Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:12 pm

[photoid][/photoid]
NameOmitted wrote:
astuteman wrote:
I watched the schedule and cost of the most complex product ever created by the mind and hand of humankind get absolutely nailed out of the box in the '80's.
Rgds

Which project was this? I can think of a few possibilities. We live in extraordinary times.


Sadly I have to tease for NDA reasons .....
As you say the candidate list is small. Some on the forum will be able to make a good guess :)
Didn't realise just how good it was at the time. But looking back.....

Rgds
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:36 pm

keesje wrote:
I'm afraid the rest of the world is not overly impressed by Southwest airlines ordering a bunch of MAX -7's. Are they the sole -7 customer?

You speak for the rest of the world?

We could see MAXes at IAG and (gasp) KLM in the not too distant future, the game is far from over.

SUH has his opinion but so does MOL.

MOL says he wants 100 MAX10s, first flight is Friday at KRNT, stay tuned...
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 3:46 pm

Leovinus wrote:
..............................One that customers have been begging for over a decade. Car manufacturers have to do it all the time to stay within regulations and competitiveness. Prices go up. We accept it because we have to. If the international community put their money where their mouth is something similar would be true for aviation. ...................


:?: Customer only want a new narrow body if they can get it for the same price as the current one, they are not begging for something Boeing or Airbus can actually make money on, that is why we have the re-engined 20th century aircraft instead. I am sure both Boeing and Airbus have discussed the economics and costs of a potential clean sheet narrow body with many customers, and the customers overwhelmingly said "we will take the warmed over old one please!".
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:25 pm

Jetport wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
..............................One that customers have been begging for over a decade. Car manufacturers have to do it all the time to stay within regulations and competitiveness. Prices go up. We accept it because we have to. If the international community put their money where their mouth is something similar would be true for aviation. ...................


:?: Customer only want a new narrow body if they can get it for the same price as the current one, they are not begging for something Boeing or Airbus can actually make money on, that is why we have the re-engined 20th century aircraft instead. I am sure both Boeing and Airbus have discussed the economics and costs of a potential clean sheet narrow body with many customers, and the customers overwhelmingly said "we will take the warmed over old one please!".


I don't disagree with that logic. Of course that's how companies in a market economy act. And so they should.

This is highly political, and for that I apologise. But it's politics that's brought us to where we are today. We build stronger, better, safer, and consequently more expensive buildings, ships, planes, trains, etc. etc. today than before. International and national legislation has secured that forward momentum. And its on that arena industries compete. For those interested in a look at the alternative I suggest reading up on the effects of "Manchester capitalism" in the early 19th century.

TL:DR: If the cost of better, safer, and greener aircraft is higher than what companies would prefer, but the same metrics for older aircraft is below what we politically wish to collectively abide by, then politics can do what it has always done. Incentivise through legislation. Customers want new aircraft but don't want to pay for them? Remove the value proposition of the alternative. We've done it throughout all of time.

So as there is market interest in a new aircraft, there is a global outcry for greener and more modern aircraft, and companies have the ability to fulfil those wishes but can't get commitments from the parties involved we need to use politics to make it feasible. The playing field remains level since everyone would be forced to abide by it. Of course that hypothetical pressure is political. Boeing in its current state is acting perfectly logically by offering "warmed over aircraft" in lieu of newer and more expensive ones.
Last edited by Leovinus on Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 4:34 pm

Jetport wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
..............................One that customers have been begging for over a decade. Car manufacturers have to do it all the time to stay within regulations and competitiveness. Prices go up. We accept it because we have to. If the international community put their money where their mouth is something similar would be true for aviation. ...................

:?: Customer only want a new narrow body if they can get it for the same price as the current one, they are not begging for something Boeing or Airbus can actually make money on, that is why we have the re-engined 20th century aircraft instead. I am sure both Boeing and Airbus have discussed the economics and costs of a potential clean sheet narrow body with many customers, and the customers overwhelmingly said "we will take the warmed over old one please!".

It makes sense to me. Airlines don't want change for change sake. NEO/MAX harvested all the gains in engine efficiency and emissions without changing training and spares very much at all. Hard to argue it wasn't the right thing to do, especially if Boeing didn't totally screw up their MCAS implementation.
 
meh130
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:32 pm

I think the next narrow-body from either Boeing or Airbus has to be a significant improvement. All composite, with open-rotor engines. It looks like open rotors (nee propfans) are getting interest again. That said, Boeing needs to milk the 737 cash cow for now. The 2030 timeframe will be good timing for such an airplane.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/cfm- ... gen-engine
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:41 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
Is he just mostly upset that he thinks Boeing could be selling a higher priced aircraft that he can make more money leasing to airlines?


ding! ding! ding! Winner Winner Chicken Dinner. Steven 'Captain Obvious' Udvar-Hazy just doesn't like the lease values of everything he's holding now having dropped so....

but queue the A320.5 and A322 powerpoints in 3, 2, 1....

I mean, Steve's right... but it's hardly a headline....

What will be interesting for all of us to learn is if the 10MAX will be able to hold a bit of interest and bring in more cash. The 900ER did breathe a bit of life into the 900 (though well short by a near order of magnitude of the A321...conceded!!!) Maybe the 10 is a maginal investiment that will help gain some sales that the 9 could not. It's a stopgap... Of course we want new... My hope is the 10 helps to bring in a little money to fund the new (NBA, NSA, RSA... whatever form 737 replacment is taking today)...

Any new aircraft would be 8 years of development, and I also doubt that Boeing is doing anything before they launch the 777X or before engine tech is there to offer double digit efficiency gains.

The MAX is where its at for Boeing in the narrow body segment. It is what it is.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:27 pm

Airbus indicates they will ramp up A320 family production to 70-75 around 2025 (probably lots of A321s) and the A220 to 14 per month.

People saying Boeing should just wait for new technology, set other priorities and they are ok for this decade, should maybe realize 40% is no way guaranteed.. Being carefull, conservative, wait & see is maybe a better strategy from a stronger, more stable solid starting situation.
 
marcelh
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:47 pm

Revelation wrote:

We could see MAXes at IAG and (gasp) KLM in the not too distant future, the game is far from over.


“We?” KLM is getting rid of the 737-700 and the E195-E2 is entering the fleet. I can see a MAX10 at KLM, together with the MAX8. IMHO the MAX7 is highly unlikely.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:51 pm

meh130 wrote:
I think the next narrow-body from either Boeing or Airbus has to be a significant improvement. All composite, with open-rotor engines. It looks like open rotors (nee propfans) are getting interest again. That said, Boeing needs to milk the 737 cash cow for now. The 2030 timeframe will be good timing for such an airplane.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/cfm- ... gen-engine


I was reading about propfans in Aviation Week in the 1980s. Propfans always seem to be ten years away. I'm not holding my breath.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:54 pm

If the engines are what's holding back new airplanes, what is keeping either maker from continuously slapping the latest engine technology onto existing frames? (Ignoring the 737's ground clearance issues). If a new engine technology gives say another 10% efficiency, how is Boeing going to make a clean sheet profitable if Airbus can still slap those new engines on an A320?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:57 pm

marcelh wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We could see MAXes at IAG and (gasp) KLM in the not too distant future, the game is far from over.

“We?” KLM is getting rid of the 737-700 and the E195-E2 is entering the fleet. I can see a MAX10 at KLM, together with the MAX8. IMHO the MAX7 is highly unlikely.

Not sure it matters. WN has ordered 234 MAX7 despite some here suggesting it would never go into production and are likely to order more, clearly enough to ensure the model will flourish. I look forward to KL's decision.
 
User avatar
JannEejit
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:04 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:04 pm

To me the venerable 737 has become that old house your grandparents lived in, then your parents did, then you did, then your kids did. Sure you upgraded the roof tiles, renewed the glazing, added solar panels, new kitchen suite, built an extension. But...you know it's gonna fall down some day. I'm not sure which part of that "evolution" the Max fiasco represents, but the writing must surely be on the wall by now ?
 
Nnaeto87
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2021 12:18 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:14 pm

JannEejit wrote:
To me the venerable 737 has become that old house your grandparents lived in, then your parents did, then you did, then your kids did. Sure you upgraded the roof tiles, renewed the glazing, added solar panels, new kitchen suite, built an extension. But...you know it's gonna fall down some day. I'm not sure which part of that "evolution" the Max fiasco represents, but the writing must surely be on the wall by now ?

An important part is that the inhabitants (customers) are not ready to move out
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:40 pm

JannEejit wrote:
To me the venerable 737 has become that old house your grandparents lived in, then your parents did, then you did, then your kids did. Sure you upgraded the roof tiles, renewed the glazing, added solar panels, new kitchen suite, built an extension. But...you know it's gonna fall down some day. I'm not sure which part of that "evolution" the Max fiasco represents, but the writing must surely be on the wall by now ?

Using your metaphor, I live in a timber frame house. The technology is thousands of years old.

My house, with sheetrock and fiberglass insulation, bears little resemblance to the originals of its kind, but the engendering probably has more in common than a MAX-10 does with a -100.
Last edited by NameOmitted on Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
armagnac2010
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:45 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:40 pm

The Canadian parliament just joined the crowd of those not impressed with the 737Max:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/TRAN/report-2

There is a well entranched feeling in the public in the rest of the world the 737 Max is an inferior and dangerous product. Which it is in some respects (obsolete system architecture), and not in others (the flight control system is safe now, but it costed more than 300 lives).

The system architecture is the real issue, as it prevents any future change including reduced crew operation etc. The issue really goes back to the 737NG launch, as the minimum cost option was retained (no cockpit upgrade), with success, paving the way for the Max disaster.

The public perception is a more subjective matter but the DC-10 never really recovered from it.

Hence the need for a 737 replacement sooner than later.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:52 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:
The public perception is a more subjective matter but the DC-10 never really recovered from it.

There is a good chance that Boeing will sell enough MAX aircraft this year to match the total production run of DC-10.

It will recover just fine.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22709
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:53 pm

Chemist wrote:
meh130 wrote:
I think the next narrow-body from either Boeing or Airbus has to be a significant improvement. All composite, with open-rotor engines. It looks like open rotors (nee propfans) are getting interest again. That said, Boeing needs to milk the 737 cash cow for now. The 2030 timeframe will be good timing for such an airplane.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/cfm- ... gen-engine


I was reading about propfans in Aviation Week in the 1980s. Propfans always seem to be ten years away. I'm not holding my breath.

Basic physics have proofans with shed tip shock waves. This makes noise a challenge. If can be done, but a challenge.

The other aspect is a slower cruise speed. They are faster than turboprops (Mach 0.68 or so) but slower than narrowbody turbo fans (Mach 0.78 to 0.82). The trick is where in that range.

There is development time ahead. Right now the propfan is where the GTF was in about 2000, my best estimate and obviously just an opinion.

Now CFM has resources. I think they can do this. I question the timeline, not feasibility.

Lightsaber
 
luv2cattlecall
Posts: 852
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:25 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 7:55 pm

astuteman wrote:
[photoid][/photoid]
NameOmitted wrote:
astuteman wrote:
I watched the schedule and cost of the most complex product ever created by the mind and hand of humankind get absolutely nailed out of the box in the '80's.
Rgds

Which project was this? I can think of a few possibilities. We live in extraordinary times.


Sadly I have to tease for NDA reasons .....
As you say the candidate list is small. Some on the forum will be able to make a good guess :)
Didn't realise just how good it was at the time. But looking back.....

Rgds


F-117, Space Shuttle, or the PC come to mind
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:03 pm

armagnac2010 wrote:
The Canadian parliament just joined the crowd of those not impressed with the 737Max:

https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/TRAN/report-2

There is a well entranched feeling in the public in the rest of the world the 737 Max is an inferior and dangerous product. Which it is in some respects (obsolete system architecture), and not in others (the flight control system is safe now, but it costed more than 300 lives).

The system architecture is the real issue, as it prevents any future change including reduced crew operation etc. The issue really goes back to the 737NG launch, as the minimum cost option was retained (no cockpit upgrade), with success, paving the way for the Max disaster.

The public perception is a more subjective matter but the DC-10 never really recovered from it.

Hence the need for a 737 replacement sooner than later.

Just read the summary of your linked document and the spiciest thing it said was:

Testimony from Transport Canada officials and from witnesses representing the manufacturing sector strongly defended the quality, rigour and independence of Canada’s validation process. However, with regard to the validation of internationally manufactured aircraft, many witnesses referred to Transport Canada being overly reliant on the initial certifying authority, raising concerns of “rubber stamping.”

This does not support your other comments very well, nor does the fact that WS resumed MAX operations on January 21st and AC resumed MAX operations on February 1st and we've heard nary a peep of concern from their customers.

Similar thing happened with DC-10, some may have had "concerns" but when the fleet returned to service whatever reluctance there was dissipated quickly. DC-10 is still in service with FX and others. Its departure from mainline airline operations was mostly due to MD-11 missing performance targets while other more desirable alternatives were available or became available shortly thereafter i.e. A340 and 777. Meanwhile, MAX is securing new orders from WN, AS, UA, and FR which shows it is still quite desirable.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:07 pm

meh130 wrote:
I think the next narrow-body from either Boeing or Airbus has to be a significant improvement. All composite, with open-rotor engines. It looks like open rotors (nee propfans) are getting interest again. That said, Boeing needs to milk the 737 cash cow for now. The 2030 timeframe will be good timing for such an airplane.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/cfm- ... gen-engine


I agree. Possibly even late 2030s or early 2040s in service target date. While there are tailing orders, major fleet replacement strategies largely come in a small window and I have to think we are halfway or better through that window now. The MAX and NEOs entering service and being ordered/manufactued as we speak are likely the bulk composition of the next 20-25 years major world carrier fleets,which takes it right up to 2040. Boeing (and Airbus) must set strategies around a 2040 technology not a 2030 technology plane and are likely doing just that as we speak.
In the meantime, as others have stated, it’s best to just keep making inexpensive incremental improvements to existing platforms.
 
Noshow
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:08 pm

What is the next incremental improvement for the MAX after adding the third sensor?
 
bob75013
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:05 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:10 pm

keesje wrote:
Leeham news:

“Boeing has to look at the future. What kind of airplanes that airlines will need with all the environmental challenges, regulatory challenges? What is the airplane type airlines will need 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now?” Hazy said.

“Boeing needs to invest. The 737 is a wonderful airplane, but it’s been in operation since 1967. We have an airplane that its basic design has been around for 54 years. It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front.”

https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/ponti ... more-36736

I think increasingly people feel the 737 isn't good enough for even later this decade & becoming a poor investment for airlines, lessors.


Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:18 pm

bob75013 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Leeham news:

“Boeing has to look at the future. What kind of airplanes that airlines will need with all the environmental challenges, regulatory challenges? What is the airplane type airlines will need 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now?” Hazy said.

“Boeing needs to invest. The 737 is a wonderful airplane, but it’s been in operation since 1967. We have an airplane that its basic design has been around for 54 years. It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front.”

https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/ponti ... more-36736

I think increasingly people feel the 737 isn't good enough for even later this decade & becoming a poor investment for airlines, lessors.

Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?

It's really interesting how people have jumped past what SUH said and turned this into yet another Boeing slag fest.

Here's the core of what he said:

It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front

Yet with respect to his criteria of efficiency, economics and environmental footprint 737 and A320 are quite similar, and neither represents a "new technology airplane".
 
marcelh
Posts: 1513
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:37 pm

Revelation wrote:
marcelh wrote:
Revelation wrote:
We could see MAXes at IAG and (gasp) KLM in the not too distant future, the game is far from over.

“We?” KLM is getting rid of the 737-700 and the E195-E2 is entering the fleet. I can see a MAX10 at KLM, together with the MAX8. IMHO the MAX7 is highly unlikely.

Not sure it matters. WN has ordered 234 MAX7 despite some here suggesting it would never go into production and are likely to order more, clearly enough to ensure the model will flourish. I look forward to KL's decision.

Sure it matters. KLM isn’t a potential MAX7 customer. The KLM E2 has 132 seats and a MAX7 will only have a few more seats, but is a lot heavier. Here in Europe, flying is considered more and more as environmental unfriendly and flying “green” airplanes will help to make flying “greener”.

“Flourish” is a bit of an exaggeration, but that’s common to people at the other side of the big pond. The rest of the world has also the A220 and 195E2 to consider (and even the A319neo)
 
User avatar
Crosswind
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 4:34 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 8:48 pm

bob75013 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Leeham news:

“Boeing has to look at the future. What kind of airplanes that airlines will need with all the environmental challenges, regulatory challenges? What is the airplane type airlines will need 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now?” Hazy said.

“Boeing needs to invest. The 737 is a wonderful airplane, but it’s been in operation since 1967. We have an airplane that its basic design has been around for 54 years. It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front.”

https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/ponti ... more-36736

I think increasingly people feel the 737 isn't good enough for even later this decade & becoming a poor investment for airlines, lessors.


Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?


One of the ways airlines are being compensated by Boeing for the groundings and more recent delivery delays are credits against future orders. So top up orders from airlines that have been affected by the MAX groundings are more indicative of airlines taking up part of their compensation packages.

I’d say far more significant would be orders from new customers, without an existing commitment to the MAX. The same would apply to the A320neo generally too though. May see top up orders, but major new orders for massive fleet replacements or new airlines may be a bit wide of the mark for now.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:06 pm

bob75013 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Leeham news:

“Boeing has to look at the future. What kind of airplanes that airlines will need with all the environmental challenges, regulatory challenges? What is the airplane type airlines will need 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now?” Hazy said.

“Boeing needs to invest. The 737 is a wonderful airplane, but it’s been in operation since 1967. We have an airplane that its basic design has been around for 54 years. It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front.”

https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/ponti ... more-36736

I think increasingly people feel the 737 isn't good enough for even later this decade & becoming a poor investment for airlines, lessors.


Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?


Two single type lcc's at pricing reflecting a supplier close to desperate after facing 1250 MAX cancellations in a yr.

https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:14 pm

Crosswind wrote:
One of the ways airlines are being compensated by Boeing for the groundings and more recent delivery delays are credits against future orders. So top up orders from airlines that have been affected by the MAX groundings are more indicative of airlines taking up part of their compensation packages.


This may be true, but it also describes the creation of a critical mass of aircraft that will make sure there is a base to sport OEM and aftermarket service to support the fleet that will continue well past 2050.

At this point, the MAX is a safe financial bet. How it became so is immaterial, although it does remind me of the old joke that the ultimate American jetliner would be designed by Lockheed, built by Douglas, and marketed by Boeing.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:19 pm

keesje wrote:
Two single type lcc's at pricing reflecting a supplier close to desperate after facing 1250 MAX cancellations in a yr.

https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

Respectfully, your source says 675 cancellations, some due to the pandemic. The headline is a bit misleading.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 12099
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:38 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
keesje wrote:
Two single type lcc's at pricing reflecting a supplier close to desperate after facing 1250 MAX cancellations in a yr.

https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

Respectfully, your source says 675 cancellations, some due to the pandemic. The headline is a bit misleading.

Most are due to the pandemic. The grounding delays provided an easy out of the contract not available with other aircraft. It’s less a reflection of the aircraft and more on airlines and lessors financial willingness to take planes (or ability to place them in case of lessors).

In an alternative universe where the pandemic never happened and airlines were trying to get as much capacity as possible as quickly as possible (like in the last decade or so) many of these cancellations would have never happened.

It’s not a coincidence that it has largely been US carriers, who have large domestic operations not reliant on international traffic, who have been behind most recent large orders (for Airbus and Boeing).
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 9:49 pm

marcelh wrote:
Sure it matters. KLM isn’t a potential MAX7 customer. The KLM E2 has 132 seats and a MAX7 will only have a few more seats, but is a lot heavier. Here in Europe, flying is considered more and more as environmental unfriendly and flying “green” airplanes will help to make flying “greener”.

I don't see why it matters if Boeing sells MAX8 and MAX10 but not MAX7 to KL. Selling 234 MAX7 to WN more than covers its R&D cost. Having WN chose A220 over MAX7 would have mattered, but everyone now agrees that was a bunch of a.net FUD. Selling MAX8 and MAX10 with higher average prices to KL makes more money for Boeing.

marcelh wrote:
“Flourish” is a bit of an exaggeration, but that’s common to people at the other side of the big pond. The rest of the world has also the A220 and 195E2 to consider (and even the A319neo)

A319neo has 73 orders ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_A ... deliveries ). That is the opposite of flourishing on either side of the pond. I don't think it'll matter to Airbus, even if they don't ever cover their R&D expense on it.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:01 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
keesje wrote:
Two single type lcc's at pricing reflecting a supplier close to desperate after facing 1250 MAX cancellations in a yr.

https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

Respectfully, your source says 675 cancellations, some due to the pandemic. The headline is a bit misleading.


That depends what your start and end point is. End of 218 there were 5211 orders for MAX end of May 2021 there are about 4500 orders (backlog + delivered). That makes it more than 700 canceled frames. Add to that the 723 frames ASC 603 adjustment, and that makes a minus of more than1400 frames.
I assume that there would have been an much lower ASC 603 adjustment in the beginning of 2019, so 1250 frames seems to be a quite reasonable number.

Reading the article, they talk about about 675 outright cancelations since January 2020 and moving 570 additional frames into ASC 603 adjustment, meaning frames unlikely to be delivered.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1211
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:16 pm

I think Boeing could have saved the 737 if they had acted professionally and pulled the fleet to fix the MCAS sensor handling, which was a simple fix. This did not actually raise fundamental questions about the 737 platform. It was a teething problem that poorly managed on a Chernobyl level of poor management.

But it seems the DC-10 comparison is more accurate. The -10 was a reliable and was respected by crews.

The Max is the last iteration of 737, but that does not mean it is obsolete or dangerous today. It performs to the latest standards. And by all known facts, should be as safe as anything in the sky.
 
jeffrey1970
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:41 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:19 am

TexStones wrote:
At the risk of being shouted down by The Vocal Few, this infrequent poster/frequent reader will offer an opinion on the 737 situation. In no particular order, here are a few bullet points.

1) Steven Udvar-Hazy is absolutely right, Boeing needs to get to work on a 737 replacement. As a matter of fact, they probably already are well down that road. What else are their thousands of engineers doing right now? (Yeah, I know, other markets and projects, but work is already well underway.)

2) It is foolish to think that Boeing will have any difficulty accessing the capital markets to raise funds for the development of a new airliner. They are the #1 US export company, by far. Banks will line up to throw cash at them, and they will see a return on their investment.

3) Airbus needs to get to work on a new narrowbody family, but they have the comfort of a slightly longer timeline.

4) Depending on the EIS for the new frame, much of the MAX backlog can be converted to the replacement. There are certainly reams of spreadsheets describing multiple backlog conversion strategies.

5) WN is the Alpha Customer for the new NB aircraft. Boeing will follow their lead. Watch them closely for clues.

6) No player, not Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, or any Russian or Soviet contender, or any airline, has the luxury of waiting for a leap in engine technology. They should all be anticipating such developments, but work should be underway now to meet NB demand for 2030 and beyond. These people are smart enough to plan for future powerplant options.

7) The new NB aircraft will be built in Everett. The Renton facility will be transitioned to a WB product that will share much of the engineering from the 737 replacement.

I'll go back to lurking now.


I actually like the 737. Boeing might not be around if it weren't for the 737. The fact is at some point Boeing will have to move on from the 737.
 
jeffrey1970
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 1:41 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:22 am

NameOmitted wrote:
jeffrey1970 wrote:
Even if Boeing has a backlog of 737 orders I am sure many will get cancelled. Because of the pandemic the airlines financial situation has changed dramatically. Boeing is at it's best when they listen to the needs of their customers.


Such as Southwest needing a new generation of 737?


Very much so.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:29 am

Crosswind wrote:
bob75013 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Leeham news:


https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/ponti ... more-36736

I think increasingly people feel the 737 isn't good enough for even later this decade & becoming a poor investment for airlines, lessors.


Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?


One of the ways airlines are being compensated by Boeing for the groundings and more recent delivery delays are credits against future orders. So top up orders from airlines that have been affected by the MAX groundings are more indicative of airlines taking up part of their compensation packages.

I’d say far more significant would be orders from new customers, without an existing commitment to the MAX. The same would apply to the A320neo generally too though. May see top up orders, but major new orders for massive fleet replacements or new airlines may be a bit wide of the mark for now.


For all of the compensation details that have come to light, it’s like 5% off or less. Not a huge incentive to buy airplanes.

mjoelnir wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
keesje wrote:
Two single type lcc's at pricing reflecting a supplier close to desperate after facing 1250 MAX cancellations in a yr.

https://www.flightglobal.com/737-max-tw ... 89.article

Respectfully, your source says 675 cancellations, some due to the pandemic. The headline is a bit misleading.


That depends what your start and end point is. End of 218 there were 5211 orders for MAX end of May 2021 there are about 4500 orders (backlog + delivered). That makes it more than 700 canceled frames. Add to that the 723 frames ASC 603 adjustment, and that makes a minus of more than1400 frames.
I assume that there would have been an much lower ASC 603 adjustment in the beginning of 2019, so 1250 frames seems to be a quite reasonable number.

Reading the article, they talk about about 675 outright cancelations since January 2020 and moving 570 additional frames into ASC 603 adjustment, meaning frames unlikely to be delivered.


If you’re going to talk about Boeing’s ASC 603 adjustments, you better apply the same standard to Airbus. Their Air Asia and Lion Air orders would be reversed.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:47 am

bob75013 wrote:
Really?? Then how do you explain the 500 or so orders Boeing has received over the last few months?



It is simple if you want to see it. In duopoly where neither manufacturer can satisfy the demand of all airlines you will still see large orders for your product, even if you only have 40-45% of the market. Take away two years of orders lost on your order book and you have space for more orders to fill to get back to where you were (45% of the market). So it seem obvious to me that there will be orders for the MAX, unless you think the program was going to disappear into nothing and not receive any more orders at all.

The funny thing is, the comments on the MAX needing replacement isn't wrong, but the orders it is now receiving is going to keep it alive for longer and cause more damage long term while they continue to lose market share and margins. It sometimes helps to listen to what your opposition tells you about your product, to help you see the wood from the trees. But it can be hard, because we all want to be right all of the time.

Revelation wrote:
It's really interesting how people have jumped past what SUH said and turned this into yet another Boeing slag fest.

Here's the core of what he said:

It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front

Yet with respect to his criteria of efficiency, economics and environmental footprint 737 and A320 are quite similar, and neither represents a "new technology airplane".


Well to be honest your side has made it easy by their own incompetence the past decade or so. I don't understand why posters get angry at other posters when it is their favourite OEM causing them the grief. As for your post, well we know the histories of the aircraft. You are trying to be clever to put both the A320 and 737 in the same basket when it comes to "new technology", but we know they are poles apart when it just comes to technology itself. Nice try though to try and infer the A320 is as a dinosaur like the 737 is compared to the other aircraft in production from both OEM's currently.
 
User avatar
Chipmunk1973
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 8:33 am

Gee, this is such a volatile thread to be entering an opinion, but I’ll give it a shot.

With regard to SUH’s comment that the 737 needs to be replaced is a bit like waking up in 2020 and saying “We need to reduce carbon emissions”. Yes, it is pertinent and plainly obvious. However there are many considerations to be taken on board.

Firstly, the 737 airframe is at it’s limits in terms of practicable development. And I don’t think that can be argued against. So that leaves Boeing with three options: do nothing, develop a replacement now, or wait for further technological advancements.

Secondly, it has been raised that the Airbus is also of an age whereby it’s lifespan is limited too. And whilst there is truth in some respects, the advantage it currently has is that it already has much newer technologies to evolve from, giving it some advantage. For example, it’s much easier to employ an upgrade to aileron and flap actuator mechanisms when you’re already running FBW in lieu of physical mechanical systems.

So given the three options mentioned above, 1: Do nothing is NOT an option. Option 2: develop a replacement is a very difficult position which I will discuss in a moment. And Option 3: Wait on technology developing, is a huge exercise of risk assessment for a company.

To develop a replacement airframe now is fundamentally difficult for a number of reasons. There is the cost, and this will be massive. I believe SEPilot has suggested a number of US$10B+, and that is not unexpected or unreasonable. That would deliver a new frame, FBW, EICAS, and many other things that would contribute to both advances as well as improved economics, importantly. However, given the current state of advances to engine technologies, even a current engine would not make that airframe that much better. But, that will change over time, we expect.

So to outlay $10B+ for a, possible, ~5-<10% improvement would appear to be difficult to justify. And that Boeing has been in a complicated financial situation of late does not make this decision any more rational.

I think the suggestion that to focus on a 757 replacement aircraft is a false one as there are not enough economies of scale to justify such an expense. A replacement to both the 737 and 757 needs to be the variations of a common platform. And hence the conundrum for Boeing. Do I go now and develop a new platform which will be expensive and achieve modest gains? Do I wait and risk loss of sales/revenue hoping to get a better product in the end?

I’m not pro A or B. When I step onto a plane it’s about the quality of service and product, commensurate to what I’ve paid. But I think Boeing is between a rock and a hard place at the moment, and decision making will be difficult.


If you read my rant, thank you.
Cheers,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:32 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's really interesting how people have jumped past what SUH said and turned this into yet another Boeing slag fest.

Here's the core of what he said:

It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front

Yet with respect to his criteria of efficiency, economics and environmental footprint 737 and A320 are quite similar, and neither represents a "new technology airplane".


Well to be honest your side has made it easy by their own incompetence the past decade or so. I don't understand why posters get angry at other posters when it is their favourite OEM causing them the grief. As for your post, well we know the histories of the aircraft. You are trying to be clever to put both the A320 and 737 in the same basket when it comes to "new technology", but we know they are poles apart when it just comes to technology itself. Nice try though to try and infer the A320 is as a dinosaur like the 737 is compared to the other aircraft in production from both OEM's currently.

Technology is a means to an end. In this case the ends are better efficiency, economics and environmental footprint, and A320 and 737 are very similar in these regards. If they were not 737 would be unsaleable yet we see it continue to secure large orders, in particular from the two largest and most successful LCCs on the planet.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 1:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's really interesting how people have jumped past what SUH said and turned this into yet another Boeing slag fest.

Here's the core of what he said:

It’s time for a new technology airplane that will give airlines and the public greater efficiency, better economics, better environmental footprint so the airlines can make money with it and yet meet the challenges that we’re facing on the environmental front

Yet with respect to his criteria of efficiency, economics and environmental footprint 737 and A320 are quite similar, and neither represents a "new technology airplane".


Well to be honest your side has made it easy by their own incompetence the past decade or so. I don't understand why posters get angry at other posters when it is their favourite OEM causing them the grief. As for your post, well we know the histories of the aircraft. You are trying to be clever to put both the A320 and 737 in the same basket when it comes to "new technology", but we know they are poles apart when it just comes to technology itself. Nice try though to try and infer the A320 is as a dinosaur like the 737 is compared to the other aircraft in production from both OEM's currently.

Technology is a means to an end. In this case the ends are better efficiency, economics and environmental footprint, and A320 and 737 are very similar in these regards. If they were not 737 would be unsaleable yet we see it continue to secure large orders, in particular from the two largest and most successful LCCs on the planet.


I also think putting the NEO and MAX at the same efficiency level is doing the MAX a favor. Main differences are lower sfc engines (BPR), engine choice, Airbus cockpit commonality, container options, 4700NM option, quieter engines, quieter cabins, spacier, quieter cockpit and better safety track record. Which let to higher sales and deliveries & Steven UH saying Boeing might consider restoring the balance. KLM is also considering NEO's: https://www.upinthesky.nl/2021/06/16/kl ... uze-optie/
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:07 pm

luv2cattlecall wrote:
astuteman wrote:
[photoid][/photoid]
NameOmitted wrote:
Which project was this? I can think of a few possibilities. We live in extraordinary times.


Sadly I have to tease for NDA reasons .....
As you say the candidate list is small. Some on the forum will be able to make a good guess :)
Didn't realise just how good it was at the time. But looking back.....

Rgds


F-117, Space Shuttle, or the PC come to mind

Also the ShamWow.
 
DenverTed
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:12 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:16 pm

I would frame the question of Boeing trying to get close to 50% market share in the market of 50t to 125t MTOW aircraft. This range of aircraft can't be covered with one wing, probably three or four. Why the strategy to replace the 737 optimal MTOW wing size of about 80t which currently exists? Which market is bigger, below that or above? Clearly above, so a better strategy is to keep the 737 and build a new bigger aircraft and wing in the 90t to 125t range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:57 pm

keesje wrote:
Revelation wrote:
enzo011 wrote:


Well to be honest your side has made it easy by their own incompetence the past decade or so. I don't understand why posters get angry at other posters when it is their favourite OEM causing them the grief. As for your post, well we know the histories of the aircraft. You are trying to be clever to put both the A320 and 737 in the same basket when it comes to "new technology", but we know they are poles apart when it just comes to technology itself. Nice try though to try and infer the A320 is as a dinosaur like the 737 is compared to the other aircraft in production from both OEM's currently.

Technology is a means to an end. In this case the ends are better efficiency, economics and environmental footprint, and A320 and 737 are very similar in these regards. If they were not 737 would be unsaleable yet we see it continue to secure large orders, in particular from the two largest and most successful LCCs on the planet.


I also think putting the NEO and MAX at the same efficiency level is doing the MAX a favor. Main differences are lower sfc engines (BPR), engine choice, Airbus cockpit commonality, container options, 4700NM option, quieter engines, quieter cabins, spacier, quieter cockpit and better safety track record. Which let to higher sales and deliveries & Steven UH saying Boeing might consider restoring the balance. KLM is also considering NEO's: https://www.upinthesky.nl/2021/06/16/kl ... uze-optie/


Who says there will be balance. Boeing does a new plane, Airbus does a new wing or a new plane, both rolled the dice and the result will be seen. The new plane from Boeing can be better, equal or worse to what Airbus offers.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 4:08 pm

DenverTed wrote:
luv2cattlecall wrote:
astuteman wrote:
[photoid][/photoid]

Sadly I have to tease for NDA reasons .....
As you say the candidate list is small. Some on the forum will be able to make a good guess :)
Didn't realise just how good it was at the time. But looking back.....

Rgds


F-117, Space Shuttle, or the PC come to mind

Also the ShamWow.


None of the above...
but my statement paraphrased a quote from NASA making a comparison to the Space Shuttle....
(Which by inference was the second most complex...).
That's all I plan to say.. :)

Rgds
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: Steven Udvar-Hazy: 737 needs replacement

Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:59 pm

The political and market forces which will dictate the next airplane programs at Boeing and Airbus remind me of the political and economic environments in the late 1970s. In the late 1970s, we were seeing high oil prices and concerns about oil supply. The government response was renewed research into programs which would reduce the weight and improve the performance of commercial aircraft. I am most familiar with the NASA ACEE (Aircraft Energy Efficiency) program, which has been called the "Apollo of Aeronautics" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/The_Apollo_of_Aeronautics.pdf).

In the aerostructures discipline, the NASA ACEE program funded prototype carbon-fiber primary structure and control surfaces--L-1011 inboard aileron, DC-10 upper aft rudder, 727 spoilers and elevator, and later a 737-200 horizontal stabilizer at Boeing (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950022068). The importance of these programs is that by constructing prototypes and placing them into service it gave both the OEMs and the regulators the knowledge to proceed with full production composite components, the 767 being the first with CFRP control surfaces and later the A320 with its horizontal (HTP) and vertical (VTP) stabilizers.

I note additional research at NASA under the ACEE program looked at engine diagnostics, which is the predecessor for the current engine health monitoring (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19780019105/downloads/19780019105.pdf).

Although separated by only a few years, the 757 was developed at a time to better take advantage of this research as it has a much better airfoil than the 767. The 7J7 airplane which was begun to fulfill a Delta RFP for a 150 seat airplane would have been the logical extension should oil prices remained high. (Saudi Arabia massively increased oil production in the mid-1980s which collapsed oil prices, and which in turn precipitated collapse of the USSR, but I digress.)

The European Union has a much better pulse on these trends as it is funding a host of aeronautical research and development programs.

Just yesterday, Airbus announced that it will be relying upon Sustainable Aviation Fuels to meet its 2050 carbon pollution goals. This is not a low cost approach. We can easily foresee how fuel efficiency is going to be the predominate design driver for any new Boeing or Airbus product.

So with that background, what is the 737 replacement? The problem here is that the 737 is currently used as a very versatile platform with some airlines flying it under very short stage lengths, like Southwest, and others using it at its maximum range of transcontinental and even transatlantic, like Norwegian. It is my premise that under what will be essentially high fuel prices that one platform cannot sufficiently replace it. The 737's versatility comes at the price of fuel efficiency.

A wing optimized for short stage lengths will be a different wing than that optimized for longer flights. A short range 737 simply cannot be affordable carrying along the weight that is imposed by the design that a long range 737 requires. Consequently, the Bombardier/Airbus A220 will be supplanting 737s on the low end because it's economics (read fuel efficiency) is superior.

So I'd postulate the 737 replacement needs to be two separate airplanes with a common fuselage, common flight deck, common-type rating and common systems--one a short-range optimized airplane for high cycle and short turn times which would fit within current airport gate limits and a second airplane which would be unconstrained by gate limits which would be optimized for US transcontinental flights and flights lengths up to where a single flight crew may be used. A folding wing, while technically feasible, will not buy its way onto the long-range airplane because of the weight and cost and the airports able to accommodate a mixed-fleet of short and long range airplanes. It is a different situation than 777-9 where the folding wingtip was required to meet the taxiway separation requirements.

Certainly with the quantities of airplanes that both Boeing and Airbus are manufacturing at upwards of 70 per month, one can see how the business case could close for such a two-wing approach.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos