tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:32 am



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 34):
Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 26):
I expect it to go slightly slower than the 737NG.

What? No Chance.

Why not? On short/medium sectors cruise speed has a fairly small effect on sector time but a quite significant effect on fuel burn. You could probably get ~4% fuel burn improvement for a 2% drop in cruise speed, which would work out to about 4 minutes on a typical flight.

Quoting HUbsnotDubs (Reply 35):
Why not mount the engines on top of the wing?

It can be done (Honda Jet) but maintenance is more difficult and the aerodynamics are extremely difficult. Nacelle/wing interaction is a difficult problem when the engine is under the wing on the high pressure side. It's even more difficult when you're dealing with the low pressure flow above the wing.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 37):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 31):
It's not a given that composites will scale down to the 737 size in all applications. Wings almost certainly, but fuselage skins is a little less clear. The skin gauge could become so small that you'd bump up against durability issues.

That's the whole reason why composites are likely to be a player in the short-haul, high-cycle world.. they 'mature' more gracefully than AL (supposedly).

I think you're thinking fatigue, and you're right as far as that goes. I was thinking durability in terms of ramp rash. A 0.005 CFRP skin might be fine for the flight loading but you could probably poke a pencil through it if you weren't careful.

Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 38):
Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 34):
I don't think the fan diameter will be much larger than it is now

Of course it will.

I don't think a large fan will help, particularly because of the short sectors it will likely do.

About the only way you can increase engine effiency in any major way is:
1) Increase temperature (pressure ratio): strongly limited by materials
2) Improve turbine efficiency: GTF
3) Increase bypass ratio: Bigger fan and/or UDF

1 is very limited right now and 2 is just starting to be tested at the right thrust ratings (and has a bigger fan anyway). So if you really want to improve fuel burn you end up with 2 or 3, which leads to a bigger fan.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 44):
With a composite airframe, the fuselage skin is not as thick. With a plane only a little wider than the A320, one could easily have 2-2-2 seating

Except it's not the skin thickness that's the problem, it's the frame thickness, and that doesn't go down very much at all when you switch materials.

Tom.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:47 am

Odds on it will have a 3-3 layout, utilise still higher bypass turbofans which will be a two spool design, have a common pilot rating in all variants, and possibly a common pilot rating to the 787, and fly a lot further.

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 43):
Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 19):

737RS-7: lighter wing, 149 pax 1-class, 3200 nm (slightly larger than 73G)
737RS-8: lighter wing, 199 pax 1-class, 2600 nm (slightly larger than 738, lighter, with shorter range)
737RS-8ER: heavier wing, uprated engines, 4600 nm, hot and high performance, good platform for BBJ, replacement for current 752s where they are used for high performance, but hopefully with 738 or better costs
737RS-9: heavier wing, ~220 pax 2-class, 4000 nm, slightly larger and more economical 752 replacement

For the most part, I think these numbers are right on (my only quibble is with the -9, I expect it to have less range - closer to 3500nm).

I disagree with that. The -9 will have extra thrust, fuel tankage and fly still further, 5500nm-6500nm IMO.

I also think that CFM will come up with a counter rotating engine design, and stick with the single stage HP turbine. GTF is a dark horse at this stage.

I personally would prefer to fly in a 5 abreast aircraft (almost no chance of enduring a middle seat), but that doesn't allow enough space underneath for fuel tankage. Of course, if someone were REALLY interested in a short range aircraft 5 abreast could be a distant possibility.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 18115
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:22 am



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 34):
Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 26):
I expect it to go slightly slower than the 737NG.

What? No Chance.

There's every chance. No airline will complain if a new single-aisle is as much as 10% slower, as long as it's at least 20% cheaper to operate.

Quoting Ckfred (Reply 48):
Remember that Boeing came out with the 737NG line, because operators of 737 Classics, as well as airlines looking to replace 727s, wanted a plane that flew faster and higher.

The availability of the A320 may have had something to do with it. wink 

Also fuel was dirt cheap then. Airlines have different priorities today, miserly fuel efficiency will be one of them. If that's acheived by flying a bit slower, the airlines will not be in the slightest bit bothered.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1884
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:24 am

Here's my own speculation on what it would look like - based on the definition of Yellowstone-1 as 100 - 200 seater:

"807-8" 100 seats 2+3, US coast-to-coast range
"807-9" 130 seats 2+3, US coast-to-coast range
"817-3" 160 seats 3+3/2+2+2, US coast-to-coast range
"817-4" 190 seats 3+3/2+2+2, US coast-to-coast range
"817-8" 190 seats 2+2+2 US Midwest-to-Central Europe range
"817-9" 220 seats 2+2+2 US Midwest-to-Central Europe range

I know it's a lot of them and probably would increase the cost, but:
- the wing would be very similar - if not the same - for the first four models, with minor aerodynamic tweaks and strengthening optimized for each model - sort of like what Boeing did for 737-700 vs 737-800 wing,
- "817-8/-9" would have its own dedicated wing, the model itself being aimed at direct 757-200/-300/767-200 replacement market,
- engines would be the same for all "817" models, while "807" could utilise either P&W's GTF concept or similar offering from GE or RR (although knowing Boeing, they will keep their "in bed with GE" engine policy),
- single engine supplier across entire line would keep the development cost down.

If Boeing decides to cede the "below 130 seats" market to Bombardier and/or Embraer, I expect them to design a shrink of "817-3" as a 2-class 140-seater dubbed "817-2" with the same fuselage cross section as the larger model.

Needless to say, all of them would utilise the 787 as the baseline design template, therefore they all would have the same design appearance as someone mentioned before.
Tarriffs are taxes. Taxation is theft. You are not entitled to anything.
If it's a Boeing, I'm not going.
 
express1
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:56 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 3):
Why did he give the interview to a French paper, not one in the US.

Does it really matter!!!

dave
David.S cavanagh since 1961,if you can do better,then show me.
 
bennett123
Posts: 9125
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:34 am

Simply that I would expect him to speak first to the WSJ or something similar.

Is this intended to trigger a response from Airbus.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:34 am



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
Sounds a little more concrete in Financial Times
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage...ws_id=fto120620071745577131&page=2

"The programme could be started in about 18 months, aimed at achieving entry into commercial service around 2015."

That's 5 1/2 years from launch to EIS? Do they back off the fast-track development that didn't quite work out for the 787?

With an EIS "aim" of 2015, anything is possible. I wonder if the 737RS will go down as the model with the longest gestation if one takes Y1 into account.

As I said, anything is possible so far into the future. As long as Airbus doesn't blink first, EIS could even drag out further if there is:
1.) a recession
2.) considerable domestic and international consolidation/rationalization
3.) "climate change" policies
4.) if any 2 or all of the above happens.

I remember earlier this when many where posting that narrowbody sales were nonexistant and that Boeing would HAVE to launch the 737RS next year... with EIS 2012 at the very latest. So much for good prognosticating! Big grin

So while it is fun to guess at what the 737RS configuration might look like... with 7 years to go (at least) it is still way too earlier to say with any degree of certainty what technologies will develop that will influence the design beyond what many are imagining today.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:35 am

UA are keen on a decision asap as has be stated before:-

Reuters News reports that Pratt & Whitney's new fuel-efficient jet engine could power the next generation of narrow-body planes in as little as four years. Some carriers, such as United Airlines, are campaigning for new narrow-body planes, saying they do not want to buy existing models. "We've said we're willing to be a launch customer whenever they are ready to launch," UAL Chief Financial Officer Jake Brace told a Reuters summit on Monday.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:18 pm



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 51):
I disagree with that. The -9 will have extra thrust, fuel tankage and fly still further, 5500nm-6500nm IMO.

I doubt it. My guess is that we won't see more than 35k thrust/engine, tops, on this airframe. The largest model will be range limited by lack of both thrust and structural payload capability, like the 757-300 is today. (BBJ variants where payload is usually light may have extra tankage for longer range.) And that's OK -- the economics of flying a narrowbody 5000+ nm are not very good anyway, so I don't think operators will want to.

I do expect one of the midsize models to have the heaviest wing and strongest engine. It would fly slightly farther than today's 757-200 (enough for East Coast-Central Europe or Midwest-Western Europe) and have good field and climb performance in order to replace 757-200s on missions where they are used for those reasons.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 53):
Here's my own speculation on what it would look like - based on the definition of Yellowstone-1 as 100 - 200 seater:

Any 100-seat 2+3 plane that uses the same wing and some of the same structure as a 190-seat 2+2+2 plane is doomed to even worse economics than the 736.

I think Boeing will concede the sub-149-seat market to Embraer and Bombardier, because I don't think they'll build two entirely separate airplanes (although I think they'll build two wings). I think the 757 replacement market will be more important to them, so the size of the smallest 737RS will be dictated by what can economically share a platform with a 757 replacement. As I've indicated, I think that smallest model will be larger than a 73G -- about the size of a MD-80.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:55 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 50):
I think you're thinking fatigue, and you're right as far as that goes. I was thinking durability in terms of ramp rash. A 0.005 CFRP skin might be fine for the flight loading but you could probably poke a pencil through it if you weren't careful.

Yes I'm talking about fatigue. However, (1) I'm not sure I agree that ramp rash is any harder to deal with for CFRP or (2) that it's anymore susceptible to it. Finally, you can control ramp rash, but cycles have to happen to fly. If I was a buyer and had to chose between doubling of cycle counts on a frame vs. needing to make sure my tug drivers stay off the sauce, I certainly choose to keep my tug drivers sober  Wink
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
NoWorries
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:55 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:17 pm

The notion of a twin-aisle narrow body does seem like a bit of stretch -- but Boeing has filed a patent for such a plane ...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6834833.html

scroll down past thw first page of ads to see the details.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:20 pm

Quoting Seabosdca (Reply 41):
Boeing tried this. It was called the 767-200. Pax love it but it was somewhat inefficient even when it was introduced and has remained one of the least efficient widebodies of its generation. Today, the only mission on which the 767-200 really makes sense is one with lots of high-paying, picky premium pax. That's why we see them on AA's flagship transcons, on CO's heaviest J routes, and as the darling of startup all-business airlines.

The obective of a new 2-3-2 would be a longer range 757-200/300 with 737-800 fuel burn. There is an absolute need for such an aircraft on long thin routes, and not for just premium pax. Expect some stellar runway performance as well from the new aircraft.

Assuming they avoid the saturated 100 seat market, 2-class layouts:

Seats: Layout: Wingspan: Range: Long Range:
130 3-3 118 3,500 NA
150 3-3 118 3,500 NA
180 3-3 118 3,500 NA
180 2-3-2 138 NA 5,000-7,000
230 2-3-2 138 NA 5,000-7,000

Rouhgly 7,200-feet of runway for all variants, 6,000-feet at the low end.

Quoting SirOmega (Reply 43):
I used to be a fan of the two cross-section idea, but with fuel prices going up, you want to get the most out of your AC and I dont see anyone going smaller than a 73G.

A long thin tube may not be any more or less efficient than a short stout tube with a bad ass wing. The later may be even more efficient, carry more fuel and cargo and offer 767-300ER range to the 757-200/300 capacity. Say routes like... San Diego-London? Dallas to Rome? Cincinnati to Cologne? Chicago-Dusseldorf? Portland to Narita? Albuquerque-Honolulu?

[Edited 2007-12-07 06:28:42]
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 2:23 pm



Quoting Centrair (Reply 6):
IHT is French? Learn something new every day. Interesting that it also says Associated Press.

Here is a link to the Financial Times article written in Paris and London:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3bbee6e0-a466-11dc-a28d-0000779fd2ac.html

Right now I would not put much faith in the timetable. This is mostly posturing by Boeing to put more pressure on Airbus (who Boeing feels does not have the cash to develop another new airplane.)
 
6YJCX
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:17 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:09 pm

Much like the 748 was conceived to partially deny Airbus big margins on the A380, I think it likely that for business reasons Boeing wil seek to protect the bottom end of the single aisle by staying in the 130 passenger market.
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 3:30 pm



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 61):

A long thin tube may not be any more or less efficient than a short stout tube with a bad ass wing. The later may be even more efficient, carry more fuel and cargo and offer 767-300ER range to the 757-200/300 capacity. Say routes like... San Diego-London? Dallas to Rome? Cincinnati to Cologne? Chicago-Dusseldorf? Portland to Narita? Albuquerque-Honolulu?

I should have been more clear, I was speaking to two cross sections, one in a 3-2 arrangement and the other a 3-3 arrangement, and I thought nowadays I dont think people would buy the 5-abreast model.
 
ncelhr
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:18 pm



Quoting Fruitbat (Reply 13):
I believe that the timeframe for this a/c is entirely powerplant dependant. Until GE/PW/RR step up and convince A and B that they have a game-changing propulsion system then A and B will be reluctant to publicly sacrifice the cash cows that are the 737 and A320. Conversations with airlines and key industry players about potential developments are always happening.

Entirely correct. New engine technologies can lower fuel costs by 4 to 5%.
An entirely new aircraft may lower fuel costs by an estimated 10%. So if you can save half of that without having to spend so much money on a new aircraft, why develop a new aircraft?

Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 14):
The 737 will be all composite. No way it will be aluminum skinned.

Not so sure. Weight issues (& hence fuel burn) are less of an issue for short haul. Savings in maintenance & longevity of materials will however tip the balance. If CFRP is stronger and maintenance-free, then expect CFRP.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 19):
I expect 737RS to be a 3-3 narrowbody with underwing engines, with only minor differences in concept from existing aircraft. I expect it will have a very similar cabin width to the current A320, but with interior design rather different from any existing narrowbody. Like the 787, I would expect it would be built with the wings as high as possible to allow for physically larger engines with the shortest possible landing gear.

Indeed, from the analysis I have performed, this is pretty close to the truth. It all makes sense. Think: fuel burn reduction and multiple uses, ie. high bypass-ratio twin-engined (propfan maybe?) single aisle 100-220 pax (with/without fuselage plugs) for both short haul & medium haul. (trans-atlantic). Market: B737, B757, A32X., F100.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26599
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:53 pm



Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 65):
If CFRP is stronger and maintenance-free, then expect CFRP.

It is.

Also, flight cycles don't really affect it after a certain limit (the "fatigue floor"), so airlines that fly multiple short-hops in a day will be able to keep their planes longer.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:59 pm



Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 65):
Entirely correct. New engine technologies can lower fuel costs by 4 to 5%.

Airlines don't even need "new" engine technologies... only upgraded technology to realize lower fuel costs.  Smile

Skybus just received the first A319 with CFM56-5B Tech Insertion engines that reduce fuel consumption by at least 1% and will also lower NOx emmisions by 25% and lower carbon emmisions by 200 tons... and longer time on wing with lower maintenance costs. Not bad for an "old" engine program.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:41 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 25):
Furthermore, I expect there to be a pleasing, but vague resemblance to the 757. I also think that from a distance, it will be very difficult to differentiate it from a 787 without having a reference for sca

Agree completely. The basic 787 design will be used up to say, 400 seats. Anything larger, might use the Blended Wing Design if the 748 dies.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:01 pm



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 58):
I doubt it. My guess is that we won't see more than 35k thrust/engine, tops, on this airframe. The largest model will be range limited by lack of both thrust and structural payload capability, like the 757-300 is today. (BBJ variants where payload is usually light may have extra tankage for longer range.) And that's OK -- the economics of flying a narrowbody 5000+ nm are not very good anyway, so I don't think operators will want to.

But how would evaluate the decision not to put extra fuel tanks into the 757-300 in hindsight? Looks like a mistake now doesn't it? I'm sure Boeing think so too. They could have easily used higher thrust variants of the engines if required, and strengthened the landing gear.

The only reason that the economics of a narrowbody flying 5000nm+ are not very good is that the only narrowbody that's every been able to fly that far is the 737-700ER, and that doesn't have nearly enough space in the hold for a standard cabin's bags.

I suppose a CFM56 derived engine might have trouble producing enough thrust, but one with a bigger HP system could do it.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:28 am



Quoting Thegeek (Reply 69):

The only reason that the economics of a narrowbody flying 5000nm+ are not very good is that the only narrowbody that's every been able to fly that far is the 737-700ER, and that doesn't have nearly enough space in the hold for a standard cabin's bags.

That is not the only reason, Here's a few others

1. Narrowbodies can't carry as much cargo. Emirates, if I remember correctly, makes about 40% of its revenue from
cargo. Cargo is especially important in growth markets like China.

2. The reason the US domestic airlines use a lot of narrowbodies on heavy routes is to increase frequencies. 10 737 flights at different times from Dallas to Denver is a lot more marketable than 5 flights on a 767. This doesn't apply as much on overseas routes because the time windows in which there is demand for flights is much smaller. There are fewer times and places when you can add flights without simply doubling existing flights, or taking off at a time when no one wants to fly. It doesn't pay to increase frequencies if you are forced to schedule a bunch of them very close together. Roughly, it is fairly easy and profitable to split a 747 flight into two 767 flights. Make that into 4 737-size flights and often you will be forced to group 2 flights very close together, which defeats the purpose. If you cant have more than a half dozen flights per day at attractive but separate times, the widebody CASM rules.

3. All other things equal, widebodies have a much better cost per seat mile than narrowbodies.

These are just a few that come to mind off the top of my head, I doubt planes smaller than the 757-200 will ever take more than a tiny percentage of traffic going transatlantic distances or longer. There will continue to be a few boutique luxury services, and some service to isolated islands, etc. Fragmentation is real but there is a practical lower limit in aircraft size in most ocean-crossing distance routes.

Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 58):

I think Boeing will concede the sub-149-seat market to Embraer and Bombardier, because I don't think they'll build two entirely separate airplanes (although I think they'll build two wings). I think the 757 replacement market will be more important to them, so the size of the smallest 737RS will be dictated by what can economically share a platform with a 757 replacement. As I've indicated, I think that smallest model will be larger than a 73G -- about the size of a MD-80.

My thinking is more or less identical to yours - the 737-900 to 757 market are the must-haves. Not covering this market would leave a gaping hole in Boeing's lineup. The same family could then easily cover the 737-800 market as well, but would suffer in the lower end. One cant enter a market as large as that for 100-150 seat aircraft with a suboptimal product. It is better to use a partner or build something entirely new.

What's the possiblity of having two almost identical wings with one optimized for short range and one for long - like the 787-3 and 8? My guess is if Boeing is willing to cede the sub 149 seat market to a partner they will be able to make do with one basic wing design, but I'm no expert.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 50):
Except it's not the skin thickness that's the problem, it's the frame thickness, and that doesn't go down very much at all when you switch materials.

The 787 has more interior space than it would have with a metal fusalage of the same diameter, because less space is taken up by the thickness of the fusalage itself. Or so says Boeing and many people posting on this site. I am not an
expert in such things and it may be different for narrowbodies so I will defer to you.
 
JAM747
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:12 am

I believe that Boeing will have a 737 replacement to cover the 100-200 seat range and will NOT concede the 100-125 seat to Embraer etc. The market is too big to concede that lower seat capacity and there will be alot of older 737, 319-321,DC9, MD 80 etc to be replaced . I think Boeing will do single isle version to cover the 100-145 seat sector possible with a joint venture. Also I think it will do double isle narrow body to go from 150-220 . Both to have commonality like the 757/767. One reason why I think Boeing will also have a double isle narrow body is because there is still a gap in the line if there is no 767 as the 787 is quite larger than the current 767.
 
thegeek
Posts: 1334
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:20 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:12 am

I guess that my *only* statement was a bit rash. I meant that they don't have enough space under the cabin floor for fuel, cargo and bags. More efficient engines, together with longer planes will alleviate this enormously. But I'm sure there are routes with low cargo demand (I'd think SYD/MEL/BNE-HNL would fall into this category).

Your reason 2 is true; QF fly at least 2 B747s SYD-LAX every day within a couple of hours of each other, but the idea of the B757 is even more sound now. People want a direct flight wherever they may go, including longish haul flights, so this where I think there is there would be demand for a longer haul narrow body.

Re: Reason 3. Does the CASM advantage of a wide body apply to equivalent numbers of seats and sector lengths though?
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:26 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 70):
It is better to use a partner or build something entirely new.

Maybe Boeing should buy Bombardier and use that company as a platform to do the smaller 100 / 125 pax model of the 737RS, then do the larger on themselves. Or maybe Boeing will buy Embraer and use them. Or Maybe Boeing could partner with Honda or the other Japanese 787 partners.
 
ckfred
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:30 am



Quoting SirOmega (Reply 49):
That, I believe, is a pilots bargaining problem, and not a problem with there being a lack of suitable planes servicing that market.

It's a problem for two reasons. First, if AA has to use CRJ700s or the Embrears, then it can't offer a first-class cabin. According to a friend of mine who works for AA, AA has gotten a lot of complaint letters from AAdvantage elites griping out the lack of upgrades, and at some airports, the lack of first-class security lines.

Second, at an airport like ORD, that has defacto slots, not having a 100+-seat jet means that some routes are getting a lot of frequencies. ORD-CMH has something like 10 roundtrips. With a 100+-seat jet, that could be reduced to 5 or 6, meaning other routes could get extra frequencies, or AA could add cities to the ORD network.


Quoting Scbriml (Reply 52):
If that's acheived by flying a bit slower, the airlines will not be in the slightest bit bothered.

A friend of mine is a pilot with AA. Back in the early 90s, when he was a 727 F/O, he hated getting stuck behind a 737 Classic, because it couldn't fly as fast as a 727-100 or -200. The other problem is that the major airlines were getting away from using widebodies on long-haul routes and going to higher frequencies with narrowbodies. Before the 737NG, the smallest narrowbody with transcon range (or even ORD-West Coast) was the 757. With the 7737NG, airlines could now fly planes in the 125-150 seat range, rather than the 180-190 seat range.
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:40 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 36):
Maintenance is much harder. It might also affect the wing's effectiveness.



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 50):
It can be done (Honda Jet) but maintenance is more difficult and the aerodynamics are extremely difficult. Nacelle/wing interaction is a difficult problem when the engine is under the wing on the high pressure side. It's even more difficult when you're dealing with the low pressure flow above the wing.

Whatever happened with demonstrations using the Coanda effect? Look at the Boeing YC-14, an example of an over (or, more correctly, a front and slightly over) mounted engine. It helped aerodynamics, didn't hurt it.
http://www.aerosite.net/content/view/66/40/

I could imagine that a similar configuration could be made on a low wing design. It wouldn't be that high up, not just off the ground like the current 737, but not up on the tail and not litterally over the wing like the HondaJet or the VFW-Fokker 614. It would improve landing and takeoff performance, allowing a big plane to clear a runway faster, easing airport congestion. And, it would allow a bigger diameter engine to help fuel efficiency.

Of course, I don't know if it has limits on speed. Th YC-14 was rather slow.

-Rampart
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:49 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 70):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 50):
Except it's not the skin thickness that's the problem, it's the frame thickness, and that doesn't go down very much at all when you switch materials.

The 787 has more interior space than it would have with a metal fusalage of the same diameter, because less space is taken up by the thickness of the fusalage itself. Or so says Boeing and many people posting on this site. I am not an
expert in such things and it may be different for narrowbodies so I will defer to you.

It's not different for narrowbodies and you're information is correct, but we're using the term "fuselage" to mean a bunch of things at once, which leads to confusion. The total thickness of the 787 wall is less than an equivalent metal wall. That thickness includes the skin, frames, stringers, and insulation, and systems (bundles, ducts, etc.); thinner insulation has a lot to do with 787 improvement, as far as I know, as well as somewhat smaller frames thanks to CFRP (and a round cross section, which gives you thiner frames than a double-bubble).

The part I was originally talking about is the skin thickness, which is typically under 0.1 inch and hence is a negligible contributor to the overall wall thickness.

Tom.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 18115
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:40 am



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 74):
A friend of mine is a pilot with AA. Back in the early 90s, when he was a 727 F/O, he hated getting stuck behind a 737 Classic, because it couldn't fly as fast as a 727-100 or -200.

As far as fuel prices are concerned, the early '90s is ancient history. Fuel costs are really hurting airlines - if new super-efficent single aisle designs are 20-25% more efficient to operate, the airlines won't care if they're 10% slower.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:10 am



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 73):
Maybe Boeing should buy Bombardier and use that company as a platform to do the smaller 100 / 125 pax model of the 737RS, then do the larger on themselves.

The problem is that I'm not sure Boeing is at all interested in getting back into the train business which is just as large a division as aerospace for Bombardier. The current market value of Bombardier is about $10 billion. Let's say Boeing buys the whole company for $12.5 billion and spins off or sells the rail division. I imagine the cost of Bombardier Aeorospace would end up being $6-8 billion which is not bad for a division with an order back-log of CDN$16 billion. Bombardier as a whole has $3.6 billion in cash and equivalents. Seems like if Boeing kept a most of the cash and spun off the rail division they'd be getting Bombardier Aerospace for a song.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 18115
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:30 am



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 73):
Maybe Boeing should buy Bombardier

Would the Canadian authorities even allow this to happen? Put the shoe on the other foot, would Bombardier be allowed to buy out Boeing?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:39 am



Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 78):
The problem is that I'm not sure Boeing is at all interested in getting back into the train business which is just as large a division as aerospace for Bombardier.

You don't have to guess... Boeing will never buy BBD... not even the Aerospace Division. Boeing didn't get rid of SpiritAero (the old Wichita and Tulsa facilities) only a few years later to add to their Canadian facility in Winnipeg... particularly since they originally sold half of BBD's Commercial Aircraft Div (DH) to BBD... they don't want it back!!!!! Plus they would be picking up facilities in Northern Ireland and Mexico.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26599
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:32 pm



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 73):
Maybe Boeing should buy Bombardier and use that company as a platform to do the smaller 100 / 125 pax model of the 737RS, then do the larger on themselves.



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 79):
Would the Canadian authorities even allow this to happen?

Canada allowed Boeing to buy DeHaviland (sic) back in the 1980s.
 
sh0rtybr0wn
Posts: 373
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:03 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 79):
would Bombardier be allowed to buy out Boeing?

Haha, Thats really funny. Seriously. I think Boeing will snap up Bombardier. Its the only way Bombardier will survive. The Canadian government will be happy to have Bombardier sell to Boeing. Otherwise they'll be destroyed by Embraer, and have to make trains full time. It going to be 2008 and things are different now. The 737RS project is very big and very important will make its own rules.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6685
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:03 pm



Quoting Rampart (Reply 75):

Whatever happened with demonstrations using the Coanda effect? Look at the Boeing YC-14, an example of an over (or, more correctly, a front and slightly over) mounted engine.

While the Boeing prototype was not funded for further development, its Russian (Ukrainian?) counterpart returned to more conventional underwing configuration (which ironically didn't attract many orders) after the quite "successful" production run of the original overwing design.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nik Deblauwe
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Youri Kabernik - Russian AviaPhoto Team

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:41 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 79):
Would the Canadian authorities even allow this to happen? Put the shoe on the other foot, would Bombardier be allowed to buy out Boeing?

Quite happily they would allow it.. it's either that or BBD likely continues to become increasingly irrelevant. BBD is of much less strategic importance to Canada than Boeing is the US. Additionally Boeing is well liked by the powers that be in Canada.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 80):
You don't have to guess... Boeing will never buy BBD... not even the Aerospace Division.

Ahh there's that word never again.. I love it  Wink Never say never.. particularly in this instance as there are more than one way to skin this cat. The two could JV on something, Boeing could buy a minority stake and tech transfer.. lots and lots of things could achieve the same effective end.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24005
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:18 pm



Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 7):
Number of engine options - one, two, or three? While the market could support three engine manufacturers, offering only one or two options could reduce production costs. This was a major factor in offering only two options for the 787 (GE and RR).

If Boeing and Airbus do it right, they can offer 2 engine options, like the B787, and allow the leasing co/airlines decide on engine type (even better w/ 3). The engines on the 787 will be able to be hot-swapped. So, you could lease a 787 w/ RR, then re-sell later to someone, and put GE engines on it. This will be a new concept that must be continued, imho.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:27 pm



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 85):
If Boeing and Airbus do it right, they can offer 2 engine options, like the B787, and allow the leasing co/airlines decide on engine type (even better w/ 3). The engines on the 787 will be able to be hot-swapped. So, you could lease a 787 w/ RR, then re-sell later to someone, and put GE engines on it. This will be a new concept that must be continued, imho.

How about taking it one step further and being able to swap turbo-props onto the wing for shorter missions? I imagine wing design might be a big issue however.

The fuel savings to airlines of turboprop operations might be enough to persuade Boeing to take this in account in the design.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24005
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:42 pm



Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 57):
"We've said we're willing to be a launch customer whenever they are ready to launch," UAL Chief Financial Officer Jake Brace told a Reuters summit on Monday.

Currently UAL has apprx 341 a/c that fit into the 110-182 pax range (B735/733/A319/320/B757). Considering if 1 a/c could be built w/ 3 or 2 variants that could service all goals, it would be a rather huge order. I think UA is just waiting for Boeing or Airbus to bite.

Same goes for AA, who ops. apprx 522 a/c in that range (MD80, 737NG, 757).

Nearly 1000 a/c for just 2 customers...
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:37 pm



Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 86):
How about taking it one step further and being able to swap turbo-props onto the wing for shorter missions? I imagine wing design might be a big issue however.

The fuel savings to airlines of turboprop operations might be enough to persuade Boeing to take this in account in the design.

Boeing wont ever do that, they'd be too scared of all the fanboys on here  Wink

I would love it if they did though. A new large turboprop would be lovely!

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21634
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:24 pm



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 39):
2+3+2 for the 180 and 230 seater.

Nope. Too much re-design. You've just made two separate planes.

It has to be 3+3. Here's why: The smallest variants of this plane will be 3+3. If you change the width to 2+3+2 then you've designed a whole new plane that is essentially indistinguishable from a short variant of the 787.

2+2+2 is equally unlikely for two reasons: 1) it wastes space. The rule is: you may not have a passenger more than two seats from an aisle. With that rule, a 2+2+2 arrangement is wasteful. 2) The wasted space could go into wider seats.

I think the image posted above is spot-on (less rakish tail, though). It will look strangely like the Bombardier C-series. Why? Convergent evolution.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:07 pm



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 84):
Ahh there's that word never again.. I love it Never say never.. particularly in this instance as there are more than one way to skin this cat. The two could JV on something, Boeing could buy a minority stake and tech transfer.. lots and lots of things could achieve the same effective end.

Nope. There is nothing in BBD that Boeing could want.  Smile As it is, BBD already outsources a majority of their aircraft design and production.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 87):
Currently UAL has apprx 341 a/c that fit into the 110-182 pax range (B735/733/A319/320/B757). Considering if 1 a/c could be built w/ 3 or 2 variants that could service all goals, it would be a rather huge order. I think UA is just waiting for Boeing or Airbus to bite.

UA is not waiting for B or A to bite. By 2015 when Boeing is indicating earliest EIS (however, I believe that EIS will probably be later), the domestic scene will look very differently.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:54 am



Quoting Rampart (Reply 75):

Whatever happened with demonstrations using the Coanda effect? Look at the Boeing YC-14, an example of an over (or, more correctly, a front and slightly over) mounted engine. It helped aerodynamics, didn't hurt it.

It helped STOL performance. It's not good at all for cruise.

Quoting Rampart (Reply 75):
Of course, I don't know if it has limits on speed. Th YC-14 was rather slow.

Bingo.

Quoting PavlovsDog (Reply 86):
How about taking it one step further and being able to swap turbo-props onto the wing for shorter missions? I imagine wing design might be a big issue however.

I agree with you that wing design would be a challenge. Wings are pretty highly optimized for one flight regime. I don't think there's enough overlap between turboprop and jet missions and speeds for one wing to do both well.

Tom.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21634
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:39 am

One prediction I will make: It will be pretty. Boeing doesn't do ugly airliners. Not their style. Airbus doesn't seem to care if they build a bulbous-nosed whale, but Boeing makes 'em pretty.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:43 am



Quoting Sh0rtybr0wn (Reply 47):
What are strengths and weaknesses of 2-3-2 vs. 3-3 ?

Turn time for the 180 and 230 seater.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 50):
I think you're thinking fatigue, and you're right as far as that goes. I was thinking durability in terms of ramp rash. A 0.005 CFRP skin might be fine for the flight loading but you could probably poke a pencil through it if you weren't careful.

The strength of the program will be from the wing and the engine. The 787 has already shown you can have a heavier plane and better performance to offset that weight in terms of cost.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 89):
Nope. Too much re-design. You've just made two separate planes.

What do you mean "re-design". This will be a clean sheet bird. Furthermore, Boeing has already discussed the "two plane" concept with a single aisle optimized for the smaller variants and a twin aisle for the larger variants.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:53 am



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 90):
Nope. There is nothing in BBD that Boeing could want. As it is, BBD already outsources a majority of their aircraft design and production.

If Boeing went with 2 models for the 737RS 'size range' I could see acquiring or partnering with BBD an effect way to gain access to engineering/production/management resources more cheaply and quickly than Boeing might otherwise be able to. To me the value of BBD in a Boeing match up scenario is the soft assets rather than the hard or purely techincal assets.

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 90):
UA is not waiting for B or A to bite. By 2015 when Boeing is indicating earliest EIS (however, I believe that EIS will probably be later), the domestic scene will look very differently.

Personally I'm not even sure UA would be around then (at least as a stand-alone entity). They are on my short list or a fairly quick exit (i.e. next 5 years) as a stand-alone.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 93):
Boeing has already discussed the "two plane" concept with a single aisle optimized for the smaller variants and a twin aisle for the larger variants.

And I still think they will end up going that route. Realistically Boeing could cover 100-230ish seats with two frames. I can't see getting that from one frame alone. And I can't see Boeing allowing EMB (and to a much lesser extent BBD), or any Russian/Chinese vendors to get a solid foothold in the 100-150 seat market. Remember that lower market while not a money maker in and of itself, is the likely entry point for new competitors, and from a STRATEGIC value perspective, I think Boeing has figured they best start defending the bottom.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:56 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 94):
And I still think they will end up going that route. Realistically Boeing could cover 100-230ish seats with two frames. I can't see getting that from one frame alone. And I can't see Boeing allowing EMB (and to a much lesser extent BBD), or any Russian/Chinese vendors to get a solid foothold in the 100-150 seat market. Remember that lower market while not a money maker in and of itself, is the likely entry point for new competitors, and from a STRATEGIC value perspective, I think Boeing has figured they best start defending the bottom.

Not to mention the nightmare of boarding 230 with a Single Aisle. Ever flown a 757-300? Bad... just bad.
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:21 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 94):
To me the value of BBD in a Boeing match up scenario is the soft assets rather than the hard or purely techincal assets.

It might seem like a good plan on paper but in reality they wouldn't many of the "soft assets"!!! And those that they need are easily hired away (as they have done in the past).

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 94):
They are on my short list for a fairly quick exit (i.e. next 5 years) as a stand-alone.

I agree.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 94):
And I can't see Boeing allowing EMB (and to a much lesser extent BBD), or any Russian/Chinese vendors to get a solid foothold in the 100-150 seat market.

EMB may venture upwards to the next capacity but it will not be a big deal to either B or A.

BBD won't happen. If the market was really there BBD would have launched the CSeries at least this year... and now they have put off a launch decision... yet again, to March at the earliest. In addition, they stated at the Nov. 28th earnings conference that the program will cost more but won't reveal the new numbers next year.

And forget about Russia or China for the next narrow body round... there just isn't enough time for them to crack the western market (they'll just be hard pressed to meet domestic sales and might just be taking baby steps outside their home markets with the ARJ and SuperJet).
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:20 pm



Quoting Planemaker (Reply 96):
And forget about Russia or China for the next narrow body round... there just isn't enough time for them to crack the western market (they'll just be hard pressed to meet domestic sales and might just be taking baby steps outside their home markets with the ARJ and SuperJet).

You don't think Russia or China will make an attempt at a narrow body in the next 10(ish) years? I know if I was trying to break into the commercial av game I would go after the NB market simply due to the sheer number of the things that are needed. Even if your product is slightly inferrior you could still move units due to demand and the 'majors' being sold out until the end of time.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
ckfred
Posts: 5166
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:07 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 77):


Quoting Ckfred (Reply 74):
A friend of mine is a pilot with AA. Back in the early 90s, when he was a 727 F/O, he hated getting stuck behind a 737 Classic, because it couldn't fly as fast as a 727-100 or -200.

As far as fuel prices are concerned, the early '90s is ancient history. Fuel costs are really hurting airlines - if new super-efficent single aisle designs are 20-25% more efficient to operate, the airlines won't care if they're 10% slower

You must have forgotten Boeing's marketing campaign for the 737NG was that it flew faster, higher, and farther than the 737 Classic.

My friend at AA wil also tell you that the problem now is that the RJs tend to fly up with the mainline jets, as opposed to turboprops which usually fly below mainline, and RJs are slower than mainline jets. With a higher sevice ceiling the 737NG can fly above the RJs, particularly on longer flights.

As for speed, it's still an issue. If a crew can make up 10 or 15 minutes in the air, so that it can get into the gate on time or even a few minutes early, that means that the ground crew and gate agents can get the plane turned and pushed back on time, and the airline won't have to deal with any misconnects.

And, if planes are 10% slower, that could conceivably mean that some planes will either work one less leg in a day or have to work shorter legs, as well as higher labor costs because of longer flying times. AA schedules ORD-PHX at 3:40, but add 10%, and it increases by 22 minutes to 4:02. I think the airlines would prefer Boeing to save 20 to 25% while keeping the speed of the next narrowbody the same as the 737NG.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 18115
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Decide On 737 Replacement By 2010

Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:21 am



Quoting Ckfred (Reply 98):
I think the airlines would prefer Boeing to save 20 to 25% while keeping the speed of the next narrowbody the same

I'm sure they would.

However, given the choice between a plane that offers the same speed and a 15% improvement in operating costs, and a plane that's 10% slower but offers a 25% improvement, I think I know which one the airlines would chose.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

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