Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3667 times:
I have recently been thinking about Boeing’s concept of stretching its existing aircraft families to the limit – I am under the impression that with the exception of the 777-300, the Boeing mega-stretches are a disappointment commercial-wise:
737-900: The programme has only attracted a few orders as it cannot accommodate more passengers than a –800 thanks to a lack of emergency exists. Obviously only attractive for existing 737 operators that have a 2 class cabin (Korean, KLM, Alaska – any others ?), but an absolute no-go for low-cost or charter airlines that make up a big portion of Boeing 737NG operators.
757-300: A real slow-starter. After the initial Condor order, only a few sales to Arkia, JMC, Icelandair. Finally a boost because of Notrthwest, Continental and ATA orders, but still only a limited success. I am not exactly sure for whom the aircraft is attractive – would 767-200 operators such as DL, UA or AA replace these widebodies with a mega-tube style single aisle aircraft ? With a singe aisle, high density layout for charter airlines is probably a bit of a problem regarding turn-around times (although Condor seems to be satisfied with theirs)
767-400: Hm, any other orders except CO and DL ? Who would buy a 764 instead of a 772 or a A332 ? Will be interesting who will buy the aircraft in the future – any rumours ?
777-300: The 777-300 only seems to gain orders from the market it was designed for – Asia. Are there any non-Asian (incl. Emirates) customers ?
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 1, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3571 times:
-The 773 isn't exactly a best-seller either, the new ER version should bring more customers from around the world (AF, for example). AFAIK, only EK, TG, ANA, JAL, SQ, CX, and KE operate the 773 right now, mostly on short range flights.
-I think CO also operates/ordered the 739. Although it would never be purchased by charter airlines (1-class), it can still carry more pax in 2-class configuration than the 738 and perhaps carry more cargo.
-I hope someone could give some reliable info on this, but wouldn't the 753 be cheaper to buy/operate on domestic routes than similar-sized widebodies (762, 763, A310)? Also how does it compare to those a/c in terms of T/O and landing rwy length required?
-The 764 on the other hand, is indeed a failure
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3564 times:
Boeing is very customer oriented. They listen to the customers needs. If they get enough requests for a type of aircraft, they will seriously pursue it. In these cases, there were enough customers in the market to justify the stretch derivatives that you mentioned. These stretches cost Boeing very little to develope, but they have the great potential of making Boeing a lot of money. I think the only exception may be the 764. However, I still believe that Boeing made money on this program. The 739 may not be a huge success, however, fasten your seat belts for the 753. I firmly believe that once things get better, orders will start coming in like they did for the 752.
Rwy31R From Saudi Arabia, joined Aug 2001, 452 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Regarding the 737NG, eventhough I am big fan of the series, I feel it makes airlines stump and wonder what to go for.. -800 most popular (hope the -600 would get more orders)
I was surprised of the whole 764 project, I mean the 763/763ER is still going strong, why play with a good thing and create compition (if you could call it that), however its very nice to look at specially in DL colors.
777-300 to my understanding is intended as a replacement for the 742, 743.. and yet airlines out of Asia (eg. SV, MS, KL) that opertaed/still operate them are not going for it.. Is the whole stretch approach unpopular with airlines just because of looks, Can't be?
Hope some one with a better understanding can inlighten us.
SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1441 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
To stretch excisting models is cheaper for boeing and cheaper for the airlines!
Flight crews only need an upgrade for their rating. I'm not sure about the B764 because this Cockpit is closer to the B777 than to the B763!
Airbus does the same with the A320n and the A340 series!
I'm sure the B753 will have great success I'm not that sure about the B764 but there will be more orders than the excisting! There is no discussion about the success of the B737 products!
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3529 times:
What was exactly the problem that Boeing did not consider an extra emergency exit for the Boeing 737-900 ? Launch or important customers for the Boeing 737-800 were airlines like Hapag-Lloyd, Air Berlin, Ryanair, all operating their a/c in a Y189 high-density layout. Once they fill their -800s to capacity, they will need a larger aircraft for further growth and the logical choice would be a Srs. -900 (for example, Hapag-Lloyd has grown from the -200/-500s over -400s to -800s, Air Berlin from -300s/-400s to -800s and Ryanair from -200s to -800s). The only choice such airlines now have is to look at the Boeing 757-200, which (1) may be too large for an airline needing an aircraft just a bit larger (2) is also a different type with all the problems involved (maintenance, rating etc.) and thus (3) opens the door for unnecessary competition with the Airbus A321 - as can be seen in SAS case who have bought the 737-800 and as their larger aircraft of choice of European routes the Airbus A321.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3517 times:
Keep in mind that the 738/739 are both certified to carry a max of 189 passengers. So no need for additional emergency exits for the 739. It was developed for airlines that wanted extra room for passengers or extra first class seating.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3517 times:
While admitting that stretches / shrinks result in cheap development costs for a new aircraft sub-type, they still cost money. While I have no idea what the break even figure for the 737-900, 757-300 or the 767-400 is, I doubt that the sales that have been achieved so far, bring the sales near to break even ( I have seen comparative data for the A320 family I don't have handy at the moment). While the "Boeing 737NG" may be a huge success, the 737-900 not necessarily is as well.
Some have expressed a lot of optimism about the future of the 757-300. Still, I can't see exactly what the market for that aircraft is. For most charter airlines/markets it is too large, I can see no European flag carrier that would seriously consider such an aircraft for mid-hauls and for most Asian markets it is too small. After all, it boils down to US trans-con flights and there the question is again - is it a B767-200 replacement ? Existing 767-200s operators have not ordered 757-300s although their aircraft are now almost 20 years old. Maybe for trans-cons the question of belly cargo capacity has to be asked which the 757-300 for an aircraft of its sitze clearly lacks.
WarriorII From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
I second Boeing nut's post.
"737-900: The programme has only attracted a few orders as it cannot accommodate more passengers than a –800 thanks to a lack of emergency exists. Obviously only attractive for existing 737 operators that have a 2 class cabin (Korean, KLM, Alaska – any others ?), but an absolute no-go for low-cost or charter airlines that make up a big portion of Boeing 737NG operators."
Boeing has been playing around with a 737-900 with additional emergency exits, which was dubbed the 737-900X. This model would definately please charter operators. The 737-900 is great because it gives airlines more room for 1st or Coach, while not decreasing capacity.
"757-300: A real slow-starter. After the initial Condor order, only a few sales to Arkia, JMC, Icelandair. Finally a boost because of Notrthwest, Continental and ATA orders, but still only a limited success. I am not exactly sure for whom the aircraft is attractive – would 767-200 operators such as DL, UA or AA replace these widebodies with a mega-tube style single aisle aircraft ? With a singe aisle, high density layout for charter airlines is probably a bit of a problem regarding turn-around times (although Condor seems to be satisfied with theirs)"
Did you know the B753 offers the lowest operating costs in it's narrowbody class? The B753 is a great aircraft for charter operators, and smaller airlines (Like Icelandair) who want a large a/c, but do not want the costs of a widebody.
"767-400: Hm, any other orders except CO and DL ? Who would buy a 764 instead of a 772 or a A332 ? Will be interesting who will buy the aircraft in the future – any rumours ?"
Do you really think Dl would have been better off with A330's? I don't think so. The B764ER is really a great a/c. It's a flexible a/c that can be operated economically on both long, and short haul routes. For some airlines, an A332 or B772 might be too big, while something larger than a B763(ER) is needed.
"777-300: The 777-300 only seems to gain orders from the market it was designed for – Asia. Are there any non-Asian (incl. Emirates) customers ?"
AF has ordered the B773(ER) version. I don't really think we will many orders for this a/c outside it's Asian market. I don't think DL, or AA really need anything larger than a 772 for the time being.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Of course I would not expect DL to buy A332s, but would you expect an airline manufacturer to built an aircraft just because one of your larger customers says "Look, we are not going to buy an Airbus, develop us a 767-400 of which we will order 20 or so aircraft". This is not exaclty what I call a well-founded business-plan and so I assume they must have targeted other markets in addition to the 2 or 3 airlines that will never buy Airbus for whatever reason (of which 2 are the only 767-400 customers).
I know that 757-300 offers the lowest oerating costs. Still, only limited charter markets because of its size and for most scheduled carriers, the question of cabin comfort (tube effect) will come in. For example, Lufthansa, despite being a well-satisfied CanRJ100/200 operator, outruled the CanRJ700 and CanRJ900 because of its tube-effect cabin resulting from stretching an existing design over and over again. They have purchased some CanRJ700s now, but only as a step-gap measure until the FD728 becomes available. Same with 757-300, although on an other scale, of ocurse.
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4966 posts, RR: 46 Reply 10, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
Boeing nut and Warrior II,
I don't think anyone was questioning that these aircraft are good aircraft, with good performance. The problem with these aircraft seems to be that so few airlines seem to want to buy them. It seems to me that Boeing misjudged the market for some of these designs (753, 773, which are slow sellers, despite there not being a real competitor from Airbus), or took a relatively low-risk approach in designing competitors for some Airbus designs (739 vs. A321, 764 vs. A332), resulting in disappointing sales.
WarriorII From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3479 times:
Of course Boeing is going to listen to DL, one of Boeing's largest customers, and the largest B767 operator in the world! Like many have said, this was a low cost development, and Boeing did not need many operators in it's order books to make it successfull. The B764ER was an addition to make the B767 line more appealing, and to please current B767 customers. CO even ended up getting involved with the -400.
As we all know, Charter operators are not known for their offering of comfort onboard their a/c. Lufthansa borrowed a Condor B753 for turn-around tests to see if it could be done in a certain amount of time. The tests were successfull, but LH did not purchase the B753, no reason stated. I have heard from a few friend who have flown the B753, and they say that's if a real long bird, but it did not really have any effect on the deplaning process. If you think that it's a problem, look at the A346 and B773.
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3454 times:
I think the length of the cabin is not not the problem, it is the single-aisle layout of the 753 compared to the 773 and 346 Also, those are long-haul aircraft which tend to have much longer ground-times than a 753 for which time on the ground is much more losr money.
Indeed Lufthansa tried the 753 on domestics and were able to around the aircraft within an hour. Maybe the explanation why they have not ordered the aircraft is the one I have given in my previous post - they also considered the Boeing 757-200ERX for their middle-east routes but dismissed it (official reason was that the fleet would have been "too small" to be viable which is quite obviously a stupid explanation with Condor operating 26 B757-200/300).
Emirates777 From Tanzania, joined Feb 2000, 655 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3453 times:
I think an obvious Boeing 777-300 customer is Saudia. This aircraft is a great candidate to replace the Classic 747s in the fleet, and it would slot in nicely alongside the existing Boeing 777-200s. However, with a lack of funds and general disinterest in replacing the classics, at least the 743s it is going to be a while before SV looks at this type.
As for Emirates, The B777-300 is used in numerous capacities as is the -200 showing how versatile this family of acft is. It is particularly well suited to Emirates' network, flying both short and medium haul high density routes as well as medium and long haul high and low density routes. In fact after forthcoming deliveries, Emirates will have a total of 23 B777s in service by the end of 2003 (3x B777-200, 6x B777-200ER and 14x B777-300). And by 2010 they hope to have a total of 37 777s in service.
Hoffa From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3433 times:
How can you have more than 2 exits over the wing? The theory behind two overwing exits is that one line of escaping passengers heads "left" and the other line heads "right". Where do you put a third exit?
A third exit is impossible; a 5th or 6th door would be impractical.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3426 times:
You are correct about the performance angle of this post. However, just because a particular aircraft does not have a lot of orders doesn't immediately mean the aircraft is unsuccuessful. Take for example the Boeing Business Jet. (yet another derivative of the 737NG) The BBJ has well over 60 orders for this aircraft. Not a lot as orders go, but as far as Boeing thinks, it is an incredibly successful aircraft.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2687 posts, RR: 59 Reply 17, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3386 times:
Vfw614 and Scorpio,
It has been stated in the media several times that to break-even, the A380 had to sell around 250 frames. That has been a fairly agreed-upon figure. The program cost for the A380 has been estimated at $12 billion. Now, the programs you are calling 'slow-sellers' and 'failures' in the market place, are all derivatives of already established programs. Now, if we look at the sales totals for these 'failures':
Can you honestly tell me that Boeing has not made up its development costs on any of these programs. I'll give you the 767-400ER, as this aircraft went beyond what Boeing calls a 'minimum-change derivative'. However, I asure you, Boeing is making money on the other 3, as well as offering their customers more options. The same can be said of the A318 (although not the A340NG).
Finally, as far as Boeing will to develop the 767-400ER based solely on Delta's request - believe it. Although this is not how it happened, if it had, I firmly believe Boeing would have gone ahead and still done it, with only the 21 firm orders Delta offered (there is also something like 25 options DL has with Boeing).
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3381 times:
well, quite obviously it is possibly to solve the emergency exit problem in single-aisle aircraft larger than the 737-900 (of course not by putting a third set of exists over the wing). Wasn't the real problem that the necessary changes would have resulted in a different, more costly certification procedure - something like that is in the back of my mind.
indeed, I did not critise the quality of any of the planes I mentioned nor has this anything to do with Boeing vs. Airbus. The facts speak for themselves whether or not the aircraft in question can be regarded as bestsellers or not. For sure, in all cases Boeing expected much more orders than those that have materialized since the launch of the programme.
I don't think you can compare the BBJ to the stretched aircraft as both the BBJ1 and the BBJ2 are using existing airframes, in the BBJ1 case combining fuselage of the 700 with the wings of the 800. Given, this still involves development costs, but you cannot compare it to a stretch. Also, I am led to believe that they can make much more money with a BBJ ordered by an "one-off" non-airline customer who cannot bargain as hard as an airline that has purchase power to order 100+ aircraft from the manufacturer. In the BBJ case, break-even will be reached with much less aircraft.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 19, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3376 times:
Why do you guys all think so much in the short term ? most of these planes will sell for a long long time, and Boeing knows that. In 5 years, 10 years, 15 years the numbers for the noted aircraft will be a lot higher. In the upcoming years, many airlines will retire the earlier 737 series aircraft and replace them with the NG series, it is only a matter of time. Same rules apply to the 767 series, the 764 will most likely be around long after the 762's are parked in the desert. I would assume the push is towards the glass cockpits also, although this is just an opinion. Look at the amount of 737's that have been sold over the years, these will need replacing over time and the NG series will be there to fill that hole in the market
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3759 posts, RR: 5 Reply 20, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3373 times:
please, you cannot compare the break-even figures of the A380 with the aircraft we are talking about. It is well known that Boeing is making a over-average profit with the Boeing 747 as the aircraft has no competition and in a free market-place that guarantees a much better profit for each aircraft sold, thus lowering the break even threshold. Same with the A380, once the low prices for the first aircraft sold as appetizers have been off-set, it will have a profit margin far different from that of a Boeing 737-900.
I mentioned the A319/321 shrink/stretch costs which are much better comparable to the aircraft we are talking about. Of course with each new variant, the break-even will be reached with less aircraft sold, but in the Airbus A321s case it was - from memory - something like 300+ aircraft, in the Airbus A319 case 200+. And I think it is agreed that airlines do not build aircraft to just break-even, but make money. Therefore, I doubt that ANY of the Boeing aircraft we are talking about has broken even.
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
Don't you suppose that Boeing might possibly, just remotely possibly, know what they are doing? Don't you think they conduct market research that tells them what to pursue and how much it will cost and what the economics of these programs will be? Don't you think Boeing would be broke by now if they were incapable of making good decisions?
JetBlue320 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3353 times:
For some reason, I think the 737-900 is more attractive than the 737-800. I don't know why. Maybe it is that sleek, slender body, with those 2 huge appendages and that smooth skin And the beautiful Glisten
Scorpio From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 4966 posts, RR: 46 Reply 23, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3348 times:
Hamlet69 and Delta-flyer,
I don't think anyone has written off Boeing at any stage, and I'm not claiming Boeing is losing heaps of money on these projects. The simple point is that sales of these products are lower than Boeing had expected, I don't think you can possibly argue with that, can you? Again, I'm not saying they're bad planes, I'm not saying Boeing will lose heaps of money with 'em, just that, untill now, they have not lived up to Boeing's expectations sales-wise. That's all. No more, no less...
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1054 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (11 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3330 times:
You are right, the 773 has only got asian carriers (and emirates).
But there has been talks between Boeing and British Airways, regarding the sale of 744s back to boeing in exchange for some 773s.
This was a while ago, but it is apparantly a big possibility. BA is keen to cut capacity, and replacing 744s with 773s on some routes can save them big money... which is what they want right now......
Some of the targeted routes i believe are US west coast destinations, and maybe asia...
We will ahve to see about that though.
25 Boeing nut: Scorpio, I agree that maybe that Boeing numbers for these derivatives aren't what they'de like them to be. Then again, both Airbus and Boeing feel tha
26 Hamlet69: Vfw614, I wasn't using the A380 example as a profit-margin demonstration, but as a program-cost illustration. For example, as I said before, the 737-9
27 Scorpio: Hamlet69, Let's take the 767-400ER. Boeing originally designed it without the new 777-style cockpit. This new cockpit was introduced after both CO and
28 Vfw614: jetblue 320 "For some reason, I think the 737-900 is more attractive than the 737-800. I don't know why. Maybe it is that sleek, slender body, with t