Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:45 am

What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

Here are some things to think about.
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.
2) The 737NG is 7 inches narrower than the A320. The A320 can better accommodate containerized cargo. This is a weakness on the current 737NG. With a wider fuselage you now get containerized cargo and the wider aisles can be designed for faster loading and unloading of pax.
3) Boeing has a patent for a twin aisle short range plane. They could make the next 737 2x2x2. This would allow for even faster passenger loading and unloading (something Southwest wants), no more middle seat, and a more comfortable plane in the 200 plus seat range.
4) Having two models (a narrow 3x2 like the 717 and a novel 2x2x2) would secure a complete and optimized family and further discourage developments of 100 seaters from Bombardier, Japan, China, etc.

I would be interested to hear what your thoughts are on this dual platform concept to secure Boeing's leadership position in commercial aircraft.

TW
Only the paranoid survive
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:48 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
3) Boeing has a patent for a twin aisle short range plane. They could make the next 737 2x2x2. This would allow for even faster passenger loading and unloading (something Southwest wants), no more middle seat, and a more comfortable plane in the 200 plus seat range.

and the plane while have less seats, thus higher even higher fuel consumption per passenger

And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

[Edited 2006-08-15 21:51:21]
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3666
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:52 am

the 2+2+2 aircraft will probably be relatively heavy, as it would need to be at least 8 inches wider then the A-320 and 15 inches wider then the current 737 in order to fly an extra aisle around and offer acceptable seat wide. Compare it to the 767-200, a modest success which has relatively high CASM because it flies an extra aisle around compared to a 757 or 737-800. Expect the new aircraft(s) to be single aisle at least, the only thing which is for sure.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:56 am

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

I disagree. With a single aisle, a single slow poke can block all the remaining passengers. With twin aisles, you can go across a row and take the other aisle. This can be more than a minute when considering several slow passengers.
I remember reading somewhere that Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.
Only the paranoid survive
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5216
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:02 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

That would certainly simplify the engine providers' task. They have been long thought to be pursuing this approach.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:07 am

I have read that this is very much so a possibility. How they might do it is the question. I also think that Y3 might be a similar scenario. Kind of like the 757/767 with a lot of commonality but two different dimensions.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
kaitak
Posts: 8947
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:17 am

I think Boeing has a point, although whether a twin aisle solution is feasible is another question. However, if you look at Airbus, they have had similar problems; the A321 and 320 are superbly economical, but the 318 - really only for airlines which already have the other types (OK, apart from Tarom).

However, the other problem is that if they're splitting the market, the smaller size market will be very difficult to get into on its own, unless there is considerable commonality between both models; i.e. similar cockpit, engines, maintenance/parts commonality. Also, for airlines moving from one range to the other, this needs to be achievable with the minimum of problems; flexibility for airlines will be a big challenge here,.

Maybe a solution might be to liaise with Bombardier on its new C series aircraft and then, build a larger aircraft for the 150-220 seat (i.e. just below the 787-3/8 size), but with a close relationship between the two.

Certainly doable - as long as they can get the size right. I tend to believe, however, that 2+2+2 in Economy takes up too much floor space; 2+3+2 - i.e. a 767 layout would probably be more attractive from an economic standpoint.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 3):
Why is it so difficult to get decent thread titles on this board?

tell me about it. Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Can I buy a question mark, Pat?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:24 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):

tell me about it. Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Indeed, I thought that too. Get the eraser!
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 6):
I have read that this is very much so a possibility. How they might do it is the question. I also think that Y3 might be a similar scenario. Kind of like the 757/767 with a lot of commonality but two different dimensions.

DeltaDC9, in fact the 787/777 is kind of the same approach. Each model optimized for its category. The 757/767 was highly successful, but the 757 would have been even more successful had Boeing stuck to the original idea of making it a 150 seater to truly replace the 727 (but was persuaded by BA and EA to make it a 180 seater) - but that is a topic for another thread.

If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Airbus had two A300/A310/A330/A340 and A320, and now they have the third: the A380.

Bombardier has one CRJ 100/200/700/900, Embraer now has two E-135/140/145 and E170/175/190/195, and Douglas had two DC-9/MD-80/MD-95 and MD-11, while Lockheed had one: L-1011.

One can certainly attribute success to having optomized designs versus bastardized designs (such as shrinks and stretches). I truly believe that Boeing is considering this dual platform strategy. If they do, they will lock out everyone out of the market except for Airbus who may follow a similar tactic.
Only the paranoid survive
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:31 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.

Can I buy a question mark, Pat?

Pat I did not mean to mislead the thread and my appologies to not put in a question mark. With limited space, it's sometimes difficult to come up with a good title.

As for the rehashed question, I could not find it in the archives.
Only the paranoid survive
 
aa777sjc
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 6:19 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:42 am

I don't see how a twin aisle narrowbody will ever be better than upgrading the jetways to hit two doors at once on a single aisle. In one case, you've got to fly an aisle all over the place screwing up your efficiencies and in the other you've just to got to upgrade something on the ground.
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:44 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.

 checkmark  Which is why I think the 737/A320 replacements will cover the 175-225 pax range.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
4) Having two models (a narrow 3x2 like the 717 and a novel 2x2x2) would secure a complete and optimized family and further discourage developments of 100 seaters from Bombardier, Japan, China, etc.

I think the 5Y and 6Y configs may be too close togehter, and both Airbus and Boeing would be very hesitant to build a family of airplanes at each cross section due to overlapping sizes. A 2-2 family (i.e. a true RJ) by either A or B may be the best way to go. A family of this size could over the 80-130 pax range and leave the 150-215 pax range to the A320/737 replacement. Airbus will probably end up doing something similar to the 757/767 since it is pretty obvious there is no way they can cover the range under the A350XWB with just one aircraft. Hopefully Airbus will make a 2-3-2. . . which I think its simply the best config out there. In the future I think Airbus will build a 180-250 pax "A320" replacement and a 125-175 pax "A318" replacement. Boeing will replace the 737NG with a 160-220 pax plane, and *might* build a RJ sized plane in the 75-125 range. Just my {two cents}

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 4):
I remember reading somewhere that Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.

Well the question would be would they be willing to give up the possible fuel savings that a single aisle 3-3 plane has over a 2-2-2 plane. Either configuration will take advantage of 787 technologies. No matter how you look at it a 2-2-2 fuselage will use significantly more fuel than a 3-3 fuselage, and I don't think WN will want with that.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 10):
in fact the 787/777 is kind of the same approach. Each model optimized for its category. The 757/767 was highly successful, but the 757 would have been even more successful had Boeing stuck to the original idea of making it a 150 seater to truly replace the 727 (but was persuaded by BA and EA to make it a 180 seater)

The approach to the 757/767 was a joint development, and they shared many of the same systems. The 777/787 situation is quite different since the 787 is developed over 10 years after the 777. The 787 shares some structural components with the 777, but its systems are quite different (especially since its engines are bleedless). I would contend that the 757 would be less succesful at 150 seats. Considering the 757s range, how often would you fly 125-150 people across the Atlantic? I think 180-220 is a lot more likely.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 10):
If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Well IIRC, the 737/757 fuselage comes from the 727/707 fuselage. . .
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:05 am

Having anything but 3X3 seating is unlikely for a short to mid haul aircraft. 2X3 is less efficent for a mainline aircraft because the added aerodynamic drag is not as great as the revenuse of the additional seat in the row. At the same time 2X2X2 would increase drag and not add a seat to a row. That is the problem with the 767: it is much wider than the 737 or 757 but has only one more seat per row (in most configurations). The 767 can not carry LD3 cans either so going 2X2X2 would not leave enough room to fit LD3s side by side, negating cargo benefits.

If anything, the next 737 will cover all sizes of single aisle 3X3 seating with variants of a single model, mostly varying in length. This would retain commonality which airlines like. The other improvements would just be technolgy from the 787 passing to other product lines.
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:06 am

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
If one looks at Boeing's past, they made more sizes of fuselage diameters for different markets (737/757, 767, 777, 747) than anyone else and this helped them rely on optimization first and commonality second.

Well IIRC, the 737/757 fuselage comes from the 727/707 fuselage. . .

Yes, but my examples are models that a manufacturer offered most in a given instant of time. Boeing has always been a leader on this aspect where they had the most models offered at any given time in terms of fuse diameters.

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
The approach to the 757/767 was a joint development, and they shared many of the same systems. The 777/787 situation is quite different since the 787 is developed over 10 years after the 777. The 787 shares some structural components with the 777, but its systems are quite different (especially since its engines are bleedless). I would contend that the 757 would be less succesful at 150 seats. Considering the 757s range, how often would you fly 125-150 people across the Atlantic? I think 180-220 is a lot more likely.

True and I realize what you are saying on 777/787. My point again is that Boeing always designed a new fuselage rather than butcher an old one (i.e they could have shrunk the 777 for the 220 seat market, but they decided to give the 777 a whole new sister).

As for the 757, one needs to go back to history. The original concept was a transcon not an intercon. The plane was to replace the 727 with no more than 3000 nm range 150 pax, 2 man crew, 2 engines and crew commonality with the 767. But BA and EA wanted more seats and more range and Boeing caved, the A320 became s uccess over the poor payload/range of the 737-400. Fast forward, the 757-200 was being eaten by the 737NG's superb payload range. Boeing made a decision, killed the 757 and launched the 737-900. If you say that the 757-200 was successful based on its range, then why was it killed? the 737-900ER does not offer the same payload/range as the 757-200?

But as the 737NG evolved from the 737 Classics with bigger wings for more payload/range, the low end 100 seat market such as the 737-600 has become a poor offer. This is why the dual narrowbody concept makes sens from a true market needs perspective as well as discouraging bottom feeders entering the market.

I agree with you that the 2-2-2 is a long shot.

TW
Only the paranoid survive
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:07 am

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 3):
Why is it so difficult to get decent thread titles on this board?

I agree, I also found this thread title deciving.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
1) Covering this range of seats can not be most economically covered with a single platform. The low end is better suited with a 5 across seating, the medium to higher end with a 6 across.

The 3+3 fuselage is aerodynamically viable for anything from 90-100 seats all the way to 240-250 seats. What hinders the 736 and A318 variants is not the fuselage, it's the wing platform and all the extra weight they carry.

I think the better question is, how many wings will Boeing build? That has more direct implications for the market niche that can be effectivly served by a given fuselage type.

Ideally, you want to keep the same fuselage diameter for tooling concerns. But since CFRP technology can vary the thickness (and thus strenght/weight) of a component, I think a wider range of optimal variants is possible.

Two distinct wings and a variable fuselage would open a lot of doors...

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
I tend to believe, however, that 2+2+2 in Economy takes up too much floor space; 2+3+2 - i.e. a 767 layout would probably be more attractive from an economic standpoint.

Keep in mind that a 3+3 fuselage with a 1.5 wide isle can realize the turn-around advantages of a full twin-isle 2+2+2 airliner. But, the 1.5-Wide isle would keep the fuselage at a much more reasonable width.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 11):
As for the rehashed question, I could not find it in the archives.

The topic title will not always be in the exact same format as the question you posed so you have to be more "general" in your searches. You must realize, however, that this being a.net this topic has been discussed before in several different threads.... afterall, it has even been in the aviation and mainstream press.

Some threads posted this year...

Boeing Also Developing 100 Seater As 737 Successor
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2643845/

Boeing 737RS Could Threaten Embraer
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2636303

Airbus NSR And Boeing RS/Y1 : New Engine Key
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2593819

Boeing Firms Up 737 Replacement Studies
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ion/read.main/2636303

[Edited 2006-08-15 23:28:11]
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
American777
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:29 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 4):
Southwest was in favor of such an idea as long as the weight and drag penalties are made up with using 787 technologies.



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 7):
just below the 787-3/8 size

Here is a good model that can replace the 737 with 787 technologies:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Yves Mayer
Template © Yves Mayer


Quoting 787engineer (Reply 13):
don't think WN will want with that.

But they might want these for their future 737 replacements:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Yves Mayer
Template © Yves Mayer



JOE.  airplane 
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:15 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Thread starter):
What do you guys think about the possibility that Boeing will come up with not just one but two types of aircraft to successfully cover the 90 to 220 seat narrowbody market?

A distinct possibility. Boeing had been ivestigating a concept dubbed "G-Family" as a 737 replacement in the 90s before 737NG was pursued. It revolved around two modular wings with common outboard sections and two or three different fuselage cross sections, including a 2+2+2 arrangement. The latter had also been investigated back in the mid-80s for the 7J7 propfan.

And it's not a secret that Boeing is exploring all options from 2+3 all the way up to 2+3+2 for Y1.

If you do a rough calc, 2+2+2 should add about 3% in drag over 3+3. In terms of turn-around, 2+2+2 is equivalent to 3+3 with a 25'' aisle, so no distinct benefit there. But what's the value of 'window and aisle seats only'?
 
787engineer
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:08 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 19):
f you do a rough calc, 2+2+2 should add about 3% in drag over 3+3. In terms of turn-around, 2+2+2 is equivalent to 3+3 with a 25'' aisle, so no distinct benefit there. But what's the value of 'window and aisle seats only'?

How do you figure a 3% increas in drag. A rough calculation for me gives a 10%+ larger cross-sectional area, and a 5%+ increase in circumfrence which increases skin friction drag per unit lenth. . . I think total drag on a 2-2-2 would be at least 10% higher than a 3-3 aircraft.
 
richm
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:39 am

Quoting LPLAspotter (Reply 21):
It's just we're not as good as you. So why don't you make the thread of the year eh?

No need to be petty, he had a valid point.
The number of topics with misleading titles is somewhat frustrating to some and I think a.net should be strict on this. Especially considering a.net isn't exactly bandwidth friendly and many people have slow internet connections. (given the fact that it can't have multiple pages per topic)
 
Molykote
Posts: 1237
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:21 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:25 am

Quoting American777 (Reply 18):
Here is a good model that can replace the 737 with 787 technologies:

Is this a joke? It looks just like an Embraer 170/190.
Speedtape - The aspirin of aviation!
 
American777
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:55 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:37 am

Quoting Molykote (Reply 23):
Is this a joke? It looks just like an Embraer 170/190.

I just posted those modified pictures because I thought it might fit with this topic as mostly everyone is talking about the new 737 replacement design with similarities to the 787. According to Yves Mayer, who designed this new plane, it's a 737 mixed with a 787. So I am not saying it's a 797 as Yves Mayer is, and Yves Mayer probably got an Embraer jet and just changed the cockpit design to make it look like a Boeing jet. Who knows.

JOE.  airplane 
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:25 pm

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

No.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
Keep in mind that a 3+3 fuselage with a 1.5 wide isle can realize the turn-around advantages of a full twin-isle 2+2+2 airliner.

Yes, a 2-2-2 config would take longer to embark/disembark than a 3-3 config in the same cross-section.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 14):
The 767 can not carry LD3 cans

The B767 can carry LD3s, just not side-by-side. I'm hoping that Boeing produce a B737/B757 replacement in a wide 3-3 config with cargo capacity for single-file LD3s. The smaller market might be left to Embraer and Bombardier.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:37 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 25):
Yes, a 2-2-2 config would take longer to embark/disembark than a 3-3 config in the same cross-section.

As I understand it, the ability to "step around" someone in the isle is more important than the number of isles.

You will always have two people in the isle acting as human cholesterol, so an extra isle doesn't change anything. But if the isle is wide enough that this guy doesn't impede the flow of passengers behind him, deboarding can continue without interruption.
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:44 pm

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
and the plane while have less seats, thus higher even higher fuel consumption per passenger

And you would probably save 1 minute in loading and unloading passengers

Actually, the idea of a widebody style 737 replacement is not that radical. My grandfather's brother is a high-ranking engineer at Boeing, and he said that they are in fact considering a 2x2x2 replacement for the 737.
Good goes around!
 
acjflyer
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 9:44 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:08 pm

Quoting Killjoy (Reply 3):
Why is it so difficult to get decent thread titles on this board?



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
tell me about it. Sounded like a statement from Boeing, turns out to be the same question rehashed over and over with no basis in current news.



Quoting SirOmega (Reply 9):
Indeed, I thought that too. Get the eraser!



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 16):
I agree, I also found this thread title deciving.

Ahh, but a.net doesn't change it because it works. The title caught my attention as I'm sure it did yours, and because of that we want to read this and other threads in the forum which in turn gives more airtime to the advertisers making it possible for all of us that are not first class members (majority) to view the ads longer, meaning a.net can charge even more for advertising space making more profit.

There are very few here that are not guilty of making a catchy title so that more people would click on it and read the thread posted. Let's all be honest with ourselves and admit that we too are all part of the semi-political website of airliners.net.

It's basic marketing and it works.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:25 pm

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 15):
Boeing has always been a leader on this aspect where they had the most models offered at any given time in terms of fuse diameters.

Arguably, that's a bad thing from a price/production/margin perspective.

Airbus did pick a great fuse size for their up-to-300 seat aircraft, saved a boatload of money, and really simplified their process.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 15):
My point again is that Boeing always designed a new fuselage rather than butcher an old one (i.e they could have shrunk the 777 for the 220 seat market, but they decided to give the 777 a whole new sister).

Well, no. The 787 is a radically new concept that's really not completely related to the length or width of the plane. Sure they got that right, too, but shortening the 777 would never have yielded the same results.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 15):
the 737-900ER does not offer the same payload/range as the 757-200?

It does not, no.

N
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:29 pm

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 19):
How do you figure a 3% increas in drag. A rough calculation for me gives a 10%+ larger cross-sectional area, and a 5%+ increase in circumfrence which increases skin friction drag per unit lenth. . . I think total drag on a 2-2-2 would be at least 10% higher than a 3-3 aircraft

Interesting. How do a ~5% increase in fuselage wetted area and a 10% increase in fuselage frontal area translate into a >10% increase in total airplane drag?

[Edited 2006-08-16 12:34:59]
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:49 pm

Quoting American777 (Reply 17):

Here is a good model that can replace the 737 with 787 technologies:


Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Yves Mayer

I had something like this in mind. Hope to see it soon
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:43 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 27):
Airbus did pick a great fuse size for their up-to-300 seat aircraft, saved a boatload of money, and really simplified their process.

Since the A300 family and the A330/A340 family are built on seperate lines, does it really improve things all that much to have the same fuse diameter? Do they share components?

IIRC the 707 is a few inches wider than the KC-135. Were they built on seperate lines?
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:14 pm

My opinion is that the 737 replacemnt will be called the 797. Years ago I envisioned a 797 having two engines on the wing and two on the tail like the DC-9.

Now i'm thinking the replacement will have updated GE or IAE engines with a composite narrowbody fusealge that has the range of the 757. As others have said a 2+2+2 offers a higher CASM. So why not go with a narrowbody that has the range of a 757. That equals a perfect replacement for 757 and 737. I'm guessing a 4000NM range would be sutable.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:28 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Since the A300 family and the A330/A340 family are built on seperate lines, does it really improve things all that much to have the same fuse diameter? Do they share components?

Final assembly lines are separate, but not the barrel manufacturing lines. This has 'improved things' in the past, but in the age of flexible tooling and determinate assembly this 'unsophisticated' type of commonality has lost its meaning.

With lean manufacturing, commonality has been shifted from the hardware to the process level. This type of commonality is enabling instead of restricting in product design, allowing the product to be tailored. e.g. the same tape layers that are used for winding 787 fuse barrels can be employed for winding Y1 or Y3 barrels or any diameter in between. Cost savings are cross-program and the more tailored products have a better revenue potential (which would be rather compromised by old-style commonality)

I'm getting carried away, anyone still with me?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:47 am

Quoting Acjflyer (Reply 26):
Ahh, but a.net doesn't change it because it works.

Actually, if you check the Detailed Rules for posting on Airliners.net:

20. Please use the most relevant and descriptive heading for your topics. The topic of your thread should therefore be as detailed as possible.

I think the majority of people would agree the original title was confusing. To prove my point, the A.net moderators did change it  Wink

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 31):
As others have said a 2+2+2 offers a higher CASM. So why not go with a narrowbody that has the range of a 757.

1) CASM is not related to range in that sense.

CASM is the cost to move one seat one mile, obviously the lower the better. Because a 2+2+2 fuselage would be wider, it would create more weight and drag than a 3+3 fuselage. That means more work for the engines, which means more fuel burn, which means higher CASM.

Adding more range wouldn't lower the CASM, it would just broaden the number of routes the aircraft could be used on.

2) Keep in mind that flights over 3,000 nm account for less than 5% of all 757 opperations, and an even smaller number of regularly scheduled 737/A320 ops.

To build a standard variant with 4,000 nm of range would be overkill for many airlines. The product should be optimized for the market it will most commonly be used, with an ER or HGW variants for niche application.
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:57 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 31):
As others have said a 2+2+2 offers a higher CASM. So why not go with a narrowbody that has the range of a 757. That equals a perfect replacement for 757 and 737. I'm guessing a 4000NM range would be sutable.

The 737-200 had a wingspan of 93'. Then in the mid '80's Boeing came up with the Classics for increased payload range, and extended the wingspan by an additional 21 inches. The Classics still could not compete against the A320 family in terms of P/R, so Boeing went back to the drawing board in the 90's and came up with the NG. The 737NG family now has a wingspan of 112' 7" - that is almost 18 feet increase over the Classics at 94' 9" in order to gain a superior payload range and opened the way to eventually launch the 737-900. This gave Boeing a huge advantage in terms of coming up with a good medium range medium capacity plane, but in doing so the 737-900ER made the 757 somewhat redundant in terms of the 757's niche of 3800-4000 nm with a payload of 180-190 pax, and the market said we are fine with the 737NGs (CO cancelled their remaining 757 orders and switched to the 737-900 as one example).

My point is that, over the years, Boeing has steadily shifted away from its original narrowbody platform optimized for the 100-130 seat segment like the 737-200, to moving into the 140-200 seat with the NGs at 3000 plus miles range capability. In doing so covering the 100-130 seat segment with the 737-600 that has over 19 feet of additional wingspan/weight over the 737-200 makes Boeing vulnerable in this market segment if they continue (for the 737 replacement) with a one size fits all approach.

If as it was previously mentioned in this thread that Boeing can make a short wing for the 100-140 seat segment, and a long wing for the 150-200 seat segment, then they may not need to come up with two different fuselage designs. But it will not be optimized and challengers such as the RRJ / SuperJet 100 (5 acrfoss seating), potentially Embraer or Bombardier's revised C Series can come up with a decent 5 abreast plane to challenge Boeing's one size fits all strategy. Boieng will have one chance to discourrage any future challengers by doing it right versus doing it half right.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 27):
Boeing has always been a leader on this aspect where they had the most models offered at any given time in terms of fuse diameters.

Arguably, that's a bad thing from a price/production/margin perspective.

Airbus did pick a great fuse size for their up-to-300 seat aircraft, saved a boatload of money, and really simplified their process.

Have you not heard about the fuselage bending issues of the A340-500/-600? You can keep stretching it like a limo, but there are weight and maintenance cost issues that can be avoided with the design of the right fuselage for the right passenger carrying capacity. You say arguably that's a bad thing for more than one fuselage design? Boeing has been successful for the 737/757, 767, 777, 747 in terms of sales and in terms of profitability with this approach. Airbus is now following suit: A320, A330, A350XWB, A380 (I am assuming the A340 will be replaced by the A350XWB) eventually.
Only the paranoid survive
 
MCOflyer
Posts: 7071
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 5:51 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:11 am

I'm guessing the 737 will be built for another 9yrs. when the new one does come out, I would assume at least 3500 mile range (like the 737-700). And another like the 737-900ER. The 739ER is new so it will be built for another 9yrs or so.

MCOflyer
Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:15 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
Keep in mind that flights over 3,000 nm account for less than 5% of all 757 opperations, and an even smaller number of regularly scheduled 737/A320 ops.

The 757 was designed to be a medium-density domestic transcon plane, right?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
To build a standard variant with 4,000 nm of range would be overkill for many airlines.

Sure, there are other planes in use that seat some 200 people that can do this: the 767.

But then, there are airlines that would need the 757 to fly more than 3,000nm, particularly US, with a great demand for Europe but limited 767 and A330 aircraft. For this purpose, the 757 would be a good starting point. US uses the ETOPS 757s for PHL-Europe routes, and I am sure that as soon as the newer aircraft come online, those 757s will be replaced with those aircraft, freeing up the 757 for other routes, or retirement from the fleet... Continental also uses the 757 to do CLE to Europe; I want to say for the same reason as US' use for them, but I don't think that's accurate and/or correct...

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 33):
The product should be optimized for the market it will most commonly be used, with an ER or HGW variants for niche application.

an ER as in "Extended Range" for an additional few hundred miles or so? Forgive me, but what does HGW mean?  silly 
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:47 am

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 36):
The 757 was designed to be a medium-density domestic transcon plane, right?

Yes, but a transcon doesn't require 4,000 nm of range as suggested.

Despite what the 757 was designed for, only a small fraction of scheduled 757 service take advantage of its range. Like I said, flights over 3,000 nm only account for about 5% of 757 opperations.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 36):
But then, there are airlines that would need the 757 to fly more than 3,000nm, particularly US, with a great demand for Europe but limited 767 and A330 aircraft.

Yeah, but if only 5% of opperators are going to use a certain capability, why burden the other 95% with a heavier airplane than they need?

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 36):
an ER as in "Extended Range" for an additional few hundred miles or so?

Yes. This would give the majority of opperators the most optimal aircraft possible, while still allowing the minority of opperators to use the aircraft on long-haul routes.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 36):
Forgive me, but what does HGW mean?

High Gross Weight. Basically another way of saying ER.

Increased Gross Weight (IGW) is also used sometimes
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 2:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 37):
Despite what the 757 was designed for, only a small fraction of scheduled 757 service take advantage of its range. Like I said, flights over 3,000 nm only account for about 5% of 757 opperations.

Looks like you were generous!  Wink

Here's some detailed data as of last week for both the 737 and 757. The first set of numbers (seperated by a dash) gives the flight range in st-miles and the last column numbers gives the weekly flight frequencies.

737

Range Frequency per week
0 - 99 85
100 - 199 1426
200 - 299 3054
300 - 399 2668
400 - 499 3180
500 - 599 2007
600 - 699 1655
700 - 799 1864
800 - 899 978
900 - 999 985
1000 - 1099 880
1100 - 1199 669
1200 - 1299 468
1300 - 1399 378
1400 - 1499 176
1500 - 1599 198
1600 - 1699 86
1700 - 1799 71
1800 - 1899 102
1900 - 1999 77
2000 - 2099 108
2100 - 2199 87
2200 - 2299 25
2300 - 2399 8
2400 - 2499 6
2500 - 2599 14
2600 - 2699 20
2800 - 2899 4
3200 - 3299 4
3800 - 3899 2
3900 - 3999 12
4200 - 4299 7


757

Range Frequency per week
0 - 99 47
100 - 199 189
200 - 299 368
300 - 399 287
400 - 499 416
500 - 599 575
600 - 699 670
700 - 799 687
800 - 899 260
900 - 999 646
1000 - 1099 774
1100 - 1199 598
1200 - 1299 559
1300 - 1399 371
1400 - 1499 270
1500 - 1599 571
1600 - 1699 445
1700 - 1799 287
1800 - 1899 201
1900 - 1999 483
2000 - 2099 270
2100 - 2199 422
2200 - 2299 45
2300 - 2399 143
2400 - 2499 288
2500 - 2599 287
2600 - 2699 90
2700 - 2799 56
2800 - 2899 57
2900 - 2999 80
3000 - 3099 40
3100 - 3199 40
3200 - 3299 14
3300 - 3399 24
3400 - 3499 26
3600 - 3699 7
4000 - 4099 2
5100 - 5199 4
5200 - 5299 6

Everyone can draw their own conclusions as to range requirements for a new narrowbody design.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:56 am

Planemaker, that is great data. I assume US domestic data or worldwide?

Here are some questions that come to mind from these stats:
1) Why would Bombardier go for 3000 nm for the C Series, when they could lower the dead weight to carry all that fuel holding capacity for a 2500 nm range plane and have even better efficiency against the A318/737-600? Obviously from the data shown, the larger the plane, the greater the range requirement. Since they are staying in the 100-130 range, 3000 nm seems an overkill.
2) As I mentioned previously, it seems that a single wing able to carry lot's and lot's of fuel like on the 737NG seems wasteful and inefficient for 90% of 737 flights. Doesn't it make sense to come up with two configurations: one for the 100-130 seats like 2500 nm, and another for the 150 and above seats like 3500 -4000 nm ?
3) According to the data, there are a lot more flights over 2000 nm for the 757 than the 737. As more 737NGs enter service, and do more and more the job of retiring 757s, and at the same time the Classics enter retirement - creating a vacuum in efficient 100-130 seaters, would Boeing be pressed by airlines sooner than later to launch the 737RS? If not, airlines may say enough is enough and either go for the C Series or an E-195?
Only the paranoid survive
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:11 am

Quoting RichM (Reply 20):
The number of topics with misleading titles is somewhat frustrating to some and I think a.net should be strict on this.

Considering how strict they are on other things, especially certain moderators who'll close threads if there is anything political they don't agree with...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:07 am

Having two similar planes might be successful, but I think that having one plane with just different wing modifications would be the best option. The 787-3/8/9 all have different wing lengths with modifications to the tips. I think this would help the 737. Using a smaller wing would help lighten up a plane in the 100-130 size range and having some form of extension would give a plane in the 160-180 passenger area enough range. Short planes are usually uneconomical since they weigh too much, and stretches often suffer from limited range, so wing and engine modifications could help this.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4899
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:16 am

I really support the 2-2-2 idea. On the interior, I would like 787-style outer pivot bins, and no center bins, as center bins are not really needed on aircraft of the 737/757 capacity range. The interior should have the LED mood lighting, and the windows should be the same as those on the 787.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:34 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 39):
I assume US domestic data or worldwide?

It is worldwide since the market for the 737RS is worldwide.

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 39):
1) Why would Bombardier go for 3000 nm for the C Series, when they could lower the dead weight to carry all that fuel holding capacity for a 2500 nm range plane and have even better efficiency against the A318/737-600? Obviously from the data shown, the larger the plane, the greater the range requirement. Since they are staying in the 100-130 range, 3000 nm seems an overkill.
2) As I mentioned previously, it seems that a single wing able to carry lot's and lot's of fuel like on the 737NG seems wasteful and inefficient for 90% of 737 flights. Doesn't it make sense to come up with two configurations: one for the 100-130 seats like 2500 nm, and another for the 150 and above seats like 3500 -4000 nm ?

The answer is that BBD was actually offering a STD model (1800 nm) and the ER model (3000 nm).

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 39):
3) According to the data, there are a lot more flights over 2000 nm for the 757 than the 737. As more 737NGs enter service, and do more and more the job of retiring 757s, and at the same time the Classics enter retirement - creating a vacuum in efficient 100-130 seaters, would Boeing be pressed by airlines sooner than later to launch the 737RS? If not, airlines may say enough is enough and either go for the C Series or an E-195?

I firmly believe that the CSeries will never be launched. (As an aside, Randy Bair said that Boeing rejected BBD on any sort of colaboration on the CSeries because it is, at best, only an interim solution).

The E195 (which in N.A. would be typ. a 100-110 seat aircraft), will have limited appeal to airlines with an all-737 fleet because, if you want to put it one way, the 73G can certainly be abused in the 120-130 seat "short haul" market until the 737RS appears. In the interim, I think that you would more likely see the E190 paired with the 737 (as with COPA, for example) than the E195.

If you look at the Boeing order book, the majority of 737 orders are for LCC's that are not focused on the 100-130 market (for now at least). So there is not really much pressure on Boeing at the lower end of the seating spectrum.

Most importantly (as has been discussed on several threads) and something that is not in Boeing's hands, until the right engine appears the 737 successor won't be on offer to airlines.

I also believe that before the next narrowbody EIS (10-12 years hence), there is going to be a lot of changes to the airline industry that will have a huge impact on orders. There could very well be limited demand at that time for 100-120 seat aircraft, and development of the 737RS model that covers that segment could very well be the last one addressed (if at all).
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:50 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 43):
The answer is that BBD was actually offering a STD model (1800 nm) and the ER model (3000 nm).

Aren't they both the same plane but higher MTOW to get the 3000 nm?
Only the paranoid survive
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:49 pm

Two thoughts:

1) How much of the market does Boeing really want to sell to? Down at the bottom end of the narrowbody seating range (100-120) they have competition from Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus (and potentially new companies out of India and China, by the time 737RS/Y1 rolls around). At the top end, it is almost entirely Boeing and Airbus. Boeing might decide to leave the bottom part to the traditional RJ manufacturers, rather than design a whole new airframe.

2) Isn't part of the Yellowstone project the idea of simplifying the product line? Creating a Y1a and Y1b wouldn't fit with that idea.

Of course, Boeing should do what it thinks will get the most profits, and I doubt any of us would complain about more aircraft types in the sky  biggrin 
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:13 pm

Commonality of the cockpit, APU, Airpack controls, etc is what is important. As CRFP is done on mandrels and a line has an approximate maximum of 12 bodies a month, multiple lines will be required. It is quite possible that the 737RS will require 3 lines. So doing two wings and two fuse designs provides an incredible amount of diversity. If fuse A was a 5 across Y craft and fuse B was 6 across with either current seat widths and very wide aisle or wider seats and a slightly wider aisle (12" wider than the current 737). The base fuse length would be 1, a 4 row stretch being 2, and a 7 row stretch being 3. The wing including gear would be in two sizes: w being the low MTOW design for the short haul and W being the high MTOW design for the long haul and larger fuse.

A1w 114 seats 2,800 mile range
A2w 134 seats 2,400 mile range
A3w 149 seats 2,000 mile range Best CASM for small fuse & wing.

A2W 134 seats 5,000 mile range The ultimate long and thin route
A3W 149 seats 4,300 mile range

B1w 175 seats 1,750 mile range

B1W 175 seats 3,700 mile range
B2W 199 seats 3,400 mile range
B3W 217 seats 3,000 mile range

The seat counts and range are very approximate, my point is with the different weights and drags of the two fuse and the capabilities of the two wings the one family provides several optimimums. The 737 family currently has two wings: with the two fuse sizes and the wings designed for a bigger difference we get very efficient short haul, a super long range thin route plane
and cover the wider range with good models.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:39 pm

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 42):
I really support the 2-2-2 idea. On the interior, I would like 787-style outer pivot bins, and no center bins, as center bins are not really needed on aircraft of the 737/757 capacity range. The interior should have the LED mood lighting, and the windows should be the same as those on the 787.

I think it is a given that the windows and lightening will resemble the 787. However 2-2-2 seating just doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to add another aisle, and that extra width, why don't you go to 2-3-2 and get some more capacity out of it. Yes 2-2-2 will board quickly, but that seems like an inefficient use of space.

As far as overhead bins go, unless these carryon restrictions become permanent, large overhead bins are very necessary. If you've ever flown a heavy business route like ORD-LGA, you'll see that overhead bins are crammed to the max with rollaboards and there are always bags being gate checked. A wider plane allows more space. I think the larger bins are almost more necessary on short haul planes than long haul planes. On long haul planes more people check luggage since trips tend to be longer.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
Tangowhisky
Topic Author
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:37 am

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 43):
If you look at the Boeing order book, the majority of 737 orders are for LCC's that are not focused on the 100-130 market (for now at least). So there is not really much pressure on Boeing at the lower end of the seating spectrum

LCC carriers cherry pick their routes as their operating model is point to point accompanied with low fares. This means that each flight has to be profitable on its own as there is no pooling of revenues through connections/network operations as utilized by network carriers. This makes LCCs prefer for larger planes such as 737-700/800s and less -600s in order to best keep their CASMs down against the low yield environment they operate in. Where as network carriers need different sized airplanes to match their overall network needs. When the 737 Classics and MD-80s will need to be replaced by network carriers, Boeing and Airbus will be vulnerable unless they come up with a good Y1 product line strategy. I agree with you that LCCs buy large planes, but they will not grow at the rate that they have in the past, unless they too employ the hub and spoke system as point-to-point or true O&D markets begine to get all tapped out. Looking at Rynaiar out of Stansted and Southwest from Phoeinix, these large LCCs seem like they are on their path to slowly entering the hubbing business. JetBlue's deployment of E-190s is further evidence that incremental true O&D markets can best be tapped with optimized 100 seaters.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 43):
Boeing rejected BBD on any sort of colaboration on the CSeries because it is, at best, only an interim solution).

I believe Boeing is using its 900 pound gorilla weight to keep Bombardier and others out of the market by playing the PR campaign. They did a good job of persuading the market and suppliers to wait for Y1 as Bombardier couldn't even publicly list its risk sharing partners, forget about launch customers. But Bombardier and its likes will not go away unless Boeing comes up with an uncompromised state of the art product for the 90-140 seat segment with goodies such as flight crew commonality across the entire Boeing product line, benefits with dealing with Boeing Services for all your fleet needs, etc. BBD and Embraer are having a tough time in the regional aircraft business as everytime they launch a program or want to launch a program their destiny is dependent on which was scope clauses will go next. BBD did not launch the CRJ 700 until there was sufficient evidence that scopes will allow large enough 70 seaters. By then, the legacies pushed for 90 seats, and this dried out the 70 seat demand. Now there is talk about pushing scope to 100 seats. The point is that BBD and ERJ can not milk their programs as well as they did on their 50 seaters as they are dealing with this moving target of scope limits. I am certain that if A and B will leave the 100-130 seat segment slightly open, BBD and ERJ will love nothing more than get into a market where labor laws are not as big an issue in defining and affecting the stability of their business.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 45):
How much of the market does Boeing really want to sell to? Down at the bottom end of the narrowbody seating range (100-120) they have competition from Bombardier, Embraer, and Airbus (and potentially new companies out of India and China, by the time 737RS/Y1 rolls around).

According to Boeing's latest market forecast, the narrowbody deliveries over the next 20 years will acoount for 61% of all deliveries or 41% by $ value. Airbus is almost exact in agreement if you check out there website. Even if most of those narrowbodies are above 140 seats, that is a lot of dough to leave on the table if A and B decide to compete in the upper end of the narrowbody segment.

Up to know they have done an excellent job making the market think that there is a small market for 100-130 seaters as they sell more 737-700/800 and A319/A320s than 737-600 or A318. But here is my conspiracy theory on what is really going on.

According to Boeing'w website, the 737-600 operating weight empty is only 3.4% less than the 737-700. That means that there is a bit less of aluminium and interiors that makes up the 2,800 lbs difference from the -700. The amount of labor in final assembly and completions, the value of engines, avionics, and all the systems are nearly the same. Therfore the bill of material of the 737-600 is probably at most about 5% less than the 737-700. But according to Boeing's site, the average list price of a -600 is $51M and the average list price of a -700 is $59M. That is on average, a 737-700 can chase an additional $8M of margin over a -600 for nearly the same cost of production (737-600 cost = 95% cost of 737-700). Therefore it is not in Boeing or Airbus interest in selling these smaller models as there is far graeter margin to be gained on the -700. They do everything possible to persuade airlines to buy a -700 (e.g. lower CASM, higher revenue generation capability, higher resale value, etc.) in their marketing dog and pony shows. IMHO, the 737-600 and A318 are there to discourage BBD and ERJ from entering the true narrowbody market. If A and B do not come up with an optomized Y1a for 90-140 seats and optomized Y1b for 150-200 seats, then we will see more competitors in the narrowbody market.
Only the paranoid survive
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13841
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Replace The 737 With Two Models?

Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:25 am

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 48):
Where as network carriers need different sized airplanes to match their overall network needs. When the 737 Classics and MD-80s will need to be replaced by network carriers, Boeing and Airbus will be vulnerable unless they come up with a good Y1 product line strategy.

Not trying to shoot down your theory (in fact I agree with it), but CO is a counter example: they've abandoned MD-80s and are loading up on 737-8/9/9ERs. [Edit: One can also note that they have 63 737-500s with 114 pax seating that will eventually need replacing, so that does fit in with your theory].

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 48):
Looking at Rynaiar out of Stansted and Southwest from Phoeinix, these large LCCs seem like they are on their path to slowly entering the hubbing business.

I've always thought of LAX, BWI and MDW as SW mini hubs: a lot of people end up transiting there, and in the case of LAX, a lot of people I know fly transcon to LAX, and then get on other airline's planes for Hawaii, Australia, NZ, etc. This can save several hundred $$, which is important to leisure travelers.

[Edited 2006-08-17 18:29:52]
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!

Who is online