Quoting astuteman (Reply 42): 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

Fair enough and your reply is exactly as suspected-directed towards the man. But now I s'pose Boeing are just saying they have 600+ commitments from 8 customers for a bit of a laugh on a.net!
Yes, I got the Neo 100% wrong. I can admit that.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): I believe so too. But I am still wondering where the 600 commitments are coming from

OK to wonder but no need to worry.

The reality is neither airframe manufacturer can meet this market alone.
Airbus did not even have to launch the NEO to maintain full production, hence they introduced risk (and I think a sizeable amount) going with a new and heavier engine, as a first application.
IMO the NEO was launched not in response to the C Series (or others) but the risk of Boeing introducing a new 737 replacement.
In this regard it is successful, because it forced Boeings hand to go with a derivative aircraft because of timing.

To be too dismissive of the 737 MAX would be a mistake IMHO.

Ruscoe

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): The NEO launched without a launch customer...

Wasn't VX onboard at launch?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): So far we know of AA on the MAX-program. Most likely Southwest and Ryanair are among the 600, but who else?

I expect WN and FR have yet to commit as both have said they were looking at it when Boeing had ~500 commitments and I expect both to weigh in with more than 100 orders between them.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 51): To be too dismissive of the 737 MAX would be a mistake IMHO.

I am not dismissive of the B737-MAX. I agreed with the move to copy the strategy of Airbus in the NB-market. And just as the NEO the MAX will sell thousands of copies without a large investment to put. And buys Boeing time to sort out the other programs and then allows them to work on the real NB-successor. Which is also the situation Airbus finds itself in.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52): Wasn't VX on-board at launch?

Not sure, but they knew they had orders coming when they launched the NEO, but did not formalised them at program launch. But the orders were disclosed quite fast after the NEO-program launch. That last part takes a lot longer with the B737-MAX.   I am just curious who has made the commitment to Boeing but has not told the world yet.   .

I'm confused about the NG extension...there are reports that Boeing have freed up room to allow the NG bay to be extended, so there will not be a blister. Others mention the previously tested blister...

Is there any confirmation which?

So what the poo is a commitment? Is it even less binding than an MOU? What is the $ value of a commitment to Boeing? Show me the money B. I have mega fatigue of your spin talk, having lived through 3 yrs of barrel spin chat about the 787.

Less talk, more deliveries n orders. That goes to Airbus too!

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 55): So what the poo is a commitment? Is it even less binding than an MOU? What is the $ value of a commitment to Boeing? Show me the money B. I have mega fatigue of your spin talk, having lived through 3 yrs of barrel spin chat about the 787. Less talk, more deliveries n orders. That goes to Airbus too!

What is the value of an order now? IIRC Skybus put down $17.5K per plane as deposit for its order. We all know how many planes were actualy delievered on that order....

Looking in from the outside we simply can't judge the relative "value" of a commitment vs order. Some airlines might spend more money securing the best slots with a "commitment" than some airlines spend on deposits for thier order.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 55): So what the poo is a commitment?

I'm hazarding a guess it is a commitment to place an order when Boeing marketing has Authority to Offer.

And it's not a unique thing in the field of commercial aviation.

John L. secured over 50 commitments for the A380 prior to the Board of Directors actually granting Authority to Offer in December 2000. And even then, it was some three months before the first actual sales contract was signed (QF in March 2001).

Attention! Attention! There are still more slots opening for more Pinheads to way-in on weather or not Boeing is actually collecting orders for the 737max A/C. Don't be late... You wouldn't want to miss out!  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57): I'm hazarding a guess it is a commitment to place an order when Boeing marketing has Authority to Offer.

So it has nothing to do with the product that Boeing will actually end up offering its just sure we'll order once marketing sends as the brochure?

Scott Hamilton thinks that Boeing are telling the airlines and the public a different tale on fuel burn improvements

Quote: An important element of the MAX briefing lies in the ambiguity surrounding the LEAP-1B engine. Although Albaugh and Hamilton confirmed what we reported weeks ago–that the 68 inch fan has been selected–we knew from our own information that the MAX in its current iteration is 2-3 percentage points in fuel burn savings less than advertised by Boeing to-date. (In fact, we had specific questions about this into Boeing Corporate Communications since Monday.) This is why Boeing revealed publicly for the first time that it has asked CFM to customize the engine core–it is an effort to recapture some of this shortfall.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...x-commitments-and-what-these-mean/

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 59): So it has nothing to do with the product that Boeing will actually end up offering its just sure we'll order once marketing sends as the brochure?

 

Boeing and Airbus sold plenty of 787s and A350s before the final configuration was defined.

Remember when NH ordered the 787? It wasn't even called the 787. It also had a shark fin for a tail.

And Airbus sold over 200 A350ENWEBs and they didn't even know what the hell they were going to make it out of!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60): Boeing and Airbus sold plenty of 787s and A350s before the final configuration was defined. Remember when NH ordered the 787? It wasn't even called the 787. It also had a shark fin for a tail. And Airbus sold over 200 A350ENWEBs and they didn't even know what the hell they were going to make it out of!

And ALL of the above worked out well for everybody didn't they!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): Most likely Southwest and Ryanair are among the 600, but who else?

  

Neither SW nor FR is among the 8 for 600+. . .

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): Why are they not disclosing these details?

Because so far, only one customer has chosen to publically announce their commitment to the 737MAX - - AA. When any of the other 7 (and growing) choose to announce, you'll know who they are!  

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): 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.

To be fair, VX was the launch customer for the NEO, who signed a firm contract in December 2010. However, it wasn't announced until a month later. Obviously, not a big deal. However, as you already pointed out - Airbus LAUNCHED the NEO without a customer. Officially, Boeing only has the ATO for the MAX. It is not yet an officially Board-launched program. . .

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 51): because it forced Boeings hand to go with a derivative aircraft because of timing.

  

As hard as it is for A.net (and the general media) to grasp, the phenomenal initial success of the NEO was not the driving factor behind the MAX decision (vs. NSA). It was the conclusion that Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base. Both Boeing and Airbus are studying the possibility of approaching 60/month rates. This was not going to happen for a very long time on the NSA, even if Boeing had launched the program last year.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 52): Wasn't VX onboard at launch?

No. As I mentioned above, Airbus did indeed launch NEO without a commitment. VX came onboard not long after.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60): Remember when NH ordered the 787? It wasn't even called the 787. It also had a shark fin for a tail.

     

Also, at the stage the MAX currently is (Authority to Offer), Boeing hadn't even selected WHO would be providing the engines (or brakes, or avionics, or fill in blank here) for the 7E7, let alone what the fan diameter would be.

I'm going to try and say this in the most polite manner possible, and the following statement is by no means directed at any one individual, but this thread has truly demonstrated the outright ignorance some A.net members have of the industry they claim to love. . . It truly makes me sad when opinions have replaced knowledge.  


Saddest regards,

Hamlet69

Would an airline like Delta, which just ordered 100 737-900ER's with an additional option for 100 have the option to convert the orders to 737Max without too much trouble, or would that be an entirely new negotiation?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 44): Which mission? Lightsaber

Circuit and bump perhaps?

You also might be justified to conclude that if only a 78" fan would fit under the wings, this too would be an optimised solution. In other words 68" is as far as she will go, hence it is now optimised.

This one is a long shot, but I'm willing to guess that new United will be the US launch customer for tne 737Max. The rest is probably from Asia, maybe one from Europe...

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): Neither SW nor FR is among the 8 for 600+. . .

Wow, I thought at least 1 of them would have been involved in the 1st 600+!

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): Because so far, only one customer has chosen to publically announce their commitment to the 737MAX - - AA. When any of the other 7 (and growing) choose to announce, you'll know who they are!

Leeham has speculated that the 1st 5 customers include AA(we know that), GOL, COPA, Norwegian and a smaller unknown customer. Will be interesting to see when other US/North American customers get involved and I'm thinking of Westjet, Alaska, and possibly UA.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): As hard as it is for A.net (and the general media) to grasp, the phenomenal initial success of the NEO was not the driving factor behind the MAX decision (vs. NSA). It was the conclusion that Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base. Both Boeing and Airbus are studying the possibility of approaching 60/month rates. This was not going to happen for a very long time on the NSA, even if Boeing had launched the program last year.

Thankyou. Boeing has consistently mentioned this as well. They could make the NSA but they didn't know how to produce them at 60/month. Many here seem to scoff at that for whatever reason.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 64): You also might be justified to conclude that if only a 78" fan would fit under the wings, this too would be an optimised solution. In other words 68" is as far as she will go, hence it is now optimised.

Well of course. It's always a trade off and this is no different. It looks like they have chosen 68" and will have to marginally elongate the nose gear. The more change, the more cost that eventually has to be worn by the customer, so 68" appears to be the maximum diameter they can go with minimum change and maximum efficiency.

[Edited 2011-11-03 20:57:09]

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): Leeham has speculated that the 1st 5 customers include AA(we know that), GOL, COPA, Norwegian and a smaller unknown customer. Will be interesting to see when other US/North American customers get involved and I'm thinking of Westjet, Alaska, and possibly UA.

I would be very surprised if AS is not a launch customer for the 37MAX. The current AS delivery schedule for new a/c ends in 2014 so with some additional orders for -800 and 900ER's in 2015-16 that would bridge the gap before the MAX EIS of 2017..

I need to apologize and correct an earlier statement. Thanks to a more-observant member than I appear to be, I realize I was in error when I stated Boeing had ATO, and was working toward Launch. In fact, based on the previous 496 commitments initially received, Boeing skipped the entire ATO stage and moved straight to Program Launch.

Again, my apologies for the error.


Regards,

Hamlet69

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 50): But now I s'pose Boeing are just saying they have 600+ commitments from 8 customers for a bit of a laugh on a.net!

I was very careful not to say that. On the contrary, I'm very content that Boeing could easily have 600 commitments now with lots more to come. But then I was equally bullish about the A320NEO.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): As hard as it is for A.net (and the general media) to grasp, the phenomenal initial success of the NEO was not the driving factor behind the MAX decision (vs. NSA).

No. Amongst the reasons for the MAX would also have been the ramp-up rate you describe, and the draw on resources, both engineering and cash that NSA would have driven.
But to claim that the launch of the NEO was not ONE of the factors is frankly nonsense.

The launch of the NEO put Airbus in a position where THEY could have a huge and rapid ramp-up of new-engined aircraft to the market very quickly. And that DID change the market dynamic   
If you don't think that THIS caused Boeing's customer airlines to equally demand that they offer the market new engined aircraft at a similar speed and quantity, then I can only concur with your comment about the relative knowledge, or otherwise, shown by enthusiasts on this site....  

Rgds

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): Why are they not disclosing these details?

Traditionally Boeing lets customers dictate when to announce the order. The Dubai Airshow is pending....  

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 59): we knew from our own information that the MAX in its current iteration is 2-3 percentage points in fuel burn savings less than advertised by Boeing to-date. (In fact, we had specific questions about this into Boeing Corporate Communications since Monday.) This is why Boeing revealed publicly for the first time that it has asked CFM to customize the engine core–it is an effort to recapture some of this shortfall.

If true, then GE has some work ahead of it. A 3% shortfall would be unusually large.

If GE not yet willing to guarantee fuel burn, then most airlines wouldn't step forward.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 64): In other words 68" is as far as she will go, hence it is now optimised.

yep.   But a smaller fan naturally reduces the costs on shorter missions (less fuel/maintenance costs in climb). It will be interesting to see the numbers at different ranges.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): The launch of the NEO put Airbus in a position where THEY could have a huge and rapid ramp-up of new-engined aircraft to the market very quickly. And that DID change the market dynamic

   It forced Boeing to offer a new product that much earlier.

Lightsaber

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): No. Amongst the reasons for the MAX would also have been the ramp-up rate you describe, and the draw on resources, both engineering and cash that NSA would have driven.

Boeing obviously needed a fast ramp up on a re-engined plane, but I still believe that the American order and the 787 issues scared Boeing into being too conservative and taking the route with the absolute least risk and least reward. They should have done more to improve the airframe and take advantage of the extra time they had to come up with their design and ensure that the plane will be competitive until they do get to the NSA. As of now, all that time was spent on nothing and how long the re-engine will be competitive is not guaranteed.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 55): So what the poo is a commitment?

Better than nothing. Worse than just about everything else.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62):

I apologise, I'm responding on my smartphone which won't allow me to select the text. Just to say, don't hate the fanboy/girl. Some are attracted, nay inspired by the inner workings of a bulb, others by its glow. Same thing with the airline industry. Different strokes...



I'm in no doubt that Boeing will sell some thousands of MAX planes. But to have someone at Boeing say something as obvious as "the airlines will order when they want to" is frustrates one.

[Edited 2011-11-03 23:36:42]

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): If true, then GE has some work ahead of it. A 3% shortfall would be unusually large. If GE not yet willing to guarantee fuel burn, then most airlines wouldn't step forward.

The tussle between the Leap and the GTF routes is going to be fascinating.

Am I not interpreting it correctly or have there been requests that GE produce a more efficient for for the small fan Leap than the larger fan Leap?

If that could be achieved without increased maintenance it is a bit difficult to see NEO customers not immediately demanding the same or similar on their donk?? And if it means more maintenance, well that rather defeats the current trends???

There is going to be a lot of "competition for Astuteman's peanuts". Come to that A, could you not switch to cashews, the curly nature of cashews might be more appropriate?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): But to claim that the launch of the NEO was not ONE of the factors is frankly nonsense.

It appears Hamlet69 didn't make such a claim. Did someone else?

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): If you don't think that THIS caused Boeing's customer airlines to equally demand that they offer the market new engined aircraft at a similar speed and quantity, then I can only concur with your comment about the relative knowledge, or otherwise, shown by enthusiasts on this site....

A bit high and mighty. I have worked in the industry and Hamlet69 is usually right on the money with his commentary. His regret about the magnitude of ignorance on this forum is spot on too. If I had a dime for every ignorant statement on this forum I would have a lot more change than what Obama has given me.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): Quoting EPA001 (Reply 49): Why are they not disclosing these details?   Traditionally Boeing lets customers dictate when to announce the order. The Dubai Airshow is pending....

You are correct, and I forgot that one.  . Now let's wait and see which orders will be announced there.   .

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): The launch of the NEO put Airbus in a position where THEY could have a huge and rapid ramp-up of new-engined aircraft to the market very quickly. And that DID change the market dynamic It forced Boeing to offer a new product that much earlier.

Indeed it did.   

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73): The tussle between the Leap and the GTF routes is going to be fascinating.

That one will be most interesting to watch. I hope the GTF will live up to its promises as it is for me a technical more interesting design.

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 74): Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): But to claim that the launch of the NEO was not ONE of the factors is frankly nonsense. It appears Hamlet69 didn't make such a claim. Did someone else?

Well, I do really respect his good postings, but he wrote that the launch of the NEO was not the driving factor behind the launch of the MAX. Well, maybe it was not the driving factor, but for sure the NEO-success forced Boeing to take another direction. And to take it a lot sooner then they wanted, hence the "messy" launch of the B737-MAX making quite some big claims on the technical side without having even made the key decisions on engine size, etc, etc.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 59): Scott Hamilton thinks that Boeing are telling the airlines and the public a different tale on fuel burn improvements Quote: An important element of the MAX briefing lies in the ambiguity surrounding the LEAP-1B engine. Although Albaugh and Hamilton confirmed what we reported weeks ago–that the 68 inch fan has been selected–we knew from our own information that the MAX in its current iteration is 2-3 percentage points in fuel burn savings less than advertised by Boeing to-date. (In fact, we had specific questions about this into Boeing Corporate Communications since Monday.) This is why Boeing revealed publicly for the first time that it has asked CFM to customize the engine core–it is an effort to recapture some of this shortfall. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011...mean/

Interesting read so see how slippery the road is they are on.

I think, CFM customers who have signed up CFM engines with their NEO orders will ultimately request CFM to deliver any Fuel burn efficient core improvement either at EIS or at least as a quick PIP when it becomes available with another application and so probably Airbus will request that CFM will not hold back any core improvement to favor Boeing application.

But I don't think it is necessary. I think at the current point CFM and Boeing couldn't agree yet on commitments.
CFM may request to increase the fan diameter further and Boeing won't commit yet to such a probably way more expensive change. In the meantime CFM studies core improvements, but still I wonder why Boeing calculates that this core improvement wouldn't be available to Airbus and other (COMAC) applications.

So in fact Boeing Marketing is caught 2-3 % over promising now, but still they dare to calculate their fuel burn advantage over competitor. How long do they want to keep this up?

And: where are Airbus JL's typical comments to that when A'Net waits for some nice placed comedy sketch. May he play with Leehman's naming 737-MIN ?

regards

Flyglobal

[Edited 2011-11-04 01:49:58]

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.

I had the information about the longer nose fear from that link too but decided to post the much more detailed Leeham-source (not noticing that Leeham did not mention the longer gear).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38): 777-200ER should have clubbed the A330-300

And the 77W the A346. Oh wait, it did!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57): I'm hazarding a guess it is a commitment to place an order when Boeing marketing has Authority to Offer.

Do you mean that nobody was authorized to offer AA a reengined 737?

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 59): This is why Boeing revealed publicly for the first time that it has asked CFM to customize the engine core–it is an effort to recapture some of this shortfall.

In place of Airbus I would insist to get any core-improvement the 737 gets. That way they could keep their relative advantage. CFM should build exactly the same core for both engines. Why should CFM build two lines of the Leap, one that is a spin-off from an early stage in development and one that has a much better core? If a changed core can improve the B/R while keeping a limited fan size the same core can shine even more with a larger fan.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): As hard as it is for A.net (and the general media) to grasp, the phenomenal initial success of the NEO was not the driving factor behind the MAX decision (vs. NSA). It was the conclusion that Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base.

And why couldn't they sustain the customer base? Because the customers would obviously have bought something else? E.g. the A320NEO? (keeping the customer base per definition means that existing customers won't order another product).

So in function of customers buying something else and as a result Boeing not being able to sustain the customer base, the A320NEO did drive the decision. Your argument is a full 360 in two sentences.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): It truly makes me sad when opinions have replaced knowledge.

And where is the evidence that SW and FR are not amongst the 600? Or is this only your knowledge?

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 74): It appears Hamlet69 didn't make such a claim. Did someone else?

Read the post of Hamlet69 for which I already wrote an answer above. I can see exactly this claim.

Like others (e.g. ebbuk) I am really annoyed by Boeing's twisting PR. To me it seems they ever soar to higher levels of blunt promises while backing off from previous claims at the same time. Wording like "I think we made the right decision for us" or permanently switching the perspective ("less fuel burn vs this and less cost vs that") really is only useful to camouflage their real position. One interpretation, that we sadly can't rule out, would be that their position is vague or weak.

Most Anet posters (even most Boeing fans) seem to be far more realistic regarding the improvements of the 737MAX than Boeing itself. E.g. not a single poster seems to overtake Boeing's view that the 737MAX will be more fuel efficient than the A320NEO in common. There is healthy pinch of skepticism and reflection, which is good IMO.

Appendix to keep the balance: I also have to say that I agree with those, who think that the 737MAX will just be an excellent business case for Boeing (in absolute terms). In relative terms it could show weaknesses however. The 734 was also excellent business in absolut terms. But it failed to defend a competitor to grow from Baby-stage to Rambo-stage..

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): not a single poster seems to overtake Boeing's view that the 737MAX will be more fuel efficient than the A320NEO

There is never a certainty. Fuel consumption figures are based on the airline's configurations, as well as the mission itself. On some missions, the 737MAX will have the advantage. On others, the A320NEO will have the advantage. That doesn't make Boeing's claim wrong. It's incorrect to suggest that the A320NEO is always more fuel efficient than the 737MAX, just as it is incorrect to suggest that the 737MAX will always be more fuel efficient than the A320NEO.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 78):

  
Such balanced views are exactly what I mean!   Every point you mention is correct. But you paint quite a different picture than Boeing who indicates that the 737MAX uses less fuel than the A320NEO in common...

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 79): But you paint quite a different picture than Boeing who indicates that the 737MAX uses less fuel than the A320NEO in common...

I don't agree:

Quote: 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.

Quote: The airplane will have the capacity for increased range while providing better fuel efficiency than today's already-efficient 737.

The only mention to fuel burn is that it will have a 10-12% lower fuel burn than the 737NG. The claim that Boeing made is somewhat vague as to the details. Boeing never specifically claimed that the 737MAX will be more fuel efficient than the A320NEO. It only claims an advantage over the competition in operating costs, of which fuel burn costs are but a small part.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 80): Boeing never specifically claimed that the 737MAX will be more fuel efficient than the A320NEO.

Oh yes they did.....

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.

Quoting extra300 (Reply 81): Oh yes they did.....

I take that back.  

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): They could make the NSA but they didn't know how to produce them at 60/month. Many here seem to scoff at that for whatever reason.

I really have problems with this claim. If they can make them in lower volumes then they must be able to figure out how to make them in higher volumes. They may not get as much economy of scale as desired but this by it self certainly isn't the make or brake.

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 66): They could make the NSA but they didn't know how to produce them at 60/month. Many here seem to scoff at that for whatever reason.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 62): It was the conclusion that Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base.

It seems to me that this is, in large part, a "convenient truth" for Boeing. However, it does pose one simple question. If Boeing is unable to produce NSA in large enough numbers in around 10 years time, when will they ever be able to? Or do we just wait another 15 years for the 737EVENMOREMAXERTHANTHELASTONE?   

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 74): A bit high and mighty. I have worked in the industry and Hamlet69 is usually right on the money with his commentary

Indeed he is, and he has my respect for that.
That said, show me someone who is 100% correct 100% of the time and we'll be in fantasyland.

Before the launch of the NEO, just about EVERY comment from both Boeing and their customer base pointed towards "Boeings customers pushing hard for a new plane".
It was always abundantly clear that NSA was never going to be available until 2019/2020, and never in substantial numbers until the mid '20's. That's all documented.

By launching the NEO, Airbus demonstrated the ability to have "new engined" aicraft to the market by 2015 and in number possibly in excess of 500 a year by 2018.
And this prompted a bow-wave of pent-up demand to be released.

It seems very clear to me that AFTER the launch of the NEO, Boeing were pressured to respond in a timescale much more akin to that of the A320NEO, and didn't have a hope of doing so with NSA.
NEO unquestionably changed the market dynamic.

To come back to Hamlet69's post, the reason "Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base" is precisely because "the phenomenal success of the NEO" satisfied the demonstrated pent-up demand for new engined aircraft at the earliest opportunity, whether they were next generation OR re-engined versions of existing aircraft.

To try and divorce the launch, and consequent runaway success of the A320NEO from the decision to launch the MAX seems completely implausible to me. The two are inextricably linked - because the first changed the market dynamic.

And I'm sorry to say, but as you brought it up, if you really want an example of

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 74): A bit high and mighty

then characterising this point of view as outright ignorance "for a real enthusiast" strikes me as one.
If I'm getting completely the wrong end of the stick here, then I'll apologise.

Quoting StressedOut (Reply 74): His regret about the magnitude of ignorance on this forum is spot on too. If I had a dime for every ignorant statement on this forum I would have a lot more change than what Obama has given me

I suspect we'll agree on that.
Whether you and I have the same definition of what constitutes ignorance, is of course a moot point.  

Rgds

So what are the details so far?


- new engines
- partly fly-by-wire control
- new exhaust cone
- longer forward landig gear
- new pylons

What is coming next?

- CFRP-doors for the main landing gear are under consideration
- B787-style cockpit?
- Raked wingtips from the Poseidon?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71): They should have done more to improve the airframe and take advantage of the extra time they had to come up with their design and ensure that the plane will be competitive until they do get to the NSA.

Just so we're clear, you're claiming that the 737MAX will *not* be competitive? How do you explain 600 "orders"?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): Do you mean that nobody was authorized to offer AA a reengined 737?

Yes. At the time the AA deal came to light, Boeing was very clear that their Board Of Directors hadn't authorized launching the 737MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): CFM should build exactly the same core for both engines. Why should CFM build two lines of the Leap, one that is a spin-off from an early stage in development and one that has a much better core?

They have two lines to do the -5 and -7 right now (A320 and 737NG)...why would that suddenly change? They're not the same engine, they shouldn't have the same core.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): And where is the evidence that SW and FR are not amongst the 600?

I don't think anyone has hard evidence but there's plenty of circumstantial:
-Based on WN & FR's public statements, any narrowbody order from them will be big. 600 isn't large enough to contain a WN or FR order *and* the orders we know about.
-WN and FR are not known for staying quiet about fleet plans...I have a tough time believing either would make a substantial commitment to the 737MAX, stay quiet about it for months, and not have the secret leak by now.

Tom.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 58): There are still more slots opening for more Pinheads to way-in on weather or not Boeing is actually collecting orders for the 737max A/C.

What does meteorology have to do with this?   

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 61): And ALL of the above worked out well for everybody didn't they!

Yes it did. And it will work out well for Boeing and the 737MAX.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): If true, then GE has some work ahead of it. A 3% shortfall would be unusually large.

Based on the GEnx program, maybe not so unusual.  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): If GE not yet willing to guarantee fuel burn, then most airlines wouldn't step forward.

That GE/CFM is securing orders for the LEAP-X implies they must be offering something, but they could be following Pratt's lead and holding back SFC as protection.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 71): Boeing obviously needed a fast ramp up on a re-engined plane, but I still believe that the American order and the 787 issues scared Boeing into being too conservative and taking the route with the absolute least risk and least reward. They should have done more to improve the airframe and take advantage of the extra time they had to come up with their design and ensure that the plane will be competitive until they do get to the NSA. As of now, all that time was spent on nothing and how long the re-engine will be competitive is not guaranteed.

But Boeing is working to improve the airframe and take advantage of the extra time. Boeing didn't decide the engine fan diameter with the AA announcement. They've taken months to study it and where they could have just stayed with 61", they have decided to go with 68" even though that will require modification to the nose-gear mounting to accommodate it. They're also adding FBW to the spoilers. Re-profiling the aft fuselage for better aero. And beefing up the MLG (for higher ZFW/TOW?). And they have said they're still looking at other modifications.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 73): Am I not interpreting it correctly or have there been requests that GE produce a more efficient for for the small fan Leap than the larger fan Leap? If that could be achieved without increased maintenance it is a bit difficult to see NEO customers not immediately demanding the same or similar on their donk?? And if it means more maintenance, well that rather defeats the current trends?

The GEnx2B on the 747-8 has a newer fan than the one on the GEnx1B (that fan will be PIP'd in on that platform) and there was but a handful of years between EIS of those two engine models. So it could be that the LEAP-1XB for the MAX will have fan improvements compared to the -1XA on the A320neo, though it stands to reason those improvements will be PIPable on the A320neo and included in later builds at the factory.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): Do you mean that nobody was authorized to offer AA a reengined 737?

I can't believe Randy would just put out there something he had no permission to. It is possible the Boeing BoD gave marketing the mandate to try and sell the NSA, but if it looked like they'd lose a large customer to the A320neo, offer them the MAX.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): And where is the evidence that SW and FR are not amongst the 600?

The CEOs of both airlines have stated they were not yet 737MAX customers when Boeing had 500 commitments. It is also significantly unlikely that they committed to only ~100 frames between them. FR will take at least 200, based on the fact they have identified they need that many 737s of any type and are trying to get the right re-sale terms from Boeing. WN will also certainly file an initial order in the hundreds.

[Edited 2011-11-04 07:08:37]

In a nutshell boeing are saying the 737MAX will weigh less than the NEO and therefore need lower thrust, and hence lower fuel consumption.
Boeing will be competitive with 68".
How do i know this?

Because the 737 is their bread and butter and they will do whatever it takes to make sure it is competitive. They have already reshaped the rear of the aircraft, and now legthening the front gear and beefing up the undercarriage imo so that not only will it have an advantage on short routes but a MTOW increase means it will be able to match the range of the 320, albeit not as efficiently.

Ruscoe

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 90): Because the 737 is their bread and butter and they will do whatever it takes to make sure it is competitive.

I agree, Boeing should do whatever it takes. Whether "whatever it takes" matches the Boeing's intended effort is the question I have raised. It seems not.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 87): Just so we're clear, you're claiming that the 737MAX will *not* be competitive? How do you explain 600 "orders"?

It has 600 "comittments" it has zero orders; even if it is not competitive being made by Boeing and because Airbus cannot fulfill 100% of market need it would still capture a considerable marketshare

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89): and there was but a handful of years between EIS of those two engine models

What? The 2b had EIS last month, the 1b should EIS in a couple of months once Boeing finishes certification of the GENx powered 787

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 90): Because the 737 is their bread and butter and they will do whatever it takes to make sure it is competitive

In the words of Montgomery Scott you canne' change the laws of physics, they will do what they can with what they have but that still may not get it to parr with the NEO

[Edited 2011-11-04 08:35:50]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89): That GE/CFM is securing orders for the LEAP-X implies they must be offering something, but they could be following Pratt's lead and holding back SFC as protection.

There is the GE financing arm that has often be said to be a decisive difference. Not that it can overcome every disadvantage. But it can change a small disadvantage to a small advantage.

My take on all of this is that the A320NEO boxed Boeing into a corner that they would have liked to have avoided. They clearly did not want to do another 737 upgrade, but would have preferred to go directly to a new model, but not until the 787 was well under control (including the 787-10.) But with Airbus pushing the NEO button, they ran out of time, and while if they could have guaranteed a new, better plane with EIS before 2020 they might have been able to get away with it, but after the 787 fiasco nobody was going to believe them (not even me, and I am a die-hard Boeing fan.) So in order to maintain market share they were forced to offer the MAX; and if anyone still believes that the NEO had nothing to do with the timing then I have such a deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for them. It also appears to me that the AA deal is what pushed them over the edge.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86): - CFRP-doors for the main landing gear are under consideration

Aren't they main landing gear doors already composite?

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86): - Raked wingtips from the Poseidon?

I can't imagine airlines being excited about an increased wingspan since the 737 has to fit into tight gates anyway. The Raked wingtips were a result of the Poseidon's unique operating environments that the MAX will not have to operate in.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 86): So what are the details so far? - new engines - partly fly-by-wire control - new exhaust cone - longer forward landig gear - new pylons

The image released by Boeing has a new tailcone and revised tail.

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 92): What? The 2b had EIS last month, the 1b should EIS in a couple of months once Boeing finishes certification of the GENx powered 787

Sorry. Replace "EIS" with "development". The GEnx2B was developed after the GEnx1B so GE was able to put into place improvements.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 88): Quoting mffoda (Reply 58): There are still more slots opening for more Pinheads to way-in on weather or not Boeing is actually collecting orders for the 737max A/C. What does meteorology have to do with this?

A very sharp remark.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): If true, then GE has some work ahead of it. A 3% shortfall would be unusually large. Based on the GEnx program, maybe not so unusual.

Which reminds me of the thread a couple of months ago about GE having lost the Mojo in engine manufacturing. I don't believen they have, but maybe they are also suffering from an over-promising marketing department?  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 89): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70): If GE not yet willing to guarantee fuel burn, then most airlines wouldn't step forward. That GE/CFM is securing orders for the LEAP-X implies they must be offering something, but they could be following Pratt's lead and holding back SFC as protection.

Maybe a low-key approach is a wise move here. But that would contradict the indications that they are at present 3% off of their mark.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 91): I agree, Boeing should do whatever it takes. Whether "whatever it takes" matches the Boeing's intended effort is the question I have raised. It seems not.

No doubt, and I repeat myself and others here, the MAX will be a phenomenal sale success. Maybe (probably) the MAX will loose out a little bit on market share to the NEO, of which also I have (a bit) higher expectations. That will be enough before both Airbus and Boeing will bring on their real next generation Narrow-Body Airliners in the mid 2020's or maybe even a little bit later? (so both can sort out speedy ramp-up issues for the new model).  .

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 97): Maybe (probably) the MAX will loose out a little bit on market share to the NEO, of which also I have (a bit) higher expectations.

I doubt even that will happen. If the relative performance of the two is different from that of the current planes, then pricing power will just shift a bit. Anticipated demand will have both makers selling every aircraft they can build.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): But to claim that the launch of the NEO was not ONE of the factors is frankly nonsense.

Of course. And in no way did my statement intend to apply otherwise.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 69): The launch of the NEO put Airbus in a position where THEY could have a huge and rapid ramp-up of new-engined aircraft to the market very quickly. And that DID change the market dynamic

Both Airbus and Boeing were going to do SOMETHING. Everyone knew it, especially Boeing and Airbus. For Airbus, the NEO was obvious. The market knew it. Airbus knew it. Boeing knew it. It was only a question of when it would be launched. In that sense, I would disagree with you that the NEO itself caused the dynamic to change. Where I will most certainly agree with you, with what DID change the dynamic was how quickly A320 customers embraced the NEO. I don't think anyone, even Airbus, expected it to catch on as quickly, and in such numbers, as it did.

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 67): The current AS delivery schedule for new a/c ends in 2014 so with some additional orders for -800 and 900ER's in 2015-16 that would bridge the gap before the MAX EIS of 2017..

Expect to see quite a bit of 737NG orders still. And I'm not just talking about AS. . . .  

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): CFM should build exactly the same core for both engines. Why should CFM build two lines of the Leap

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the -5 and -7 don't have the same core NOW, do they? Why should the LEAP be any different? Why would CFM build a common core for two different aircraft with different weights, and thus different requirements? One way or another, one of the engines will be built for the wrong application. Why would either Boeing or Airbus approve this?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): And where is the evidence that SW and FR are not amongst the 600?

Ummm, how about the airlines themselves? Good enough place? When it was 5 for 496, both SW and FR said they were not part of the group. Now that it's 8 for 600+, do you think that has changed? Do you honestly think either SW or FR would commit to an order that small?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 77): Read the post of Hamlet69 for which I already wrote an answer above. I can see exactly this claim.

Then you did not read it properly.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 78): There is never a certainty. Fuel consumption figures are based on the airline's configurations, as well as the mission itself. On some missions, the 737MAX will have the advantage. On others, the A320NEO will have the advantage.

     

Quoting cmf (Reply 83): If they can make them in lower volumes then they must be able to figure out how to make them in higher volumes.

 

And why is that a "must"? If I go to a 5-star restraunt in Times Square, should I demand that they deliver my food as fast as the local Burger King?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 84): If Boeing is unable to produce NSA in large enough numbers in around 10 years time, when will they ever be able to?

That, my friend, is an excellent question. And the non-existant answer scares me. And it's not just Boeing. My fear is we are fast approaching another epoch where we can no longer produce what we dream. . .

Quoting astuteman (Reply 85): That said, show me someone who is 100% correct 100% of the time and we'll be in fantasyland.

     

I've already proven myself incorrect once on this thread, so I'm out!  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 85): Before the launch of the NEO, just about EVERY comment from both Boeing and their customer base pointed towards "Boeings customers pushing hard for a new plane". It was always abundantly clear that NSA was never going to be available until 2019/2020, and never in substantial numbers until the mid '20's. That's all documented. By launching the NEO, Airbus demonstrated the ability to have "new engined" aicraft to the market by 2015 and in number possibly in excess of 500 a year by 2018. And this prompted a bow-wave of pent-up demand to be released. It seems very clear to me that AFTER the launch of the NEO, Boeing were pressured to respond in a timescale much more akin to that of the A320NEO, and didn't have a hope of doing so with NSA. NEO unquestionably changed the market dynamic. To come back to Hamlet69's post, the reason "Boeing did not believe they could produce the NSA at a rate at which it could sustain it's customer base" is precisely because "the phenomenal success of the NEO" satisfied the demonstrated pent-up demand for new engined aircraft at the earliest opportunity, whether they were next generation OR re-engined versions of existing aircraft. To try and divorce the launch, and consequent runaway success of the A320NEO from the decision to launch the MAX seems completely implausible to me. The two are inextricably linked - because the first changed the market dynamic.

Because there is one variable that was never talked about too much. It's the one variable you don't mention here. It's the one variable that Boeing tried desperately to see if it was possible, but wasn't, and thus MAX = getting to current (@ 40) frames/month very quickly. I'm not talking about 5 years, I'm talking @ 2+/-.

In other words, in your summary above, simply remove the "and never in substantial numbers until the mid '20's." portion and the dynamic changes again.

Boeing was very consistant in stating their desire to do NSA for a long time because they continued to hold out hope that they could produce it in quantity very quickly. That also may have been fantasyland. However, IF they could have done it, I truly believe the market would have waited. Airbus would still have a runaway success with the NEO, selling nearly as many frames to as nearly as many customers as we see right now (IMO, only two customers to date were 'lost' to the NEO, from Boeing's perspective). But the market in general would have waited, as it mostly waited for Boeing to decide just what the hell they were going to do in the first place.

THAT is why I say, and I still maintain, that the NEO's success was not the driving factor behind MAX vs. NSA.


Regards,

Hamlet69