Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:48 pm

FG article suggests that 737MAX may only improve fuel burn by 8% over the current 737 when increase in OEW is accounted for. IMO, Boeing will probably go ahead with MAX and expedite the launch of NSA if MAX is going to be uncompetive against NEO.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ean-sheet-narrowbody-leahy-365524/

Quote:
Airbus chief operating officer customers, John Leahy cited his "reliable sources" at airlines and suppliers who have said Boeing's clean sheet New Small Airplane (NSA) wasn't fully off the table as the US airframer works to evaluate the configuration of its re-engined 737 Max.

[Edited 2011-12-02 12:55:13]
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:01 pm

By definition the 737MAX and A320neo are bridges to the NSA and A30X, so even if the 737MAX's advantage is only half that of the A320neo's, it's still significantly better than the 737NG's and airlines seem to be in favor of that, seeing as they've committed to some 700 of them.

And Boeing secured these commitments over a few months with "nothing" to show the airlines who have committed to that amount. Airbus, meanwhile, has been showing the A320neo to airlines for a year now with fancy PowerPoint presentations and plenty of datasets.

If the 737MAX maintains this level of momentum, it could eclipse the A320neo as the largest jet-powered commercial airliner launch in history and that might be causing some sweat to form on JL's brow so he's starting to ramp up the FUD...
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:09 pm

John Leahy cited his "reliable sources" at airlines and suppliers who have said Boeing's clean sheet New Small Airplane (NSA) wasn't fully off the table as the US airframer works to evaluate the configuration of its re-engined 737 Max.

He does bring up a good point that the NSA was not completely off the table when first MAX order was made. Boeing uses a gated process for aircraft design, and the MAX was not far enough along in the design process for the board to formally approve a commitment that would turn off NSA work when the MAX order was made. However the MAX is far enough in the design process to have established a baseline configuration and anticipated fuel burn and weight figures. Boeing already knows exactly what they are going to change from the NG to the MAX, they just don't know how they are going to do it since the engineering phase is not close to firm configuration.

In general Launch is a funny term since it is typically about 1/3rd of the way into a design and when the product goes from the product development/research side of engineering to the design center. Launch is a commitment from the board to go do the airplane and offer to customers, but it can be in various stages of design. I'm not surprised if Boeing still is investing significant product development & research dollars into an NSA while pushing 737MAX design to the engineers who had worked on the existing 737NG and also the crossmodel engineering teams.

Most of the article is just another rehash of this argument:

Airbus said its A320neo with 150 seats claims a 7% per seat fuel burn advantage over the 737-8 [re-engined 737-800] with 157 seats, while Boeing has said its 737-8 with 162 seats holds a 4% per seat fuel burn advantage over the 150-seat A320neo and 16% over today's A320.

The points are known: sharklets are not included in A320 performance figures, larger fan means more efficient and the 787-800 has a capacity difference between 6 and 16 seats depending on which airline you are looking at. Airbus always chooses the low end, Boeing always chooses the high end in their comparison and the result is somewhere in the middle and up to the airline to figure out.

[Edited 2011-12-02 13:14:45]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:11 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
so even if the 737MAX's advantage is only half that of the A320neo's, it's still significantly better than the 737NG's and airlines seem to be in favor of that, seeing as they've committed to some 700 of them.

It seems to me that B738MAX with its lighter weight and higher seat capacity should still be competitive for shorter stage lengths.

In another part of the FG article linked in OP, John Leahy breaks down the expected fuel burn improvements of NEO. I hope Lightsaber and others with an expertise in engines can speak to these claims.

Quote:
Leahy claimed every 2.5cm (1in) of fan diameter translates to .5% of specific fuel consumption improvement (SFC) and the 28-32% larger fans on the A320neo compared to today's A320 family aircraft correlate to a 7% SFC improvement, while an additional 7% will come from the engine's core. About 1% additional SFC comes from the integration of the engine's new pylon and nacelle.

The total combination of the core, fan and integration gives the A320neo a 15.3% improvement in SFC, while its Sharklet wingtip treatments will deliver a further 2.4% SFC improvement over 1480km (800nm) stage-lengths, said Leahy.

Overall, the 1.6t (3,500lb) increase in the empty weight of the aircraft and the added drag of the larger Leap-1A fan would increase fuel burn by 2.7%, resulting in the A320neo's 15% improvement over today's CFM56-powered A320.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:17 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
Leahy claimed every 2.5cm (1in) of fan diameter translates to .5% of specific fuel consumption improvement (SFC) and the 28-32% larger fans on the A320neo compared to today's A320 family aircraft correlate to a 7% SFC improvement, while an additional 7% will come from the engine's core. About 1% additional SFC comes from the integration of the engine's new pylon and nacelle.

The total combination of the core, fan and integration gives the A320neo a 15.3% improvement in SFC, while its Sharklet wingtip treatments will deliver a further 2.4% SFC improvement over 1480km (800nm) stage-lengths, said Leahy.

Overall, the 1.6t (3,500lb) increase in the empty weight of the aircraft and the added drag of the larger Leap-1A fan would increase fuel burn by 2.7%, resulting in the A320neo's 15% improvement over today's CFM56-powered A320.

That is a much appreciated breakdown of where their figures come from. I trust JL in comparing the NEO to the baseline A320. I don't necessarily believe the breakdown when compared to the 737. I also think it is pretty ridiculous that Boeing claims the 737NG gets 2% operating cost advantage over the A320NEO. Some creating figures might have been involved in that number.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:33 pm

Operating costs are more than just fuel costs. Financing costs are part of the operating cost and let us not forget that Airbus was planning to charge many millions more for the A320neo than the A320. And I expect CFM and Pratt want to make a return on the investment of their engines and will be at least considering charging a premium for those engines, as well.

If an A320neo is 20-25% more expensive to acquire than a 737NG (a percentage within reason when you factor current transaction prices and Airbus' stated planned mark-ups), then your financing and insurance costs are going to be not-insignificantly higher, as well, and that's going to raise your operating costs.

[Edited 2011-12-02 13:39:06]
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:36 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
Quote:
Leahy claimed every 2.5cm (1in) of fan diameter translates to .5% of specific fuel consumption improvement (SFC) and the 28-32% larger fans on the A320neo compared to today's A320 family aircraft correlate to a 7% SFC improvement, while an additional 7% will come from the engine's core. About 1% additional SFC comes from the integration of the engine's new pylon and nacelle.

I think JL is being a bit disingenuous. If his 0.5% rule is that hard and fast, then the -1000 should be at lest 7% less efficient than it would be with a properly sized fan...instead of the same fan size as the -800, yet with over 15% more thrust.

Obviously, rather than an absolute fan size correlating with an absolute thrust level, there is a range.

As well, GE would have to be in on the lie since they are the ones making the engines.

Anything someone says regarding their competitor should always be taken with a grain of salt. JL is a salesman...his job is to make his stuff look good and the other guys stuff look bad...which he does very well. He's unlikely to, out of the blue, admit that the other guy has a competitive product. That's not why he gets the big bucks.
What the...?
 
LAXDESI
Topic Author
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:17 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 2):
Airbus said its A320neo with 150 seats claims a 7% per seat fuel burn advantage over the 737-8 [re-engined 737-800] with 157 seats, while Boeing has said its 737-8 with 162 seats holds a 4% per seat fuel burn advantage over the 150-seat A320neo and 16% over today's A320.

The points are known: sharklets are not included in A320 performance figures, larger fan means more efficient and the 787-800 has a capacity difference between 6 and 16 seats depending on which airline you are looking at. Airbus always chooses the low end, Boeing always chooses the high end in their comparison and the result is somewhere in the middle and up to the airline to figure out.

As per SeatGuru, Delta has the following configurations for its B738 and A320:

.......................J...............................................Y............................................Total
B738..........16 [email protected]" pitch...............144 [email protected]" pitch..................160
A320..........16 [email protected]" pitch...............132 [email protected]" pitch..................148

The current configuration of Delta shows B738 with an advantage of 12 seats, which is in line with Boeing claims on 2-class layout. This 8% advantage in seat count should help B738MAX compete against A320NEO, even if A320NEO has 8% lower block fuel burn than B738MAX.
 
chiad
Posts: 1371
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:23 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
Quote:
Airbus chief operating officer customers, John Leahy cited his "reliable sources" at airlines and suppliers who have said Boeing's clean sheet New Small Airplane (NSA) wasn't fully off the table as the US airframer works to evaluate the configuration of its re-engined 737 Max.

The salesman JL is a salesman. He was, however, was 100% correct about Boeing's previous talk, talk, talk & more talk about NSA, then eventually to fall back on a re-engine.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If the 737MAX maintains this level of momentum, it could eclipse the A320neo as the largest jet-powered commercial airliner launch in history and that might be causing some sweat to form on JL's brow so he's starting to ramp up the FUD...

It could. But we have yet the see the actual offering to airlines.
Hard to say, but I would place my bets on the NEO. The next 12 months will reveal a lot!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:39 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 6):
JL is a salesman...his job is to make his stuff look good and the other guys stuff look bad...which he does very well.

Indeed, he is sowing FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in the customer's minds as to whether or not the MAX will be a short-lived product soon to be replaced by the NSA.

For Boeing's point of view, the article says:

Quote:

Boeing disputed Leahy's claim, saying that it was "absolutely" 100% committed to building the 737 Max, for which the company holds over 700 commitments from nine customers after it was officially launched in late-August. The airframer expects it first firm 737 Max order before the end of the year.

The linked article http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-the-narrowbody-status-quo-365249/ shows:



It seems Boeing is on the same orders trajectory as is Airbus.

So Boeing at least has promised the customers something interesting enough to gain significant interest.

All JL is trying to do is make potential customers doubt whether or not Boeing can deliver on their promises.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
flyabr
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:52 pm

What happens to the MAX and it's sales numbers if the GTF proves significantly better in fuel economy vs the LEAPX??
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:59 pm

Quoting flyabr (Reply 10):
What happens to the MAX and it's sales numbers if the GTF proves significantly better in fuel economy vs the LEAPX??

Boeing will be caught in a situation where they'll have to figure out how to use the GTF. Pratt has claimed that they can make it fit on the 737. Airbus is at an advantage there as they will have both so if one is far and away better, they still get the sales.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:11 pm

Quoting Chiad (Reply 8):

The salesman JL is a salesman. He was, however, was 100% correct about Boeing's previous talk, talk, talk & more talk about NSA, then eventually to fall back on a re-engine.

If you remember, Boeing said they preferred to do a NSA but they would do whatever the customers wanted, including putting modern engines on the 737.

On only one occasion did a single Boeing manager say they were going to do a NSA. On every other occasion, (numbering into the hundreds), Boeing reps said they are leaving the possibility of the re-engine option open, and that they are, in fact, still working on the re-engine plans.

So all the talk, talk talk about the NSA, in the same breath, also was talk about, (what would become), the MAX.
What the...?
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2542
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:58 pm

I wonder if these are the same "reliable sources" that were telling Mr. Leahy in 2004 that "no one is interested in the 7E7 (787)"?  


Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:20 am

JL going on like this is the best indication of all that the MAX is gaining traction, or maybe he is just upset about Randy's comments re the 340!!!.

Cheers
Ruscoe
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:18 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 13):
I wonder if these are the same "reliable sources" that were telling Mr. Leahy in 2004 that "no one is interested in the 7E7 (787)"?

Maybe they are the reliable sources that were telling JL that nobody was interested in the sonic cruiser? I know that we all try to forget about the embarrassment that was the sonic cruiser but it was Boeings big thing in 2001 and it got nowhere.
BV
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:55 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 15):
Maybe they are the reliable sources that were telling JL that nobody was interested in the sonic cruiser?

AA's Chairman said he'd take the first three years of deliveries...
 
swallow
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:23 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:21 am

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 14):
JL going on like this is the best indication of all that the MAX is gaining traction

Word is that MAX design has passed maturity gate 2

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 15):
Maybe they are the reliable sources that were telling JL that nobody was interested in the sonic cruiser?

And the same reliable sources [shared suppliers] that first leaked word of the first 787 delay for which JL got smoked on here.

He certainly fumbles the ball quite a bit, but not all his pronouncements are hot air.
The grass is greener where you water it
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:46 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
It seems to me that B738MAX with its lighter weight and higher seat capacity should still be competitive for shorter stage lengths.

Particularly in Europe.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Operating costs are more than just fuel costs.

Thank you for bringing that important point to the forefront. Too many on here are either forget or are simply unaware. It is always interesting to see the OEM's operating cost breakdown for US and European markets (and their underlying cost assumptions for segment length, crew, maintenance, etc., etc.). Depending on what values the OEM inputs, especially when they contrast with a rival, it can decidedly skew the final number in their favor, or at least lessen the difference.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
User avatar
PanAm_DC10
Community Manager
Posts: 4124
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2000 7:37 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 4:16 am

Boeing have just posted the following on their website;

737 MAX Program Gains Momentum

Boeing

Be interesting to see if the follow through on their statement with the first firm orders booked this month too, IMO, they will.
Ask the impossible to achieve the best possible
 
Hirnie
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 7:13 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:14 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
AA's Chairman said he'd take the first three years of deliveries...



Was that the same chairman who led AA into Ch.11?
 
liftsifter
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 5:25 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:22 am

I really think Boeing should have gone with the NSA. The 73MAX is just a knee jerk reaction to the neo. It's pretty sad that Boeing has lost their way when it comes to innovation.
A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A342 A343 A346 A380 B736 B737 B738 B744 B763 B77L B77E B77W B788 E190
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:04 am

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 21):
I really think Boeing should have gone with the NSA. The 73MAX is just a knee jerk reaction to the neo. It's pretty sad that Boeing has lost their way when it comes to innovation.

Or maybe they were TOLD by many customers that they were willing to "wait it out" for the NSA and wanted something much earlier in order to be competitive . Innovation is all good , however you still have to listen to and respect your customers. NSA is not off the table , I seriously doubt that Airbus has also dropped all R and D on a genuine 320 replacement just because they launched the NEO. R and D and planning continues yet the dates have been pushed farther as airlines are happier with 10-12% improvement (over current product) in 5 years rather then wait 8-10 years for the NSA (with the associated risk of a new program of this size and magnitude) while their competitors fly the NEO...After the bungling of the 380 and 787 development programs both Airbus and Boeing probably also need to get the NEO and MAX on time and as promised to gain back confidence as they position themselves to launch replacements for the NB into the future..
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:19 am

" Let me be clear—we are 100 percent committed. Period" - RT

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/12/maximum_commitment.html
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20057
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:16 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If the 737MAX maintains this level of momentum, it could eclipse the A320neo as the largest jet-powered commercial airliner launch in history

Define "launch" and at what point does the "launch phase" end?

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
Boeing will be caught in a situation where they'll have to figure out how to use the GTF.

Not forgetting they have an exclusive contract with CFM.   

If the GTF is just a lot better, I'm struggling to see how Boeing can wriggle out of the contract as long as Leap-X meets its specs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
If you remember, Boeing said they preferred to do a NSA but they would do whatever the customers wanted, including putting modern engines on the 737.

They also REPEATEDLY said they couldn't make the business case for a re-engine work.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):

On only one occasion did a single Boeing manager say they were going to do a NSA.

Who just happened to be the CEO!   
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
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:38 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 23):
" Let me be clear—we are 100 percent committed. Period" - RT
Quote:
Boeing remains committed to its high-speed Sonic Cruiser study, despite continuing market uncertainty over the project's viability. A firm decision on its future will be taken late this year.

The manufacturer confirms that concerns by some potential customers over the value to passengers of the Sonic Cruiser's proposed Mach 0.98 cruise speed have forced further rounds of in-depth route studies with individual operators, but Boeing insists it is committed to the project. This effort has been a pivotal part of the drive to launch the programme for entry-into-service in late 2007 or early 2008.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...s-faith-with-sonic-cruiser-150549/

Companies are always 100% committed to an idea until they change their mind and go in another direction...

[Edited 2011-12-03 03:26:31]
BV
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:55 am

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 25):

I agree , however in this case i really dont see Boeing going back to the NSA especially with the response the MAX is predicted to have . NSA will still be a study and research , however it will be pushed out to the next decade.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7413
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:07 pm

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 19):
Boeing have just posted the following on their website;

737 MAX Program Gains Momentum

Presumably if I apply Stitch's logic as applied to John Leahy's comments, then Boeing must be breaking out in a real sweat that JL's comments are gaining traction?   

Quoting scbriml (Reply 24):
They also REPEATEDLY said they couldn't make the business case for a re-engine work

Indeed.

The memory selection shown on this thread is quite fascinating.

No matter.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4):
I trust JL in comparing the NEO to the baseline A320. I don't necessarily believe the breakdown when compared to the 737. I also think it is pretty ridiculous that Boeing claims the 737NG gets 2% operating cost advantage over the A320NEO. Some creating figures might have been involved in that number.

Sounds sensible to me.

Like you, I tend to think comparisons to the OEM's own products are pretty reliable. The comparisons to the opposition parse their own arguments to the limit of credulity (and beyond sometimes). Applies to both OEM's by the way.

And as such, should be taken with a complete grain of salt.
Let the ordering airlines do that particular comparison, is my advice..

Rgds
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11226
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:07 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
All JL is trying to do is make potential customers doubt whether or not Boeing can deliver on their promises.

While at the same time not mentioning whether the NEO, which is also still a paper concept, can deliver on all of its promises.

'ol John boy is a salesman, it is his job to push his company's products and spead doubt about the competitor's products. He did put Airbus on the global airline map and he deserves a lot of credit for that, but along the way he has made some blunders too. Remember his "4 for the long haul" (A-345/6) campaign against the various B-777 models? How successful was that for Airbus?

Quoting bringiton (Reply 26):
however in this case i really dont see Boeing going back to the NSA especially with the response the MAX is predicted to have . NSA will still be a study and research , however it will be pushed out to the next decade.

Boeing has not had the NSA off the table, nor should it. The MAX is a response to what the customers say they want now, but by continuing the NSA studies and priliminary design work, that keeps Boeing ahead of Airbus in the NB airplanes.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:13 pm

Quoting Hirnie (Reply 20):
Was that the same chairman who led AA into Ch.11?

Indeed it is. He's also the same chairman who led AA into Ch.11 after placing a massive Airbus narrowbody order. But I expect that decision had about as much influence on AA's Ch.11 filing as his statement about buying the first three years of the Sonic Cruiser did - read none - so let's not drag this discussion down into a snakiness contest, shall we?



Quoting scbriml (Reply 24):
Define "launch" and at what point does the "launch phase" end?

Well based on those touting the A320neo's "launch" sales performance, I'm going with at least a continuous six month period, if not twelve.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):
Presumably if I apply Stitch's logic as applied to John Leahy's comments, then Boeing must be breaking out in a real sweat that JL's comments are gaining traction?  scratchchin   

I see what you did there.  Smile

[Edited 2011-12-03 06:31:11]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20057
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:09 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
that keeps Boeing ahead of Airbus in the NB airplanes

Keeps them ahead? In what respect are they currently "ahead"?
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.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:13 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 30):
Keeps them ahead? In what respect are they currently "ahead"?

Well i guess they would always strive towards being ahead , i think that was his point...Even if they are at par or slightly below in this market segment they would strive to be better..
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26529
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting bringiton (Reply 22):
After the bungling of the 380 and 787 development programs both Airbus and Boeing probably also need to get the NEO and MAX on time and as promised to gain back confidence as they position themselves to launch replacements for the NB into the future..

Interesting point, but we have to keep in mind how much of these programs are not in the hands of A and B, they are in the hands of PW and CFMI.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):
Like you, I tend to think comparisons to the OEM's own products are pretty reliable. The comparisons to the opposition parse their own arguments to the limit of credulity (and beyond sometimes). Applies to both OEM's by the way.

Indeed.

Of course my gag reflex engages when I see percentages compared to percentages.

It's also interesting to see how another poster here got roasted for using a "rule of thumb" similar to Leahy's X percent fuel burn per cm/in of fan rule, yet very little comment is being made here about it.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:49 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 24):
They also REPEATEDLY said they couldn't make the business case for a re-engine work.

...and yet, they kept working on it. Those wacky guys.

What does it matter, anyway? They went with the MAX, so case closed. It's old news, water under the bridge and spilled milk. It just doesn't matter anymore. What they ARE going with is the MAX and what JL is doing is being a good salesman by trying to steer customers away from the other guy and towards his product. It's his job.

Do you believe everything a salesman tells you? If so...I have a bridge you'll just love.
What the...?
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:15 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):

Go back six months and JL was openly bagging the Boeing NSA program. Now that MAX has been announced he is now telling us Airbus has dodged a bullet because MAX just can't beat the economics of the NEO and NEO wouldn't have matched the economics of NSA.

If I recall correctly there were many on this forum who took JL's comments as gospel and as such argued quite strongly that Boeing should do the re-engine because of it.

At the end of the day JL has little influence of the decisions made at Boeing, especially those that are multi billion dollar programs.

I think It's fair to say this is simply salesman talk!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:31 pm

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 21):

I really think Boeing should have gone with the NSA.

Doing what your customers actively tell you not to do is not typically a great way to stay in business.

Quoting liftsifter (Reply 21):
The 73MAX is just a knee jerk reaction to the neo.

The 737 re-engine was in work long before it ever came out as the 737MAX. The announcement may have been "knee jerk" in some sense, but the aircraft itself certainly wasn't.

There's a pervasive, and very wrong, view on a.net that OEM's are somehow only working on announced programs. They all have product development groups that are constantly studying all options for all models. It takes years of study and work before a concept even gets far enough along to see the light of day as a "concept" to the public, let alone before launch.

Tom.
 
woodsboy
Posts: 900
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:36 pm

I suspect that both Airbus and Boeing will be working on an NSA during the design, ramp up and roll out of the MAX and NEO and ultimately customers with later delivery dates for MAX and NEO will convert their orders to Airbus and Boeing's new narrowbody, its a given. We may never see 1000 NEOs or MAX aircraft delivered before the new product is ready for delivery.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:55 pm

Quoting woodsboy (Reply 36):
We may never see 1000 NEOs or MAX aircraft delivered before the new product is ready for delivery.

With the production schedules both OEMs are considering (50-60 a month), Airbus and Boeing would have to launch the A30X and NSA almost concurrently with the A320neo and 737MAX in order to bring them to market fast enough that the A320neo and 737MAX could not each reach 1000 deliveries, much less that figure combined between the two of them.  
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:17 am

Most people agree that with current technology, the majority of efficiency gains available come from the engines. There are always airframe tweaks but most of those have been brought online as evolutionary improvements.

While a larger than 68" fan would make it easier to get more efficiency out of the engines, fan diameter is not the only way to improve bypass efficiency. Airbus themselves are using the same diameter fan to cover thrust variance of 15% on the XWB engines...so obviously technology exists to make a less than optimal fan diameter more efficient.

The LeapX core will give at least 7% efficiency improvement. Adding new blade technology, another 5% should be doable out of the fan, so the Boeing and GE prediction of 12% improvement isn't too radical to believe.

JL is a master salesman...I'd love to have a dude like that selling for me. He's as loyal as a bulldog and pushes his stuff with every trick in the book...but if he was selling you a used car, would you believe his every word as if it's the gospel?
What the...?
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:30 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):

The 12% SFC gain equates to a reduction in operating costs of approximately 6%.

For Airbus the 15% SFC gain equate to a reduction in operating costs of approximately 7.5%.

If the 737 already has a 2% advantage over the A320 than using the numbers by the OEM's the MAX is going to be still in front by a small margin.

At the end of the day sale price and financing arrangements should be able to cover any disadvantage one has over the other.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:28 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 27):

The memory selection shown on this thread is quite fascinating.

Yep, as always..

Quoting travelhound (Reply 34):
Go back six months and JL was openly bagging the Boeing NSA program. Now that MAX has been announced he is now telling us Airbus has dodged a bullet because MAX just can't beat the economics of the NEO and NEO wouldn't have matched the economics of NSA.

Both are true, Airbus shifted Boeing to compete on A's terms with re-engining, anybody that believes that the MAX will out perform the NEO is dreaming but NSA should have been better than a NEO.

Good business sense.
BV
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:07 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 39):

What sometimes gets lost in the 'percentages' is that any improvements only have validity in comparisons with the previous models, as in; NG to MAX, and OEO to NEO.

How one makers model stacks up against the other guy is a quagmire nobody on this site, (or possibly any site), can possibly wade through and find a realistic answer.
What the...?
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:40 am

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 41):

Yes that was the point I was trying to make, but with the caveat sale price and financing are probably going to be used as the equalizer when one has an advantage over the other!
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:15 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 3):
The total combination of the core, fan and integration gives the A320neo a 15.3% improvement in SFC, while its Sharklet wingtip treatments will deliver a further 2.4% SFC improvement over 1480km (800nm) stage-lengths, said Leahy.

Looks like the 18% fuel burn reduction (vs today) are not fiction. Remember this thread?
RE: Flightglobal: New A320NEO Information (by rheinwaldner Dec 1 2010 in Civil Aviation)

Note also that 800nm is not much. Over high ranges this gain could easily grow to 20-23%. Not bad for a facelift. To get a feeling about the dimensions: this more than the 787 gains over any predecessor. And the 787 is a paradigm breaking long range clean sheet design. And the A320NEO is nothing of these things.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Operating costs are more than just fuel costs.

Sure, but these other factors are where the A320 excels and clearly beats the 737. Because they must be responsible that the A320 even at a fuel burn disadvantage (vs 737NG, per seat) has been delivered in larger numbers at any time. So what will happen once this most important advantage of the 737NG has been conquered by the A320NEO?
I predict a market shift.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:50 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Sure, but these other factors are where the A320 excels and clearly beats the 737.

So what will happen once this most important advantage of the 737NG has been conquered by the A320NEO? I predict a market shift.



Well if the A320 is universally across the board cheaper to operate than the 737NG and it's cheaper to acquire (since the 737's margins and resale values are higher, that implies a higher Average Sales Price), you'd think Boeing could not sell the 737NG and yet, somehow, they still secured hundreds and hundreds of sales every year, year in and year out, going on three decades.

Now yes, you can argue that Airbus can't produce the world's demand of narrowbodies so half the market has to "suffer" and buy the 737NG, but is that such a bad thing for Boeing, doubly so since they can command a premium from those airlines?

And you'd think that over three decades, Airbus could have ramped production to 100+ frames a month so that they could supply the market with the superior product they crave and save them from having to buy the crap Boeing is shifting.


As to the 737MAX, Boeing won't be offering it for less than the 737NG, so ASPs will only rise (just as they should rise for the A320neo vis-a-vis the A320). And yet even with higher prices and lower performance than the A320neo, the market has not completely shifted to the A320neo. Instead, Boeing has been able to con(vince) nine customers to commit to half-as-many airframes as Airbus has the A320neo, but done so in one-quarter the time. And their two largest 737NG customers will most likely choose the 737MAX, which will add hundreds and hundreds of more commitments/sales.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:12 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Sure, but these other factors are where the A320 excels and clearly beats the 737. Because they must be responsible that the A320 even at a fuel burn disadvantage (vs 737NG, per seat) has been delivered in larger numbers at any time.

The 737/A320 are close enough that availability is a big part of it. A better airplane that you can't get for years isn't very helpful to an airline if something just as good (or close enough) is available sooner. I suspect that delivery dates play a *huge* part of any A320/737 decision.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
So what will happen once this most important advantage of the 737NG has been conquered by the A320NEO?
I predict a market shift.

The only way you can get a market shift is if one OEM significantly changes their production rate (either a major production system upgrade or a slowdown due to exhausting backlog). Neither one of those seems at all likely at the moment.

Tom.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:10 pm

There's only one metric which really matters in the sales counts; deliveries. That's when the makers get their cash.

How many can either maker deliver in any year? As it is now, they are both totally maxed out...neither could deliver more if they wanted to...and they are both ramping up at about the same rate to deliver about the same number more.

So while order books are lovely to talk about for the future, we are currently 7 or 8 years of max production away from the current sales being delivered...and this doesn't even take into consideration getting more sales.

Let's have a look at deliveries. I've chosen 1998, (the first full year of NG production), to 2010, (the last complete year of production for either).

Boeing - 3661 737 series aircraft

Airbus - 3774 320 series aircraft

So in that span of time, Boeing's 737NG deliver total was 98% of Airbus's 320 series total deliveries.

Can any one of us peer into our crystal balls, goat entrails or boiling cauldrons and tell me exactly how many of each plane, each maker will deliver in any given future year? I've shown a 13 year span, (not insignificant by any sane measure), and they average out to a virtual dead heat...with the 320 series the massive 2% victor in deliveries.

Any talk about one of these planes destroying the other is pure, 100% crap. By now, people should be embarrassed to even suggest it.
What the...?
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 6:58 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Note also that 800nm is not much. Over high ranges this gain could easily grow to 20-23%.

800nm is actually extremely significant. Did you know that the average flight distance for a 737NG is approximately 760 nautical miles (at least in 2009 as average flight time was 2hrs 1 min)? Flights longer will see benefit, but that's not the sweet spot. Routes just short of 1000 nm is where both Airbus and Boeing are focusing on for efficiency while trying to maintain flexibility in the airframe such as short field performance and medium range routes.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Sure, but these other factors are where the A320 excels and clearly beats the 737. Because they must be responsible that the A320 even at a fuel burn disadvantage (vs 737NG, per seat) has been delivered in larger numbers at any time.

I'm not sure how easy it is to quantify this. The A320 and 737NG are very similar in maintenance costs when new, but the A320 does suffer a bit more than the 737NG when cycles go up as it was designed as a 48,000 cycle airplane vs 75,000 cycle airplane so some of the systems start having reliability deteriorate as the airplane ages (hydraulics, flight controls, landing gear, environmental control systems and electrical with hydraulics being worst in my experience).

The A320 and 737 both have their advantages. The A320 usually has a lower sales price which is a huge factor. If Airbus can maintain the ability to have lower build costs in the A320 so that they can sell it at a lower price and gain market share, I see them swinging more orders. If they improve efficiency more than the 737 by way of having multiple engine choices and if a larger fan diameter does pan out with the efficiency promises that JL promises, then I can see them commanding more market share. It may come down to shifting some in the duopoly, although as others have said neither the 737 or A320 will pull away with the majority of a market such as 777-300ER vs A340NG since production capacity at either isn't good enough to sustain the market. The 737 has been in a duopoly for its entire life, first vs the DC9 and MD80 and later the A320. The DC9 was better than the 737, the 737 was better than the MD80 and the A320 and 737 are pretty darn close to identical.

[Edited 2011-12-04 11:06:20]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27639
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:03 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 47):
The A320 usually has a lower sales price which is a huge factor. If Airbus can maintain the ability to have lower build costs in the A320 so that they can sell it at a lower price and gain market share, I see them swinging more orders.

I wouldn't say it's "huge" per se, since clearly the A320 sells on more than just price (otherwise, Boeing could match the price and deny Airbus the sale). That being said, a more aggressive price does probably give Airbus somewhat of an advantage with new operators (especially LCCs), as financing costs for a new fleet would be the initial largest expense.

Assuming Airbus is securing the extra margins they intended when launching the A320neo, it does show that the platform offers sufficient cost savings elsewhere to offset the higher acquisition and financing costs.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing Reevaluating 737MAX As Per John Leahy

Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:43 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
Well if the A320 is universally across the board cheaper to operate than the 737NG.

I did not say anything about universally or across the board.

You correctly said fuel burn is not everything. I just brought up an example for this by emphasizing that the A320 must have had such other "qualities" to maintain its small lead over the years. Because, the A320 is overall slightly worse in fuel burn than the 737NG.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 47):
800nm is actually extremely significant. Did you know that the average flight distance for a 737NG is approximately 760 nautical miles (at least in 2009 as average flight time was 2hrs 1 min)?

I know. The point I wanted to make was not about the relevance. The numbers are remarkable exactly because this range is so relevant.

Airbus did not quote the numbers for some fancy 3500nm ranges where they could steal the show with even better numbers. These numbers mean that the A320NEO will be damn good exactly at the short ranges where the 737MAX had hopes to keep the upper hand (in fuel burn). I think on this board you can find a thousand times the quote: "the A320NEO will really be unbeatable on longer ranges" and "But the 737 is lighter so it should keep an advantage at short ranges".

But, guys, with these numbers the A320NEO seems to improve fuel burn by 18% vs 12% for the 737MAX on short ranges. This is not so far from the disadvantage that killed the A346....

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 47):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Sure, but these other factors are where the A320 excels and clearly beats the 737. Because they must be responsible that the A320 even at a fuel burn disadvantage (vs 737NG, per seat) has been delivered in larger numbers at any time.

I'm not sure how easy it is to quantify this. The A320 and 737NG are very similar in maintenance costs when new,

True, maintenance and aquisition cost are some of these other factors (other than fuel burn). What I meant was that the A320 must be quite good in all these other areas because despite the fuel burn disadvantage it saw more deliveries all the time. Something else than fuel burn did pull the chestnuts out of the fire...

So if now the fuel burn disparity disappears the attractiveness of the whole package improves more in case of the A320NEO than in case of the 737MAX.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 46):
Any talk about one of these planes destroying the other is pure, 100% crap.

I agree fully.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!

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