Quoting scbriml (Reply 39): Or maybe he's just painting the picture that way because Boeing has no other realistic choice? To quote the old song, accentuate the positive.

Honestly, Boeing wanted to go with a bigger fan - on a new airplane, no less.

Customers said "we won't wait - give us the current frame with what you can" so it appears engine fan size doesn't matter to airliner operators as much as it seems to matter to airliner enthusiasts.

So Boeing listened to their customers and gave them the current frame with what they could. And even with "no idea of what to offer customers", those customers have committed to 600 of the bloody things so far...

...and that appears to be without WN and FR adding their own commitments - commitments which will likely be worth many hundreds each.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 11): So, you don't believe Boeing have 496 commitments apparently all to be firmed for the Max? I suspect it is very well defined with only a few is to dot and ts to cross. Admittedly, this has taken a month or 2 longer than expected but I think it's pretty close.

Your confidence just reminds me of the intensity of the scepticism you seemed to display when the A320NEO was just launched. I didn't spot when the rules changed, but its no surprise   

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): Boeing, ( not to loose faith for their change of minds ) treats the 737MAX just as a normal modification of its successfull 737 family. This is contrary to Airbus, who makes a big deal around it to justify the increase of the price.

??????? Don't get this one bit

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 16): Boeing just makes this major improvement among the many others, gets a slightly lower advantage from it, but does not increase the price

You've seen their pricing data for the MAX?

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 17): Why did Airbus launch the neo now anyway?

Blindingly obvious for anyone who wants to look - to lock up market share for "new engined" narrowbodys before anyone else does..

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 17): They had great sales

Indeed

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 17): albeit at lower than desirable margins

This unsubstantiated kite flying once more?
All the evidence points to the converse.....

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 17): Whilw enthusiasts may crow about the NEO, there is doubt as to whether it was really a good nstrategic move.

Laughable.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 27): Quoting 328JET (Reply 24):I, personally, have no clue how they want to achieve a lower fuel burn than Airbus with the NEO with a smaller engine diameter... In the same ways that the current 737NG sometimes outperforms the current A32s despite a smaller engine diameter.

Correct. I don't think this is an issue in the grand scheme of things

Quoting tistpaa727 (Reply 34): I just saw Jon posted a story saying the nose gear is lengthened 6-8 inches. Looks like Jim Albaugh said it during the presentation.

Thanks to you for posting a link to the first evidence in answer to the OP's question   

Rgds

"SEATTLE, Nov. 3, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) announced today that the 737 MAX program has selected a 68-inch fan diameter for the optimized engine design that will provide the lowest fuel burn and operating costs in the single-aisle market.

The 737 MAX continues to receive overwhelming acceptance from customers with more than 600 order commitments received to date from eight airlines, up from 496 airplanes from five airlines when the program launched in August.

The program is on schedule with internal configuration milestones of the new jet, with a continued focus on engagement with customers and partners to optimize the engine core architecture. Firm configuration for the airplane is scheduled for 2013. First flight for the 737 MAX is scheduled in 2016 with deliveries to customers beginning in 2017.

"The 737 is a more efficient, lighter design and requires less thrust than other airplanes in this class, which is important because weight and thrust have a significant effect on fuel efficiency and operating costs," said John Hamilton, 737 Chief Program Engineer. "With airlines facing rising fuel costs and weight-based costs equating to nearly 30 percent of an airline's operating costs, this optimized 68-inch fan design will offer a smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient engine to ensure we maintain the current advantage we have over the competition."

The new 737 family will be powered by CFM International LEAP-1B engines. The new-engine variant will have 10-12 percent lower fuel burn than current 737s and a 7-percent operating cost advantage over the competition. The airplane will have the capacity for increased range while providing better fuel efficiency than today's already-efficient 737.

When compared to a fleet of 100 of today's most fuel-efficient airplanes, this new model will emit 277,000 fewer tons of CO2 and save nearly 175 million pounds of fuel per year, which translates into $85 million in cost savings. The airplane's fuel burn is expected to be 16 percent lower than our competitor's current offering and 4 percent lower than their future offering.

The Boeing 737 is the world's most popular and reliable commercial jet transport. The 737 family has won orders for more than 9,000 airplanes.

Contact:

Karen Crabtree
Product Strategy Communications
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
+1-206-766-2930
[email protected]

SOURCE Boeing
"

Source: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2004

OVER 600 commitments??? Nice...

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 17): How far along the development road is the A320. It might not be as far as we believe.

The engines are the long lead item. They've had a few years head start over the LEAP-X.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 20): It will say you are having Goodrich brakes and Honeywell IRS etc etc.

It amazes me how much is customized. Aircraft are really commisioned (not ordered). One picks what you mentioned, the galley vendor, cart vendor (some airframes, not all), tire vendor, etc. On some airframes, one can even select among APUs! (Note: All newer airframes have sole source APUs last I looked. I'm talking older airframes...)

Quoting scbriml (Reply 21): The sales that have been generated in less than one year would already suggest that there is actually no doubt whatsoever. That Boeing has U-turned from their "We're going to build a new plane" position to mimic Airbus simply confirms it was the right decision.

Airbus brought a huge number of customers 'off the fence.'

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 23): According To my understanding it is as far as Pratt and CFM are with their engines.

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): After all, if engine fan size was all that mattered, the 777-200ER should have clubbed the A330-300 like a harp seal.

   Nice comeback.

My take is that the A320NEO and 737MAX will be optimized for different missions. This will see airlines with very strong opinions on which airframe is more optimal. The added weight and climb penalty of the A320NEO's engines will have that airframe at a slight disadvantage on shorter missions. The opposite will be true on longer missions. Put the two airframes performance and run a simulation on each airline's route map... Let the lower cost one win.   

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 43): The airplane's fuel burn is expected to be 16 percent lower than our competitor's current offering and 4 percent lower than their future offering.

Which mission?  

Lightsaber

Quoting scbriml (Reply 36): Confirmed by another source: http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/n....html

Quote: Boeing .. will upgrade the 737 into the 737 Max by expanding the engine diameter to 68 inches, and raise the front landing gear “6 to 8 inches” to allow the larger engines under the wing.

Haa, that's what I thought all the time. The final version (most probably) of the 737 will be nose-up while the first version (-100) started nose-down.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 43): The 737 MAX continues to receive overwhelming acceptance from customers with more than 600 order commitments received to date from eight airlines,

I don't know why but I think a small regional airline from Germany could be amongst these airlines...

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 43): Firm configuration for the airplane is scheduled for 2013.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am a bit surprised by this. Or am I missing something? Is the A320NEO configuration firm? I thought it was....

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): Which mission?

The one that they use for marketing, which also happens to be the one where the product performs best in comparison with its competitors. (And lo and behold, the competition also appears to use the same marketing strategy with their best mission. Nothing new under the sun...)

Quoting scbriml (Reply 39): Or maybe he's just painting the picture that way because Boeing has no other realistic choice? To quote the old song, accentuate the positive.

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 43): The airplane's fuel burn is expected to be 16 percent lower than our competitor's current offering and 4 percent lower than their future offering. Which mission?

Since this is a Boeing PR release, whatever one that makes Boeing look the best, of course!  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): After all, if engine fan size was all that mattered, the 777-200ER should have clubbed the A330-300 like a harp seal. Nice comeback.

Maybe if the 777-200ER and A330-300 were as similar as are A320 and 738...

Googling brought up the following:

Quote: A330-300 vs 777-200 Evaluating the economics of a 5,000NM trip (close to average route length for most 777-200ER operators; long for the A330-300). The 777-200ER�s MTOW is 150,000lbs heavier than the A330-300�s. The 777-200ER has the highest fuel burn, which is (at today�s prices) $18,000 higher than the A330-300�s. Maintenance costs for the A330-300 and 777-200ER: the Airbus will have about $65-90 per hour lower maintenance costs than the 777-200ER. Similar flightcrew salaries, and one less flight attendant for the A330 overall result in the 777-200ER having the highest cash DOC trip cost. This is $19,000 more than the A330-300 on the 5,000NM trip. The 777-200ER also has the highest list price at $190 million, compared to $166 million for the A330-300, but actual prices have been known to vary from list price . The 777-200ER has a 23-seat higher capacity, which allows more bums on seats to partially overcome its higher trip cost. The 777-200ER still, nevertheless, has the highest cost per seat.

So, not nearly as comparable as A320 vs 738, me thinks.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): My take is that the A320NEO and 737MAX will be optimized for different missions. This will see airlines with very strong opinions on which airframe is more optimal. The added weight and climb penalty of the A320NEO's engines will have that airframe at a slight disadvantage on shorter missions. The opposite will be true on longer missions. Put the two airframes performance and run a simulation on each airline's route map... Let the lower cost one win.

I realize both vendors are working in the context of their existing products, but it's interesting to me to consider if they were starting from scratch right now, which mission would they favor?

We've had discussions here before on on airliners optimized for shorter missions, and it seems there just isn't the market interest for them.

So, it'll be interesting to see how Airbus does on the longer missions, and if it's enough for them to widen the overall market leadership they now enjoy.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 37): Seems he thinks that Airbus has got its maths wrong? There's a big difference between 68" and 81", especially since drag increases with the square of radius.

To be fair, he says 68" is "the right size for the airframe". Insofar as 68" has already caused additional changes to be required of the 737, 81" could well be expected to add considerable weight and complexity to an airframe that's not really designed to accommodate it, and which may in overall cost terms, be counterproductive.

I assume 81" (or 78" for CFM) is "the right size for the airframe" for an A320 in the same way.

Perhaps worth remembering that the A320's engines are already 68" compared to the 737's 61", so the relative change in size isn't actually as big as is made out.

Rgds

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): My take is that the A320NEO and 737MAX will be optimized for different missions.

I believe so too. But I am still wondering where the 600 commitments are coming from. The NEO launched without a launch customer but we now know who is responsible for each and every one of the 1,200 or 1,300 orders/commitments being signed for them.  .

So far we know of AA on the MAX-program. Most likely Southwest and Ryanair are among the 600, but who else? Why are they not disclosing these details?   .