in mind that the Cseries' current order book isn't necessarily a good indication of market demand @ that size, as there are a couple other factors at play there...namely BBD's inexperience with projects of this size, and customers' desire for them to "prove it" before they'll pull the trigger and order planes. Look for the time between first flight and EIS, as well as the months following EIS, when the Cseries' performance numbers hit the market, to see how much demand there really is. Also, remember that a launch of CS-500 seems all but inevitable at this point, and that plane would be sized right under the B738/A320..
atlengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 72 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 months 9 hours ago) and read 894 times:
This is just a what-if, but what if Boeing took the MD airframe, put a new more efficient and slightly larger wing on it that would allow it to fly higher and farther with added fuel. Build it in 125, 150, and 160/165 seat sizes with a common flight deck. It wouldn't fly coast to coast, but it should go at least 2000 nm with state-of-the-art engines and be lighter and more fuel efficient at shorter ranges. That would cover anything east of the rockies and be ideal for European airlines. It might cut into B737 sales somewhat, but that is better than having airlines buying from Airbus, BBD, or Embraer.
woodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1011 posts, RR: 3 Reply 27, posted (2 months 5 hours ago) and read 780 times:
With the exception of the original MD80(81), all MD80s had a range in excess of 2000nm, the MD87 with aux tanks had a range of over 2900nm so it stands to reason that a modernization of the engines (lAEV2500 series?) and a larger wing would increase range at least to what the MD87 was capable of.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4767 posts, RR: 9 Reply 28, posted (2 months 4 hours ago) and read 720 times:
Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 17): Quoting cornutt (Reply 9):
Don't forget that at one point Boeing owned DeHavilland Canada. They divested it, in part, because they saw what DHC did as being too far outside of their core business.
EADS owned Socata and did the same thing, selling them to Daher.
On the other hand EADS never sold its 50% share in ATR.
As for Dassault, the Mercure wasn't a resounding success.
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Dec 2003, 1006 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 216 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1542 posts, 
From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1054 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Feb 2005, 2937 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3596 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5479 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21448 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 1995 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 4989 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Feb 2013, 335 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
