ElroyJetson wrote:And the MAX 8 is superior to the A320 NEO across most missions yet EADS claims otherwise. Look...until there is real world operational data no ones knows for sure. What I think can be safely assumed from the independent analysis that is currently out there....the MAX-10 looks to be very competitive with the A321-Neo.
I say good for Boeing. I freely admit I did not see it coming.
The MAX 8 superior to the A320 NEO on most missions?
That will be why sales of the A320 NEO have been so scarce relative to the 737-8 MAX I guess ........
The current 3 690 sales of the A320NEO alone pretty much match sales of the entire MAX range, not just the 737-8
MrHMSH wrote:The MAX8's advantage is perhaps 2% or less. I believe 2% is the rough difference between the 737-800 and A320ceo. Easily covered by discounts, commonality. And I'm not sure how Boeing will have closed that gap, given that they've had to make more changes to accommodate the new engine. The MAX10 has a lot of ground to make up on the other hand. The question is how much has Boeing addressed what makes the MAX9 a slow seller, and will the better efficiency be enough to sway customers?
Yet that Boeing chart represents an 8% advantage to the 737-8 MAX.
something they have claimed from the outset
If that were actually true, we would not see the parity of sales between the A320 and the MAX that we see.
Revelation wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:I didn't expect the 737-10 to compete with the LR version of the A321. The market segment for the LR payload increase isn't that big. I think Boeing is going to compete against that with a new MOM 797 that is optimized for payloads over 200k lbs.
The average stage length for a 737 is around 800-1000 miles. That is where the efficiency of the 737-10 is likely optimized.
Interestingly enough, the 737's Chief Engineer has something to say about its range:Though Airbus claims its jet has more range, Leverkuhn vehemently challenged that.
He said the Airbus claim is based on adding auxiliary fuel tanks, which airlines add only if they absolutely need the extra range, as they are a maintenance headache.
With two extra auxiliary tanks, the A321neo has slightly more range than the 3,450-mile range of the MAX without such tanks, Leverkuhn said. But Boeing can trump that by adding just one tank to the MAX 10, which extends its range to 3,700 miles.
“Base-to-base airplanes, we have more range,” Leverkuhn said. “If we put one extra tank, we have better range than they have with two.”
Seems he's not giving any ground...
Ref: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... -air-show/
LOL. He puts up figures which show the -10 having a range with 1 x ACT of 3 200Nm, then says this?
His own figures say that the 737-10 needs an ACT (which the Boeing 737 ACAP says is an additional 3t fuel) just to fly the stated 3 215Nm
That's makes it 23.9 tonnes of fuel on board
An A321 NEO with just 1 x ACT will fly the same 3 200nm on just 20.9 tonnes of fuel (and 22t payload)
With 2 x ACT's it will fly 3 650 Nm at least. And that is with only 23.2 tonnes of fuel on board.
So in fact, the A321 NEO flies a good 450Nm further with 2 x ACT's than the 737-10 MAX does with 1 x ACT.
Which by the way also makes the A321NEO some 14% more efficient than the 737-10 at these long ranges.
Just to put Boeing's "737-10 is 5% better" claim in some context.
And without knowing the MTOW and OEW for certain, we're not even discussing the type of payload a 737-10 will haul out at those ranges.
I like the 737-10 MAX.
I think it will be competitive with the A321NEO on short sectors (like 800nm)
And as this is where most of the sectors tend to be, that's fine.
What I don't like is the marketing bollocks that accompanies it.
On Boeing's own figures, the 737-10 MAX isn't going to get anywhere near the A321 NEO at long ranges