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.

Ha, what is rhe current backlog for Boeing, 4,000 plus? Idealists want flash, new, and shiney. The 320 program is 35 years old, still selling and also has a hefty backlog. So much for customers ignoring this segment of the market.

MDC862 wrote:

Ha, what is rhe current backlog for Boeing, 4,000 plus? Idealists want flash, new, and shiney. The 320 program is 35 years old, still selling and also has a hefty backlog. So much for customers ignoring this segment of the market.

I think only Boeing knows the current backlog. Behind closed doors, Boeing are weighing each MAX order, reviewing the airline, it's credibility, it's market situation and the most likely number they will actually take and when. Not the numbers we get.

Apparently Airbus isn't sitting on it's hands, enjoying the ride, waiting on Boeing's next move. It seems the other way around. https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/airbu ... ls-reveal/

I can understand even US government is starting to get fed up & wants some true value & ambition becoming visible for society as return for all tax money & efforts being invested. Away from draining the company for short term benefits / savings / bonuses.

Udvar on Leeham news:

Hazy clearly wasn’t impressed with the leadership changes at Boeing.

“You can change line up and the orchestra, but if the music doesn’t sound good to the audience, it doesn’t matter. Changing people just for the sake of changing leadership titles is not going to solve the problem,” he said.

It is so tiresome the same cheerleaders constantly bashing Boeing for not replacing the 737, when it was their beloved Airbus who jumped into the A320NEO precisely to cut off the timeline for the 737 replacement which was pending launch. As bad as the 737Max has been the past two years, it has a huge backlog, SWA just ordered a bunch more, and UA is about to.

Meanwhile, just a little context for SUH and ALC, he had a huge order for Max, cancelled/converted some to 787's during covid insanity 2020 (still has over a hundred on order), and is clearly in a negotiating process for how many to re-instate/pricing/delivery/shuffling their order book as short haul flying is returning a lot faster than long haul for lease customers. Throwing cold water publicly on residual/value in this process is a bit STC of him, but not real surprising. All car salesmen want an exciting new model customers get excited about, it doesn't mean they know how/when/why the mfg really does an all new chassis/model.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... clearances

He’s not saying anything new though. 737 needs replacement. The question is when does it need a replacement. He needs to clarify.

I think the idea that the max is a poor investment for airlines is quite a weak argument. In the same breadth he praised the aircraft.

He is saying what everyone is saying the 737 needs a replacement yes but not now or not until there’s a replacement that can achieve 20% reduction in operating cost

As the competition is not more climate friendly or efficient, the 737 is just fine. And yes, a 737 won´t cut it in 2045, but neither would an A320.

A completely new design will take years before it has its first commercial flight. It'll probably take a couple of years before investors agree to spend the R&D money

Boeing as a major player in the aircraft business will have a tendency to act as a quasi-monopolist - creating a new product only when it has to and preferring to just keep selling the same product and avoid the costs of innovation. There is a need now for public and private lobbying of Boeing to ensure that there is a 737 replacement flying by 2030

davidjohnson6 wrote:

It'll probably take a couple of years before investors agree to spend the R&D money...

How do you think investors agree to spend money? Boeing isn't going to sell 737 replacement bonds. It isn't going to sell xx% of itself to some state investment fund and give that fund CapEx control. Boeing investors who aren't happy about the company's investment plans can sell their Boeing shares or try to turn out the BoD and execs who are going down a specific investment path. Overturning a Board doesn't happen very often with DJIA/Fortune 100 companies. That's pretty much it.

Boeing is unlikely to spend over $10bn on a new aircraft without giving stockholders the chance to vote on it first. The vote may be a formality... but the board will want to gain sone sort of formal consent for such a program

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.

No, it´s the typical airline song. Airlines want to have something premium, optimized, more fuel efficient et at all times. At best every other year to make sure your competition stays behind. But not pay more for it, certainly not in markets with a constant pressure of yields. But a new development will cost upwards of 10 bn USD / EUR (doesn´t really matter which currency...), and it´s the OEMs who shall bear the risk. And that - for in principle - marginal improvements for the foreseeable future. And a highly volatile regulatory framework which increases risk even further to spend on such a multi-billion project.

Whilst Mr. Hazy is right that the basic design is very old and not as efficient as a one from today would be: it isn´t his money at stake here. And if regular PIPs or other improvements (see the recently mentioend idea of new winglets for the A330 with a potential improvement of up to 2%) move the bar all the time, how big shall the jump in efficiency be to make such an investment worthwhile?

Last: considering the rates A320 / B737 sell these days - market intel was that United paid just 22 million USD for its 737-700 ordered - one has to question where the business case for the OEM shall come from at this rate level. Noting that the market seems to be flodded with your, used frames for years to come.

I think waiting another three to five years until the NSA is launched is the more prudent approach currently.

Flying-Tiger 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.

No, it´s the typical airline song. Airlines want to have something premium, optimized, more fuel efficient et at all times. At best every other year to make sure your competition stays behind. But not pay more for it, certainly not in markets with a constant pressure of yields. But a new development will cost upwards of 10 bn USD / EUR (doesn´t really matter which currency...), and it´s the OEMs who shall bear the risk. And that - for in principle - marginal improvements for the foreseeable future. And a highly volatile regulatory framework which increases risk even further to spend on such a multi-billion project.

Whilst Mr. Hazy is right that the basic design is very old and not as efficient as a one from today would be: it isn´t his money at stake here. And if regular PIPs or other improvements (see the recently mentioend idea of new winglets for the A330 with a potential improvement of up to 2%) move the bar all the time, how big shall the jump in efficiency be to make such an investment worthwhile?

Last: considering the rates A320 / B737 sell these days - market intel was that United paid just 22 million USD for its 737-700 ordered - one has to question where the business case for the OEM shall come from at this rate level. Noting that the market seems to be flodded with your, used frames for years to come.

I think waiting another three to five years until the NSA is launched is the more prudent approach currently.

Exactly.

I know that Boeing would also love to develop and sell a new airplane. The problem is customers aren’t willing to pay more for the technology that’s still available. In fact, Mr. Hazy regularly calls both OEMs and demands lower prices on his airplanes under contract. How is that supposed to help drive a change in technology?

He is 100% right. The number of planes in backlog is meaningless when you have two choices and each can only produce so many. the long term value to the lessor is what he speaks to AND he is gently and firmly prodding Boeing Management to clean house and get a CEO, a Board, and leaders who can challenge design and redefine a new future - not the cowards and overpaid "old guard" in place today. Airbus will eat Boeings lunch for the next 20 years at this rate of nonaction, leadership malaise, and continuing to misread the market and fumbling the future. Well, the last part wishful thinking as well.

Sorry but a 737 replacement isn’t coming until there’s a massive step change in engine technology. As it stands now they would be investing billions for diminishing returns.

MileHFL400 wrote:

Sorry but a 737 replacement isn’t coming until there’s a massive step change in engine technology. As it stands now they would be investing billions for diminishing returns.

The issue may be that the 737 is so low to the ground. You can put more powerful engines on the neo as it’s higher; there is a 35,000-lh thrust option available. Another issue is cargo. The 737 can only accept bulk cargo, or it needs the Telair container system installed across the network. By contrast, the 320 family can accept a standard LD3-45 cargo container. ULCC carriers may prefer the 737 MAX, but many others value belly cargo capabilities.

What is so difficult about a replacement 737, everyone already knows what the basics will be, the unknown is what the FAA, EASA and other regulators will want from the software suite. We know it is going to be a 737 / A320 size a/c, both in terms of length and width, for the 737 we know it will be a bit higher off the ground to allow better field performance. So how many billions will that actually take, I suspect the majority of the investment will be software and engines, so what pressure do we see being placed on the FAA, EASA etc to start defining what they want for the new human-machine interface, or are they still working on the principle that they want improvements but it is up to the OEM to design the interface?
How about the engines, perhaps part of the billions will be Boeing going into engine design, or are we going to continue at present in which case, we sit and wait for the engine OEM's to get their financial houses in order?

Opus99 wrote:

He’s not saying anything new though. 737 needs replacement. The question is when does it need a replacement. He needs to clarify.

I think the idea that the max is a poor investment for airlines is quite a weak argument. In the same breadth he praised the aircraft.

He is saying what everyone is saying the 737 needs a replacement yes but not now or not until there’s a replacement that can achieve 20% reduction in operating cost

The timeline is key. At this point, Boeing cannot invest $7 billion in a replacement, so these threads will persist. The MAX will sell, probably less than the competition. Cest la vie.

As you note, a replacement must meet economic benchmarks in improvement to be justified just for the billions in new engine development as well as new factories. e.g., none of the existing factories can make CFRP wings in the quantity the 737 needs at the costs the 737 needs.

To others:
What tech? CFRP wing, folding wingtips, and GTF are a given. But will it be cold layup CFRP? CFRP fusalage? The new CFRP technologies are not ready for production and anything developed prior to them won't compete well. e.g., continuous fiber or 3D printed continuous fiber, or 3D printed CFRP to cut labor for smaller parts, but parts must be designed for the manufacturing process. Yes, I've harped on 4 different CFRP processes that I believe neither Boeing nor Airbus are ready to mass produce, but these are the economic improvements about to go mainstream and they will, in my opinion, obsolete prior production aircraft. I have not seen the automation possibilities prior to now in aviation; except more work is needed before betting a company on any tech. Honestly, they each have their niche and no new aircraft will succeed without 2 or more of these techs.

But what else? How much to blend the wing and body? Electrical subsystems are a given, the 787 nicely debugged those. What limit of validity? The 100,000 FC and 125,000 FH of the 737 is nice:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... ticle2.pdf

The A320 failed extending cycles/hours. We had a thread, it looks cycle based failure, in my opinion, we had a thread on why at 60,000 FC, 120000 FH
viewtopic.php?t=775787

Much of the operating efficiency technology is in the MAX. While the airframe predictive maintenance needs better avionics, the engine predictive maintenance in a LEAP is all the same, with little maintenance benefit to gain.

In my opinion the development labs need another 5 to 7 years before launching the MAX replacement. That means about a 2035 EIS. Not exactly a near term thing.

Lightsaber

Imho, it's almost inconceivable that Boeing is still foisting this turkey on airlines. It doesn't even have EICAS/ECAM for God's sake! The overhead panel is almost unchanged from 1968! Lyndon Johnson was still president. The USSR still had 23 more years to live. Thank you Mr. Obvious Hazy for pointing out the obvious. Thank you Southwest Airlines for impeding progress.

By the way, would Boeing even have access to the funding required to carry out a clean-sheet programme anytime soon?

What would be nice is a 737 sized aircraft designed off the Dreamliner. Fly By Wire with a simplified and logically laid out flight deck like the A320. Preferably with side sticks. We have a similar nicely designed aircraft now in the C-Series/A220.

The fact is the 737 in its current state shouldn’t even be certifiable. I know there would be plenty of grandfathering on the A320 series too, but there really should be some things that are forced to be updated if they want to continue upgrading the model. Those 1960s era manual doors especially. - with no power assist are a real oh&s hazard for cabin crew and a safety risk for pax as stuff up the opening of the door and the slide won’t deploy correctly and that exit is now unusable for the evacuation.

MDC862 wrote:

Ha, what is rhe current backlog for Boeing, 4,000 plus? Idealists want flash, new, and shiney. The 320 program is 35 years old, still selling and also has a hefty backlog. So much for customers ignoring this segment of the market.

Still has a hefty backlog, and that backlog is still growing.

IMO MAX will not be replaced till it becomes clear it is not selling and the backlog drops to the point of giving Boeing no choice but come up with a new model.

Till then it'll be more and more paper airplanes.

SteelChair wrote:

Imho, it's almost inconceivable that Boeing is still foisting this turkey on airlines. It doesn't even have EICAS/ECAM for God's sake! The overhead panel is almost unchanged from 1968! Lyndon Johnson was still president. The USSR still had 23 more years to live. Thank you Mr. Obvious Hazy for pointing out the obvious. Thank you Southwest Airlines for impeding progress.

They might be impeding progress, but they keep ordering more frames. 350+ MAX on order and 350+ orders likely since they have that many NGs still needing replacement.

So does AS, FR, UA, etc.

The difference her is when Udvar-Hazy speaks thing tend to happen, more so than when any of us have an opinion. The 737 will be replaced at some point, that is inevitable. Boeing needs money to replace a 737, the moment a 737 replacement is announced 737 orders will lessen, meaning the money might not be there to fund this. Boeings other models are experiencing issues mostly around less demand for the larger frames at this time, so they cannot carry the burden in the interim. But doing nothing is not a long term winner. Funding development through debt is harder because of borrowing requirements for ongoing expenses during the recent issues.

I only see one alternative source of funding, which ironically Boeing tried really hard to prevent being used.....

Anyway, they will do something because a company that build airplanes to make money, has to be able to continue selling them. Getting the timing right is never easy and thats why the people making those calls get well payed, even if they are mostly guessing, as they have no crystal balls where the future is revealed.

a320fan wrote:

The fact is the 737 in its current state shouldn’t even be certifiable. I know there would be plenty of grandfathering on the A320 series too, but there really should be some things that are forced to be updated if they want to continue upgrading the model. Those 1960s era manual doors especially. - with no power assist are a real oh&s hazard for cabin crew and a safety risk for pax as stuff up the opening of the door and the slide won’t deploy correctly and that exit is now unusable for the evacuation.

Strange to read this even after EASA did their deep dive on the 737 and found it totally was certifiable. Even the third AoA sensor for MAX-10 is being dropped in favor of enhancing the current two AoA setup. Perhaps your understanding of aviation regulation is less than complete?

lightsaber wrote:

In my opinion the development labs need another 5 to 7 years before launching the MAX replacement. That means about a 2035 EIS. Not exactly a near term thing.

Boeing's CEO recently refused to even name the design point the new airplane team is working towards, never mind give a time line.

Clearly any new airplane is a long ways off, regardless of what SUH says.

CEO Calhoun now speaks of "pre-projects" gating the next new airplane.

I think these are the things you suggest, namely more maturity needed for making CFRP and 3D printed parts at high volume, and presumably also the oft-mentioned regulator driven requirements for a next generation cockpit.

SteelChair wrote:

Imho, it's almost inconceivable that Boeing is still foisting this turkey on airlines. It doesn't even have EICAS/ECAM for God's sake! The overhead panel is almost unchanged from 1968! Lyndon Johnson was still president. The USSR still had 23 more years to live. Thank you Mr. Obvious Hazy for pointing out the obvious. Thank you Southwest Airlines for impeding progress.

As long as Boeing doesn't even take the first step into making said replacement, these articles will continue to be written.

Everyone knows the 737 needs replacement - even Boeing. The basic problem remains - with what? The primary driver of efficiency is the engines. It already has the best available under the wings. So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW. Again, to what advantage? Is this going to result in a substantive enough efficiency gain to offset the investment and increased cost? Why should Boeing invest $10B+ on an aircraft which will not see a substantive gain in efficiency great enough to leap-frog the 320NEO.

Hopefully as Mr. Udvar-Hazy weighs in we're getting closer on reaching some sort of critical mass to push Boeing off of their hands. The 737 has certainly been good to Boeing, and would still sell in the absence of anything new. But it's time. Overdue. And I can only hope that what they produce will be of such high quality that Airbus will have to answer earlier than they would have liked. Competition is good, and we need better solutions for our future. Regardless of how well the present sells...

ILNFlyer wrote:

Everyone knows the 737 needs replacement - even Boeing. The basic problem remains - with what? The primary driver of efficiency is the engines. It already has the best available under the wings. So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW. Again, to what advantage? Is this going to result in a substantive enough efficiency gain to offset the investment and increased cost? Why should Boeing invest $10B+ on an aircraft which will not see a substantive gain in efficiency great enough to leap-frog the 320NEO.

Preferably by going exotic I'd suggest. Or lay the foundation for the airframe to develop into something more exotic down the line. Adaptable wing forms? Higher degree of laminar flow? New lifting body fuselage and lighter weighs thanks to carbon fibre airframe? I'm just throwing things out now at random, but there are more things than engines that can be tweaked. I would certainly hope they build it with an eye towards adaptability to new fuels and/or propulsion methods as they become available.

Whatever they do they need to give it legs to handle engines like RR's Ultrafan or the like either for immediate use or for future upgrades.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Everyone knows the 737 needs replacement - even Boeing. The basic problem remains - with what? The primary driver of efficiency is the engines. It already has the best available under the wings. So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW. Again, to what advantage? Is this going to result in a substantive enough efficiency gain to offset the investment and increased cost? Why should Boeing invest $10B+ on an aircraft which will not see a substantive gain in efficiency great enough to leap-frog the 320NEO.

Indeed, and then there is the huge problem that all their biggest customers (WN, FR, AS, UA) already ordered MAXes pre-COVID and pre-MCAS and just ordered more, so any new replacement airplane would kill their investments in the MAX.

Same for the supply chain, especially CFM: they just spent $billions on R&D for LEAP and the factories to make them, they aren't going to support a replacement till they get a good ROI out of that investment, and that ain't going to be any time soon.

Regardless of what SUH says he wants, a replacement ain't going to happen any time soon.

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

Both A320 and 737 are outdated designs. In fact, so is the A350, because all those designs are still based on Jet A fueled technology with 30% efficiency. Even the best gas turbines are just giving modest improvements.

It is certainly possible to replace fossil Jet A with synthetic, green Jet A, but even then it is pretty inefficient and costly. I believe even a clean sheet 737 or A320 will not really help. It needs to be more disruptive, but I do not see that from Boeing or Airbus.

seahawk wrote:

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

It looks like CFM thinks the same thing, with the smaller short range being a SAF/H2 aircraft with open rotor and EIS in the mid 2030s.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461795

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

It looks like CFM thinks the same thing, with the smaller short range being a SAF/H2 aircraft with open rotor and EIS in the mid 2030s.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461795

That would be quite interesting indeed. And why not? Better optimised airframes. With an eye towards commonalities it would never be cheaper than "one size fits all", but cheaper than two entirely bespoke aircraft.

Leovinus wrote:

Preferably by going exotic I'd suggest. Or lay the foundation for the airframe to develop into something more exotic down the line. Adaptable wing forms? Higher degree of laminar flow? New lifting body fuselage and lighter weighs thanks to carbon fibre airframe?

All of these technologies need more research. Currently, they're not mature enough to warrant an all-new design. It's not just the aero and structures but also manufacturing technologies and certification. Given how many 737 and A320 are being built, manufacturing cost is more important for narrowbodies than fuel efficiency. It's one of the issues plaguing the A220 / C-Series.

There are two threats to Boeing (and also Airbus):
- China finds out how to build safe and reliable aircraft. If A & B don't stay ahead in efficiency and manufacturing, they risk losing market share.
- Environmental regulations get increasingly stricter. Some countries are planning to phase out ICE vehicles by 2030, switch from coal to solar, wind or nuclear, etc. Noise and NOx emissions remain hot topics as well. If the manufacturers don't improve their products, governments will impose additional restrictions on aviation.

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

It looks like CFM thinks the same thing, with the smaller short range being a SAF/H2 aircraft with open rotor and EIS in the mid 2030s.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461795

Many (& Udvar) are under the impression Boeing can't wait until the mid 2030s in the NB area. Well, they can, but airlines will move on without them. Maybe soon. https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/airbu ... ls-reveal/

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

It looks like CFM thinks the same thing, with the smaller short range being a SAF/H2 aircraft with open rotor and EIS in the mid 2030s.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461795

Many (& Udvar) are under the impression Boeing can't wait until the mid 2030s in the NB area. Well, they can, but airlines will move on without them. Maybe soon. https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/airbu ... ls-reveal/

Meanwhile WN, FR, AS, UA et al have moved on to order more MAXes regardless of SUH's thoughts on the matter.

He is no doubt well informed about the market and unbiased A vs. B. This is why for me this is a relevant statement you don't hear often so clear. Lessors need to think ahead even more far ahead than airlines.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A conventional fuel burning tube with wings is a risky solution anyway,. Maybe the replacement to the 737 are 2 airplanes. One hybrid short range optimized plane and a larger medium to long range optimized plane using conventional engines?

It looks like CFM thinks the same thing, with the smaller short range being a SAF/H2 aircraft with open rotor and EIS in the mid 2030s.

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1461795

Many (& Udvar) are under the impression Boeing can't wait until the mid 2030s in the NB area. Well, they can, but airlines will move on without them. Maybe soon. https://leehamnews.com/2021/06/14/airbu ... ls-reveal/

And sometimes it is necessary to accept that you drew the short stick and bear it. By 2035-2040 737 and A320 will be obsolete, having the right product in 2035 is what counts in the long term.

Flying-Tiger 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.

No, it´s the typical airline song. Airlines want to have something premium, optimized, more fuel efficient et at all times. At best every other year to make sure your competition stays behind. But not pay more for it, certainly not in markets with a constant pressure of yields. But a new development will cost upwards of 10 bn USD / EUR (doesn´t really matter which currency...), and it´s the OEMs who shall bear the risk. And that - for in principle - marginal improvements for the foreseeable future. And a highly volatile regulatory framework which increases risk even further to spend on such a multi-billion project.

Whilst Mr. Hazy is right that the basic design is very old and not as efficient as a one from today would be: it isn´t his money at stake here. And if regular PIPs or other improvements (see the recently mentioend idea of new winglets for the A330 with a potential improvement of up to 2%) move the bar all the time, how big shall the jump in efficiency be to make such an investment worthwhile?

Last: considering the rates A320 / B737 sell these days - market intel was that United paid just 22 million USD for its 737-700 ordered - one has to question where the business case for the OEM shall come from at this rate level. Noting that the market seems to be flodded with your, used frames for years to come.

I think waiting another three to five years until the NSA is launched is the more prudent approach currently.

The marginal improvement is the key restriction since Boeing went ahead with the MAX. Without new engine tech or some sort of materials or aerodynamic design breakthrough its hard to make a case for a new clean sheet. The duopoly also reduces the desire for big new programs. With all that said, high backlogs of the current products isn't that important to the discussion since there aren't other options and fleets need replaced and in normal trends growth needs to happen, so there will always be sales of what's available.

Leovinus wrote:

Hopefully as Mr. Udvar-Hazy weighs in we're getting closer on reaching some sort of critical mass to push Boeing off of their hands. The 737 has certainly been good to Boeing, and would still sell in the absence of anything new. But it's time. Overdue. And I can only hope that what they produce will be of such high quality that Airbus will have to answer earlier than they would have liked. Competition is good, and we need better solutions for our future. Regardless of how well the present sells...

Agree - there is so much nuance to this statement.

sagechan wrote:

The marginal improvement is the key restriction since Boeing went ahead with the MAX. Without new engine tech or some sort of materials or aerodynamic design breakthrough its hard to make a case for a new clean sheet. The duopoly also reduces the desire for big new programs. With all that said, high backlogs of the current products isn't that important to the discussion since there aren't other options and fleets need replaced and in normal trends growth needs to happen, so there will always be sales of what's available.

As above it is starting to feel the new engine tech for at least shorter range flights will be a UDF with SAF or H2 as fuel because the biggest engine maker is putting money into developing just that. Their time frame is ~2035 which is about when most people thought we'd see a true need for new clean sheets. It'll be interesting to see how A and B incorporate that into their planning.

phlswaflyer wrote:

Leovinus wrote:

Hopefully as Mr. Udvar-Hazy weighs in we're getting closer on reaching some sort of critical mass to push Boeing off of their hands. The 737 has certainly been good to Boeing, and would still sell in the absence of anything new. But it's time. Overdue. And I can only hope that what they produce will be of such high quality that Airbus will have to answer earlier than they would have liked. Competition is good, and we need better solutions for our future. Regardless of how well the present sells...

Agree - there is so much nuance to this statement.

The issue is cost and time to develop a replacement. There is 8 years minimum and I posted above what I consider the minimum technologies to make it worth developing a new model.

I see less urgency than many here as the technology to replace the MAX isn't mature enough to justify the cost. It will be, but not yet. Launching an aircraft right before some potential CFRP manufacturing cost reductions wouldn't be wise. The whole industry is ramping up R&D as the cost cutting is significant for even moderate production CFRP. For high volume, too significant to ignore. While obviously just my opinion, I think we are on the cusp of a manufacturing shift.

Lightsaber

No 737 replacement in the next twelve years.

Hazy can stop buying 737 if he wants to.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Everyone knows the 737 needs replacement - even Boeing. The basic problem remains - with what? The primary driver of efficiency is the engines. It already has the best available under the wings. So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW. Again, to what advantage? Is this going to result in a substantive enough efficiency gain to offset the investment and increased cost? Why should Boeing invest $10B+ on an aircraft which will not see a substantive gain in efficiency great enough to leap-frog the 320NEO.

Doesn't the GTF have a fuel burn advantage on the LEAP? Thus, the best engine won't actually wont even fit under the wing, because the wing box/landing gear interface are too small. Thus, advantage A321.

I suppose one could argue that CFM is generally more reliable than PW, this obviating the fuel burn advantage. Taking this argument (which is yet to be proved on these particular engines) might make the LEAP the "best."

I've always been under the impression (might be wrong and someone will jump in and tell me so!) that ALC's order book for 737-maxes is bigger than its one for A320Neos. It doesn't seem as though his low opinion of Boeing is affecting his purchasing strategy!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

MileHFL400 wrote:

Sorry but a 737 replacement isn’t coming until there’s a massive step change in engine technology. As it stands now they would be investing billions for diminishing returns.

The issue may be that the 737 is so low to the ground. You can put more powerful engines on the neo as it’s higher; there is a 35,000-lh thrust option available. Another issue is cargo. The 737 can only accept bulk cargo, or it needs the Telair container system installed across the network. By contrast, the 320 family can accept a standard LD3-45 cargo container. ULCC carriers may prefer the 737 MAX, but many others value belly cargo capabilities.

This is the truth.

However, Boeing has faced the 737 replacement 3 different times and decided to continue to "perfume the pig".

In the 1980's Boeing recognized a need to replace both the B732 and B727. There were studies of all-new designs then, but WN and UA, both large B732 users, wanted the same basic airframe with new engines, hence the B733, which slotted between the B721 and the B732 in capacity. A little bit later, Piedmont wanted a similar-capacity B727 replacement, so Boeing developed the larger B734. WN and UA wanted 1 for 1 replacements for their B732's, so Boeing offered the smaller B735.

Things went along swimmingly for Boeing's upgraded B737 "Classics" for several years until United came looking for a direct replacement for the B722's in their fleet. Boeing originally offered the B734, which UA rejected due to inadequate hot & high performance (e.g. Denver). Controversially, UA broke ranks and angered congressmen when they placed their historic major order for A320's in the early-1990's to replace their large B722 fleet.

After losing the United order, Boeing was in no shape to pursue an all-new narrow body design, since they were still developing the B777. However, engine technology was rapidly improving to the point that CFM had already evolved their CFM56-3 engines that powered the "Classics" by offering the CFM56-7 variants that offered significant improvements in power and fuel economy. Boeing needed an answer to the A320 and A319 (which had also garnered significant orders in the US market) and WN was ready to work with them once again. They settled on a new, significantly-modified B737 design that offered better aerodynamics, newer avionics and the new CFM56-7 engines. The New Generation series aircraft were bigger, flew farther and used less fuel than their predecessors. And just as important, with the B738 variant, Boeing now had a true, direct competitor to the A320 in terms of performance and capacity.

Since it is relatively recent history, and it has been hashed out on this forum many times, I will skip detailing the B737MAX saga. However, it is ironic that Airbus surprised Boeing by hanging new PW GTF and CFM LEAP engines on their A32X's aircraft, taking a page right out of the Boeing narrow body airliner development book. It also went down when Boeing was struggling mightily with their B787 program. Therefore, the MAX development was already running from behind at the start and as it progressed, there were schedule delays which led to corners being cut to hurry this plane series to market. Some of this corner cutting led to tragedies and a mass grounding of the type.

I think that Boeing has extracted all of the "goody" out of the basic B737 design that is possible, plus they went so far that they clearly demonstrated this platform's design limitations. Watch a B737-9MAX blunder off an 8,000' runway on a hot day and you will see what I mean.

Boeing made the 707 from 1958-1973, the 757 from 1982-2004, the 727 from 1964-1983, and the 737 from 1967 until 2030(?). One derivative too many and too many decades, Boeing needs to stop being McDonnell Douglas 2.0. The NMA or 797 needs to be made a priority in Seattle, ditching Chicago as HQ needs to happen too.

SteelChair wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

Everyone knows the 737 needs replacement - even Boeing. The basic problem remains - with what? The primary driver of efficiency is the engines. It already has the best available under the wings. So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW. Again, to what advantage? Is this going to result in a substantive enough efficiency gain to offset the investment and increased cost? Why should Boeing invest $10B+ on an aircraft which will not see a substantive gain in efficiency great enough to leap-frog the 320NEO.

Doesn't the GTF have a fuel burn advantage on the LEAP? Thus, the best engine won't actually wont even fit under the wing, because the wing box/landing gear interface are too small. Thus, advantage A321.

I suppose one could argue that CFM is generally more reliable than PW, this obviating the fuel burn advantage. Taking this argument (which is yet to be proved on these particular engines) might make the LEAP the "best."

PW makes GTF with different diameters and there's no technical reason why Boeing couldn't have offered with the 737.

Here are some economic realities. The fact that the 737 continues to sell in large numbers means that it fulfills the needs of many customers, and Boeing is making money building them. The fact that the basic design is over 50 years old is completely irrelevant. The fact that the A320 is newer and is selling better is only slightly relevant. Boeing still has loyal and not-so-loyal customers who still buy the 737. The A320 is doing better, but Boeing still manages about a 40% market share.

But here are the questions that arise when you talk about a new design. First, how much will it cost to design and certify? I would say that the floor price is at least $10 billion, and could easily be twice that or more. Second, how long will it take? Anything less than eight years I think is wildly optimistic. And third, how is Boeing going to recoup the investment? There really are only two ways; charge more for the new plane or design it so that it is enough cheaper to manufacture than the 737 to recoup the investment selling at the same price. They presumably can return to a 50% market share, but thinking that they can get more than that long term is I believe unrealistic, as whatever they do Airbus is certain to do as well. They are apparently right now in better financial shape than Airbus, which will give them a short term advantage, but Airbus will find a way to stay competitive.

In order to charge more for the new plane it must offer enough cost savings to the customers to offset the higher price, either in fuel or maintenance. And here’s the rub. There is no technology available now to either reduce manufacturing cost, fuel consumption, or maintenance costs enough to justify the enormous expense of designing and certifying it. And then there is the transition problem. Right now, thanks to COVID, demand is down. But prior to COVID and the MAX grounding, Boeing could not build them fast enough. That situation will return. A big reason that Boeing did the MAX instead of the NSA was that customers were unwilling to wait. What makes anyone think that they will be any more willing to wait in the future? And ramping up production of a new design takes years to get it right and efficient. If Boeing does introduce a new design they and the airlines will have to endure several years of very slow deliveries which will lead to a huge increase in backlog. The only way to avoid this is to build the new plane in completely separate facilities and continue to build the 737 alongside it, ramping the 737 down as the new one ramps up. This will add billions to the development cost. And so it remains an economic/technological question. When will we have the technology to justify the almost unbelievable expense involved? At this point nobody knows. And until it appears the 737 will continue to soldier on.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Boeing is unlikely to spend over $10bn on a new aircraft without giving stockholders the chance to vote on it first. The vote may be a formality... but the board will want to gain sone sort of formal consent for such a program

That would not happen. No corporation wants to start putting business plans like that in front of stockholders. Stockholders influence by voting on the Board if they are displeased with the business plan.

texl1649 wrote:

the 737 replacement which was pending launch.

There was no launch of anything "pending."

davidjohnson6 wrote:

Boeing is unlikely to spend over $10bn on a new aircraft without giving stockholders the chance to vote on it first. The vote may be a formality...

Of course it is, seeing as they'd be about 2 degrees removed from an actual executive decision.

ILNFlyer wrote:

So they could upgrade the the flight system to FBW.

Not if they want to call the resultant product a 737.
No way the FAA in its current state would certify such a change, especially on the model that's already been a stake for their reputation's head.