Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Flyglobal
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:22 am

Randy at its best.

The 737 Max still configuration in progress especially for the engine definition to meet the projected and committed performance (obviously not yet ensured), but a success story 'my is bigger then yours' must be produced, no matter what.

So with commitments only, Orders and MOUs (called commitments here) are put together and counted as orders like for the story. Then a 100 day period defined and wow we have the 'my is bigger (orders) then the other'.

Lets see if actual order speed is referred too later again. I doubt it.

Anyhow, Randy's story and the comparison to the NEO in this case wouldn't have been my style.
I would just have celebrated the 800 comittment success which is good enough already as stand alone message.
A success story of itself, no doub't.

But compare to your competitor only where you can compare apple to apple. To obvious Randy. There are better ways to celebrate the same thing. Just my 2c.

regards

Flyglobal
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:53 am

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 33):
What counts at the end of the day is Firm Orders, and no where have I seen Randy nor any other Boeing official try and masquerade any of these commitments as firm orders. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well they can't can they? They have none. They haven't even worked out the price they are going to sell the MAX at.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 33):
In general (so keep that in mind), the deposit when signing a firm order is ~ 5% of the purchase price. Not taking into discounts, and safely assuming Boeing is charging a premium for the MAX, let's just say a 737-8 will cost $90million, list. I.e., the deposit would be ~ $4.5million.

Can't do that as they have no orders because they haven't designed the price ticket yet.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 33):
My guess on these commitments would be that Boeing is charging ~ $1-2million for a 'place-holder.' With "close to 800 commitments" that's going to be anywhere from ~ $700million to $1.6billion. Stitch is pretty close.

I would guess that it nearly isn't that much. They panic sold the 787s and I believe they've panicked yet again with the MAX. We may never know until they devise an accounting device a la 787.

I think Boeing do an incredible job with the 737. A 40+yr design that still is competitive today is really an achievement. What I am surprised about is the un-Boeing like hoopla about commitments. I am far more used to them having their orders to the talking. And can they talk?!

But I guess with nothing in the books but a number of nods from a few, my competitor banging in the orders onto their books literally by the dozen, even I would be jumping up and down spinning it out my commitments as a bigger triumph in 100 days.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:27 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
The A320neo is more of a "stop gap" aircraft than the 737MAX is, since it's just an A320 with wingtip modifiers (something the 737 has had for years) and new engines.

How do you define "stop gap" aircraft? You seem to define it over the amount of things that are done, which is nonsense.

I would say a "stop gap" aircraft will just help bridging the time until a new design appears. Has nothing to do with wingtip modifiers or how it differs from the earlier model.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 49):
Boeing cannot afford to be as late to the party with the 737MAX as they would have been with the NSA.

The time difference between communicated EIS's (by Boeing) for the 737MAX and the NSA is only about two years.

Boeing did not loose AA (and potentially others) because the NSA would have taken two years longer than the MAX. The reason was that Boeing simply seemed undecided and, much more important, uncommited to do anything. Would Boeing have launched the NSA in March or so for 2019 EIS, the advantage of delivering the MAX a mere two years earlier would not have counted much.

Of course there are reasons why Boeing did't launch the NSA in March for 2019 EIS. And these reasons have much to do with issues Max Q mentions. Lack of vision is perfectly justifieable in that context. If Boeing can not venture an new NB program in this decade, how could they ever again?

It is a bit like the F-35: if the combined creative power of the US military aviation industry fails to commission the most modern and affordable multi-role fighter (something which they managed to achieve over and over again in the past) you have to ask: by whom else and how else and under what circumstances should such a venture ever work out again?

And in case of the NSA it should be allowed to ask too: how else and under what different circumstances should such a venture ever work out again? I have not heard yet a reason why the risks of the NSA would become less at any time in the future. I predict that the next time it will even be harder to launch a new design.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:56 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 43):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 41):

That theory would have killed off the 737-300/400/500/NG, the 747-400 and -8, the 757-300, the 767-300, the 777-300, the A318/319/321, the A330-300, and the A340-500/600. None of the OEM's go for a cleansheet every time.

These were not 'stop gap Aircraft' but logical evolutions of existing airframes that were not outdated or obsolete.

There is no comparison.

Your thesis is that the OEM should always go with the the latest and greatest they can produce at the time. What you're calling "logical evolutions" were consciously minimum change derivatives required to meet the market demand, explicitly *not* incorporating all the latest and greatest technology and design. You appear to be defining "stop gap" at your convenience...when the market said "We want a narrowbody with more payload than an A320" Airbus certainly was capable of building an entirely new cleansheet narrowbody but they didn't...they did a minimum change stretch of the A320. That's even more of a stop-gap than the 737MAX or A320NEO.

The A340-500/600 were absolutely stop gaps to the A380, and almost exactly like the A320NEO/737MAX in regards to degree of modification.

The pattern is always the same: the OEM's will *always* do the minimum amount of change required to profitably meet the market demand. The 747/DC-10/L-1011 is not an example of "vision" any more than the C-Series is...the market wanted a really big airplane, nobody had one, so everyone had to design something from scratch. If the manufacturers could have made a derivative of what they already had that the market would have accepted, they would have done so.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
Boeing would have been better off persevering for a clean sheet design.

Better off how? It would cost them more money now, would not increase their competitive advantage over the A320NEO enough to pay for that extra money, and would put them at a disadvantage down the road.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
Since they have decided not to and gone for a 737 'warmup' it should be the best, and most advanced design they can roll out the door.

That's even worse than a cleansheet...you've repeatedly criticized the 737 (rightly or wrongly) for being an old design. If they don't do a cleansheet but try to stuff all the technology they can under the hood and still get it certified as a 737 you're talking about an even worse product than a minimum change derivative or a cleansheet.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):
I am no fan of AB, but they have the advantage here with a design that allows for a completely new generation new engine with no compromise when it come to fan size.

They do have to compromise, it's just at a different size. Fan diameter is never free. The engine going on the 737MAX is also a "completely new generation new engine".

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
They haven't even worked out the price they are going to sell the MAX at.

Are you seriously suggesting AA thunked down money without knowing how much they'd pay? Let's not confuse what we know on a.net with what's actually known somewhere.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
They panic sold the 787s

That's an interesting piece of revisionist history. Why on earth would they have "panic sold" the 787? At the time it was launched, the 787 had no viable competitor. There was nothing to panic about. For its many faults, the sales machine behind the 787 was magnificent.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
Would Boeing have launched the NSA in March or so for 2019 EIS, the advantage of delivering the MAX a mere two years earlier would not have counted much.

Even Boeing was calling it EIS "as early as" 2019, which is OEM code for "If every star and planet aligns for the next 9 years we might make 2019". All the credible dates on the NSA put the thing over a decade out.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
I have not heard yet a reason why the risks of the NSA would become less at any time in the future. I predict that the next time it will even be harder to launch a new design.

The risk of the NSA, launched now, is that it will not stay competitive for nearly as long as required to pay for it. There is widespread belief across most of the aviation community that the next step change in narrowbody economics will have to come with a significant configuration change...the single biggest lever the OEM's have to pull right now is the engines, and that's what they're doing. Many of the advanced technologies going into the 787/A350 doesn't scale down that well to the narrowbody size so they can't get as much advantage out of them...it's mostly the engine.

If you go cleansheet now and stuff in all the latest and greatest, you get the engine gain and just a little bit from all the other technologies. If you just do the engine you get most of the gain for far less cost. The danger is that your competitor does the re-engine and recovers their investment more quickly, positioning them to grab the next big configuration change before you can. That is going to be a longer-lead/more-expensive cleansheet than any narrowbody that's ever come before and whoever does it first will make the initial sales lead the 787 had over the A350 look like peanuts.

The core problem is that the technologies to enable the next configuration change aren't ready yet. All the OEM's are playing chicken to see who will blink first.

Tom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:57 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 33):
My guess on these commitments would be that Boeing is charging ~ $1-2million for a 'place-holder.'
Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
I would guess that it nearly isn't that much.

And I am going to guess you don't believe the reported claims that Airbus asked only $500,000 for a deposit to order an A380-800 when that program was securing it's initial batch of orders.  



I know it beggars belief with the more ardent Airbus Aficionados, but airlines actually want the 737MAX and they're willing to put down money to secure early delivery positions. If it was just a question of securing more commitments for the MAX than Airbus has orders, MoUs, LoIs and commitments for the A320neo, Boeing likely could have done so if they didn't ask anything of the airlines except a non-binding statement of vague interest in the plane.   

These kinds of comments are going to just look petty and spiteful when Boeing finally does start signing formal orders with billions in deposits over the coming months.


Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
How do you define "stop gap" aircraft?

The same way you do:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
I would say a "stop gap" aircraft will just help bridging the time until a new design appears.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:19 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
The same way you do:

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 52):
I would say a "stop gap" aircraft will just help bridging the time until a new design appears.

But then Max Q was right, because in that sense the 737MAX is much more a "stop gap" aircraft than the A320NEO.

There are many commentors, even on this board, who think that the 737MAX is a very good idea, that mostly aims to keep the customers on board for the current time but that is not intended to live on for another 20 years (average lifetime of 737 iterations).

If the shear starts to open more and more between A320 and 737 Boeing will have to awake their NSA plans.

While the 737 will run into its limits more and more the A320 seems to be ready to adopt more easily for ever increasing requirements. The much newer architecture of the A320 has more headroom to all sides for improvements.

Just look at the GTF. While the A320 can easily adopt for any preferable GTF version, the 737MAX will not even participate on that engine. And the GTF's that will be delivered in 2015 are just V1. In 2025 I can see the A320NEO gain an additional 5%-10% efficiency vs the 737MAX. Just because the difference between the first interations and the theoretical optimum is far greater in case of the GTF than in case of the Leap X.

The Leap X struggles to incorporate the latest and most high-tech gadgets in many different areas. The GTF on the other hand is not maxed out in most areas but bets on the first iteration of a single, completely different but very compelling feature.

Improving both the gears and optimizing the rest of the engine in the course of time will make the GTF a superior engine. In the end I can't see any decisive features anymore that will be unique on the Leap X.

Keeping the 737MAX in the light of considerations like that have also to do with lack of vision as mentioned by Max Q.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:30 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
There are many commentors, even on this board, who think that the 737MAX is a very good idea, that mostly aims to keep the customers on board for the current time but that is not intended to live on for another 20 years (average lifetime of 737 iterations).

I don't think anyone has seriously offered the opinion the 737NMAX would be Boeing's narrowbody offering through the middle of the century.



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
Keeping the 737MAX in the light of considerations like that have also to do with lack of vision as mentioned by Max Q.

And yet I strongly recall you arguing that the NSA could, at best, offer 5% more performance than the A320neo.

I would think it more a lack of common sense than vision for Boeing to spend 1000% more ($10 billion vs. $1 billion) than Airbus for a 5% gain.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:52 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
There are many commentors, even on this board, who think that the 737MAX is a very good idea, that mostly aims to keep the customers on board for the current time but that is not intended to live on for another 20 years (average lifetime of 737 iterations).

I don't think anyone has seriously offered the opinion the 737NMAX would be Boeing's narrowbody offering through the middle of the century.

Right, though my point (about what many others have expressed) was that the 737MAX likely won't soldier on much past 2030.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:05 pm

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
was that the 737MAX likely won't soldier on much past 2030.

I doubt the NEO would either...Airlines would most likely be demanding something better by then..and that is when both A and B expects to launch a clean sheet product.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:56 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 47):


I am no fan of AB, but they have the advantage here with a design that allows for a completely new generation new engine with no compromise when it come to fan size.

I agree on the subject of Airbus having more design flexibility, but that comes with the added cost of weight. I don't want to rehash the argument again, but the 737-800 has between 6 and 16 seats more than the A320 yet weighs less. Airbus has to find efficiencies other ways since when useable payload and range are the same, the lighter plane usually burns less fuel. My point is that both Airbus and Boeing have design constraints that they have to work around when doing minimum change derivatives.

Max Q, since you are very adamant that the latest technology should be put in every new design, are you implying that Airbus is shooting itself in the foot as well doing a minimum change design or is the A320 just that much better in all respects than the 737NG?

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):

Keeping the 737MAX in the light of considerations like that have also to do with lack of vision as mentioned by Max Q.

Lack of vision or chasing profit? Both Airbus and Boeing can create a better plane. A new design may cost 10Billion more than an engine refresh. In very round numbers, are airlines willing to pay 10-20% more money in purchase price for a 5% fuel burn improvement? It appears not which is why both Airbus and Boeing are doing engine updates.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:20 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 33):
I'm not 100% on this, so anyone with better info please correct, but it's my understanding that, unlike a firm order, these deposits are refundable if the customer chooses not to go through with the order.

Agreed. Contracts can be written any way the parties wish. Boeing has every right to request deposits for line spots but who in their right mind would give up non-refundable deposits for an undefined plane that is not yet officially for sale.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 38):
As to everything else - if there were 800 commitments, someone would have announced theirs beyond AA's maybe.

So are you saying Boeing is lying about it all?

Quoting bringiton (Reply 48):
The orders will start trickling in starting from about a week or so

They cannot officially order the plane until the Boeing board actually approves it for sale. That is not going to happen this year.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:41 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 60):
They cannot officially order the plane until the Boeing board actually approves it for sale. That is not going to happen this year.

Evidently Authority to Offer is not necessary. From Leeham.net:

Quote:
Albaugh said the five unidentified airlines placing commitments for 496 airplanes–enough to skip Authority to Offer and go straight to a program launch–come from US and non-US airlines.

Oh, and for those who have been castigating Randy Tinseth's (lack of) professionalism?

From the same article:

Quote:
Airbus sniffed at Boeing’s claims.

“After more than 1,200 orders and commitments for the A320neo, Boeing’s decision to follow our strategy and re-engine the 737 seems more than overdue,” an Airbus spokesman. Airbus’ neo business case is based on the new technologies available today (engine and aerodynamics). We do not see this strategy changing as a result of our competitors’ long awaited conclusion to also offer a re-engined aircraft.”

“It was inevitable that Boeing would put a new engine on their classic 737,” said John Leahy, COO Customers, in a statement emailed to us. “But Airbus has the same engine, and we also have a modern, fly-by-wire airframe. If you were an airline CEO, which would you choose?”

Physician, heal thyself.  
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:43 pm

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
Why on earth would they have "panic sold" the 787? At the time it was launched, the 787 had no viable competitor. There was nothing to panic about. For its many faults, the sales machine behind the 787 was magnificent.

It is well known that hefty discounts were given on the 787 to boost orders, that in fact didn't need to happen as it proved to be very popular. Boeing loves the PR spin game so much that it would not surprise me to find that they took 50cents deposit for some of the commitments just so that they could justify it. Ok maybe 50cents is a bit harsh. $1.50

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):

And I am going to guess you don't believe the reported claims that Airbus asked only $500,000 for a deposit to order an A380-800 when that program was securing it's initial batch of orders.

Airbus were desperate to get the programme off the ground it would not surprise me!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
These kinds of comments are going to just look petty and spiteful when Boeing finally does start signing formal orders with billions in deposits over the coming months.

I will look forward to your compendium of quotes when Boeing signs it 1500th order for the MAX.  . Shall I expect it around June 2012 post Farnborough perhaps? We will jump together with glee  

[Edited 2011-12-12 10:43:57]
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:44 pm

Quoting mham001 (Reply 60):
They cannot officially order the plane until the Boeing board actually approves it for sale. That is not going to happen this year.

I am only going by what Boeing has publicly said -

Some of Boeing’s 700 preliminary orders for the 737 MAX will be confirmed this year, Albaugh said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...011-even-after-amr-bankruptcy.html
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:57 pm

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 62):
Ok maybe 50cents is a bit harsh. $1.50

And i suspect that once they start selling them (soon enough) you would say that they went for 29.99$  
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2542
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Quoting col (Reply 36):
Last time on the 345 he made a point of saying that the 345 only sold 40

   He said ". . . while the A340-500 sold less than 40 units." The actual quantity sold is 34.

Quoting col (Reply 36):
but Boeing hold the record for the worse selling widebody pax derivatives with two projects - 744ER and 764.

And this is relevent to the MAX. . . how? But since you are choosing to criticize by nitpicking, I'll nitpick and point out that you are wrong again. First, the 767-400ER has sold more than either the A340-200 or A340-500. Nor is the 747-400ER the "record for the worse selling widebody pax derivative." That title belongs to McDonnell Douglas with the DC-10-30ER, with a total of 3. For your reference for the future:

DC-10-30ER: 3
747-300SR: 4
747-400ER: 6
DC-10-15: 7
747-100B: 9
747-400D: 19
A340-200: 28
747-100SR: 29
A340-500: 34
767-400ER: 38

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
Well they can't can they? They have none.

Of course not. But some on here feel that Randy (or John, take your pick) will say anything or do anything to make them and their products better. So why stop at just calling a commitment a "commitment"? Why not call it a "not-quite-Firm Order" or an "Order TBD"?   

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
Can't do that as they have no orders because they haven't designed the price ticket yet.

I know. I was merely using that as an exercise for demonstration purposes.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
I would guess that it nearly isn't that much.

You might be surprised.  
Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
They panic sold the 787s

"panic sold" 787's??? I think you mean that customers "panic bought" 787's.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
But I guess with nothing in the books but a number of nods from a few, my competitor banging in the orders onto their books literally by the dozen, even I would be jumping up and down spinning it out my commitments as a bigger triumph in 100 days.

If Boeing were really that worried about the press and the headlines, then (as Stitch already brought up), why charge for the commitment at all?! Why not just start passing around production slots like candy, then come up with some headline about all the ones you've handed out?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
I know it beggars belief with the more ardent Airbus Aficionados, but airlines actually want the 737MAX and they're willing to put down money to secure early delivery positions. If it was just a question of securing more commitments for the MAX than Airbus has orders, MoUs, LoIs and commitments for the A320neo, Boeing likely could have done so if they didn't ask anything of the airlines except a non-binding statement of vague interest in the plane.

        

Quoting Stitch (Reply 54):
These kinds of comments are going to just look petty and spiteful when Boeing finally does start signing formal orders with billions in deposits over the coming months.

Sadly, they already do. Just as the Boeing Booster's comments re: the NEO do.   


Regards,

Hamlet69   
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 7:42 pm

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 51):
But I guess with nothing in the books but a number of nods from a few, my competitor banging in the orders onto their books literally by the dozen, even I would be jumping up and down spinning it out my commitments as a bigger triumph in 100 days.

Oh, cool, so you agree with the approach. Great!  

-Dave
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
Oh, and for those who have been castigating Randy Tinseth's (lack of) professionalism?

From the same article:

Two wrongs don't make a right (but two Wrights did build an airplane)  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:16 pm

Quoting ER757 (Reply 67):
Two wrongs don't make a right (but two Wrights did build an airplane)...

Very true. Just wanted to note that the righteous indignation should be directed at both OEM's sales and marketing departments and staffs.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4226
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
Just wanted to note that the righteous indignation should be directed at both OEM's sales and marketing departments and staffs.

Oh, I don't think there's any danger of that NOT happening............  
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22714
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
I don't think anyone has seriously offered the opinion the 737NMAX would be Boeing's narrowbody offering through the middle of the century.

  

Eventually we'll have a CMC high turbine GTF.  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
“It was inevitable that Boeing would put a new engine on their classic 737,”

Stitch, interesting quote.
1. Technically the 'classic' is long gone and this is on the 737NG.  
2. I didn't consider it inevitable. I thought Boeing could do better than their current 737RS. Eventually though...

Lightsaber
 
col
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Mon Dec 12, 2011 10:42 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 65):
And this is relevent to the MAX. . . how?

Think I actually pointed out concern with his blogs. His latest blog comments on the MAX, but I wanted to point out my disagreement to his use of competitors information which makes Boeing look unprofessional.

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 65):
But since you are choosing to criticize by nitpicking, I'll nitpick and point out that you are wrong again

Thanks for the research, shows how lazy I am. But as you show, it looks worse for Boeing with many less derivatives sold than Airbus. My point is that it is annoying as a supporter of Boeing that he does the number comparison. I wish he would work on the positives at Boeing rather than trying to bad mouth Airbus with numbers that make him look foolish.

As a side note, I thought the DC10-30ER sold 5, with two conversions? I have been on the TG ones, but believe SR purchased 2 and upgraded 2?
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:18 am

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
But then Max Q was right, because in that sense the 737MAX is much more a "stop gap" aircraft than the A320NEO.

This makes it seem like there's an actual scale of 'stop gapness'. In effect, they are both exactly the same degree of 'stop gap' since there is no doubt that neither airframe will see another major modification.

The next step for both companies is going all new. So the MAX and the NEO both fill exactly one more gap between the current models and the next offerings, which will be all new aircraft.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
Just look at the GTF. While the A320 can easily adopt for any preferable GTF version, the 737MAX will not even participate on that engine. And the GTF's that will be delivered in 2015 are just V1. In 2025 I can see the A320NEO gain an additional 5%-10% efficiency vs the 737MAX. Just because the difference between the first interations and the theoretical optimum is far greater in case of the GTF than in case of the Leap X.

People seem to forget that the 737 has always only had one engine choice and the 320 has had two...and it hasn't made any significant difference in sales in the long run. Since 1998, (the first full year of NG production), the 737 has delivered within 2% of the delivery numbers of the 320 series.

The CFM-56 and the 2500 were similar steps above what came before as the GTF and LeapX will be above the current production engines.

You make some pretty grand assumptions, the first being that the MAX and NEO will still be in production in 2025...which I think is unlikely. You also assume that the GTF will gain more efficiency over its lifetime than the LeapX...and there is basically nothing to back that up. Neither engine has even completed one production model yet, much less given us any clues as to what later versions will be like.

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 57):
Right, though my point (about what many others have expressed) was that the 737MAX likely won't soldier on much past 2030.

I don't think very many seriously think that either the 320 or 737 will be in production past 2025...much less 2030.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):

“It was inevitable that Boeing would put a new engine on their classic 737,” said John Leahy, COO Customers, in a statement emailed to us. “But Airbus has the same engine, and we also have a modern, fly-by-wire airframe. If you were an airline CEO, which would you choose?”

Hasn't that been the same sales pitch since the creation of the 320? Hey, whatever it takes to sell planes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):

Very true. Just wanted to note that the righteous indignation should be directed at both OEM's sales and marketing departments and staffs.

Again...whatever it takes...but would you buy a used car from either of those guys...? If I shook their hands, I'd check to see if I was still wearing my watch...but if I needed a salesman, I'd look for guys just like them.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:21 am

I'll tell you this.



If Boeing decide to merely jack up the nosewheel to provide the fan clearance on the 'Max' it will look ridiculous.



Why not just put a tailwheel on it ? !



You'd get all the fan clearance in the world and appeal to the retro enthusiasts.



Two birds with one stone..
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:29 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 73):
If Boeing decide to merely jack up the nosewheel to provide the fan clearance on the 'Max' it will look ridiculous.

What's your point? Increasing the nose gear by 8 inches is about the equivalent of the main gear by 4 inches. However you have two main gear to lengthen and the gear itself also contains hydraulic lines and electrical wires that have to lengthen. The result is even though it is being lengthened more, it is a simpler design and lighter weight design. On top of that it involves a simple aerodynamic fairing or relocating some electrical equipment vs modifying the keel beam, pressure bulkheads, spar, wing, etc. On top of that if the mains get taller, overwing slides will become necessary which adds more weight.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:34 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 74):

What's your point?

I have already made it !
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:04 am

Quoting col (Reply 71):
But as you show, it looks worse for Boeing with many less derivatives sold than Airbus.

Or perhaps it shows Boeing is more willing to create aircraft customized to the needs of their customers.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:21 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
I would think it more a lack of common sense than vision for Boeing to spend 1000% more ($10 billion vs. $1 billion) than Airbus for a 5% gain.

Actually 900% more.

If you insist on saying you are correct, feel free to send me the extra $1 billion!  
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 70):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 61):
“It was inevitable that Boeing would put a new engine on their classic 737,”

Stitch, interesting quote.
1. Technically the 'classic' is long gone and this is on the 737NG.

It was quite nice of Mr. Leahy to refer to the 737 as a classic.
 
col
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:44 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Or perhaps it shows Boeing is more willing to create aircraft customized to the needs of their customers.

And that too  
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:47 am

Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
Just look at the GTF. While the A320 can easily adopt for any preferable GTF version, the 737MAX will not even participate on that engine.

True but that has nothing to do with design constraints. There is no technical reason you can't hang a GTF under a 737 (as the CEO of Pratt will vocally tell anyone). Boeing continued their long standing (and highly successful) pattern of having a sole engine provider on the 737.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 62):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):
Why on earth would they have "panic sold" the 787? At the time it was launched, the 787 had no viable competitor. There was nothing to panic about. For its many faults, the sales machine behind the 787 was magnificent.

It is well known that hefty discounts were given on the 787 to boost orders, that in fact didn't need to happen as it proved to be very popular.

Virtually all airlines get discounts. Launch customers get hefty discounts. That's been true since before there were jets. That is not, in any way, the same as "panic selling."

Quoting Max Q (Reply 73):
If Boeing decide to merely jack up the nosewheel to provide the fan clearance on the 'Max' it will look ridiculous.

Just so we're all on the same page, are we saying the A330F looks ridiculous?

Tom.
 
col
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:20 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
Just so we're all on the same page, are we saying the A330F looks ridiculous?

I think a bit of angle up or down makes the jets look more interesting. The 330F is too horizontal now.. 
 
Max Q
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:33 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):

Just so we're all on the same page, are we saying the A330F looks ridiculous?

No, I think it looks pretty good.



As you know Tom, that modification was to provide a level floor for freight loading, adjusting the nose down attitude of the A330 to a level one.



Totally different to the 'Max' which will look very odd with the pronounced nose up attitude resulting from just 'jacking up' the nosewheel.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 7:49 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 81):

You know, with your kind of logic and preference for going for something that "looks good", I'm glad you're not CEO of Boeing. You'd run them into the ground.
You're saying that spending $10bn for a 5% increase in efficiency is better than spending $1 - 2bn for the same increase, just because it'll look better.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 81):
No, I think it looks pretty good.

So, a nose wheel "wart" looks good for Airbus.
But jacked up nose gear that still tucks into the body (ie, no wart) looks bad?   

The Boeing and Airbus are not in the business of designing things to look good.
They design to eek out the maximum gains from the minimum of expenditure.

While it is true that Airbus have the upper hand as the A320 was a clean sheet design of the 80s. It cannot be denied that Boeing have done remarkable work with a design that, lets face it, has it's roots in the late 50s!

The fact that Boeing are garnering committments for the MAX tells me Boeing are right, you are wrong. It's as simple as that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:26 pm

OK folks, we can stop debating about whether the 737MAX is a "real" airplane with "real" orders.

WN just took 150 of them with a firm order.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2072

Southwest Order 150 737MAX + 58 737NG (by AAplat4life Dec 13 2011 in Civil Aviation)
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:47 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 72):
People seem to forget that the 737 has always only had one engine choice and the 320 has had two

Right, but in the past the two engines were very close. This time the A320 exclusive engine promises to reach quite higher heights. If Lightsaber sources are right, even the GTF V1 would clearly beat the 737 engine. And, as I tried to explain, the GTF will have much more room for expansion. So GTF V2 or GTF V3 at the latest would outlclass any Leap engine.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 72):
You make some pretty grand assumptions, the first being that the MAX and NEO will still be in production in 2025...which I think is unlikely.

Correct there are some assumptions. But this one I would not consider as doubtful.

If the 737MAX backlog would really have to be cleared in 2025 the NSA would have to have EIS roughly in 2020 and be launched at the time the 737MAX will formally be defined. Are you sure that this would be likely?.

As it looks now the 737MAX was no error. But I still think that the shere between A320NEO and 737MAX will open more and more and become evident more and more. Wait until the dust settles. Wait to see which of the two will be emerge as the prefered solution if a customer has no ties to either Airbus or Boeing. Wait and see when the dust has settled.

I can see the last market share being 1/3 to 2/3 or 40% to 60% in favour of the A320NEO once the last unit of the two families is delivered. Therefore I sad that launching the NSA finally in a climate of being a clear number 2 would be harder than it had been this time.

The 737MAX will have to be good enough to bridge the 10 year timespan betwenn launch and full production of the NSA one day. The NG was not good enough to do that. So I can't see how the MAX will be better one day.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
True but that has nothing to do with design constraints. There is no technical reason you can't hang a GTF under a 737 (as the CEO of Pratt will vocally tell anyone).

Sure, you can (Ok, Pratts boss would also be convinced, that a blimp can be equiped with the GTF). But to realize the GTF's greatest strength a large fan is required. A GTF on the 737 would not be able to show the same effciency gains as on an unconstrained airframe.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:04 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 81):
As you know Tom, that modification was to provide a level floor for freight loading, adjusting the nose down attitude of the A330 to a level one.

Totally different to the 'Max' which will look very odd with the pronounced nose up attitude resulting from just 'jacking up' the nosewheel.

I totally agree that the reason for the change was different but the degree of the change, and hence the magnitude of how it will alter the look of the aircraft, is about the same. The 737NG was already 1-2 degrees nose-down in normal ground attitude. An 8" NLG extension on a 737-700 will change the ground attitude by +0.9 degrees, making the altered 737NG about level just like the A330F. If one is a "pronounced nose up attitude" then so is the other.

Tom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:11 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 75):
I have already made it !

If your point was that converting the 737 into a taildragger is the way to go, then no, you haven't.

And the rest of your comments also seem to be far more emotional than logical.

Boeing is printing money with the 737s and will continue to do so for years to come, even with its 60s overhead panel.

WN just had the chance to tell Boeing it didn't want the old-style aircraft.

Guess what it did? It ordered 200+ NGs and MAXes.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
Therefore I sad that launching the NSA finally in a climate of being a clear number 2 would be harder than it had been this time.

I disagree. If a large gap appears to be opening up, it will make it easier for Boeing to justify the NSA to its customers and to its board of directors.

The large backlog of 737s (as well as 777s and 787s) will give Boeing the flexibility to launch the NSA when the market is ready for it.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 2:31 pm

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 65):
Nor is the 747-400ER the "record for the worse selling widebody pax derivative." That title belongs to McDonnell Douglas with the DC-10-30ER, with a total of 3. For your reference for the future:

And that is under the mistaken assumption that numbers sold defines success.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 72):
You make some pretty grand assumptions, the first being that the MAX and NEO will still be in production in 2025...which I think is unlikely

I will be very surprised if they are out of production in 2025. I think we will know their replacements though.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 72):
If I shook their hands, I'd check to see if I was still wearing my watch

The story goes that when selling to Richard Branson that should be your wary.

[Edited 2011-12-13 07:06:27]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 6:03 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
True but that has nothing to do with design constraints. There is no technical reason you can't hang a GTF under a 737 (as the CEO of Pratt will vocally tell anyone).

Sure, you can (Ok, Pratts boss would also be convinced, that a blimp can be equiped with the GTF). But to realize the GTF's greatest strength a large fan is required. A GTF on the 737 would not be able to show the same effciency gains as on an unconstrained airframe.

It would be a 9:1 Bypass ratio version instead of the 12:1 Bypass ratio (my guess) that is going on the C Series and A320NEO. The lower bypass ratio would cut about 3% of the efficiency gain (if Pratt forecasts are correct).

A geared turbofan design improves efficiency regardless of bypass ratio since the whole purpose is to shrink the low pressure turbine and decrease the number of stages required since it can spin faster since it is not subject to speed constraints from the fan. A benefit is fan size and bypass ratio can increase more, but the highest bypass ratio doesn't mean that the overall airframe is more efficient. There is a limit when weight of the engine and airframe starts to eat into the benefit of a larger fan. A 9:1 bypass ratio which is likely possible on a 737 from what I've heard is a 50% increase from the current CFM. Airbus with the NEO is going for doubling the bypass ratio to 12:1.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 84):

As it looks now the 737MAX was no error. But I still think that the shere between A320NEO and 737MAX will open more and more and become evident more and more. Wait until the dust settles. Wait to see which of the two will be emerge as the prefered solution if a customer has no ties to either Airbus or Boeing. Wait and see when the dust has settled.

I can see the last market share being 1/3 to 2/3 or 40% to 60% in favour of the A320NEO once the last unit of the two families is delivered. Therefore I sad that launching the NSA finally in a climate of being a clear number 2 would be harder than it had been this time.

With all that I said above, it is pure speculation. A larger bypass ratio engine (LeapX or PW1000) will improve efficiency more of the engine which is an advantage for the A320NEO, but the slightly higher capacity (737-800 vs A320) and slightly lower weight is an advantage for the 737. You seem very confident that the higher engine efficiency will lead to higher market share by the A320NEO, but others are backing the 737MAX with more airframe efficiency as the 737NG has always had lower bypass ratio. I personally predict parity remains.
 
col
Posts: 1707
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:54 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 88):
You seem very confident that the higher engine efficiency will lead to higher market share by the A320NEO, but others are backing the 737MAX with more airframe efficiency as the 737NG has always had lower bypass ratio. I personally predict parity remains.

I think that the AA choice backs you up on your comments on the 320neo/-8MAX, with the 319/321neo having better potential that the -7/-9 MAX.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:14 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 88):
It would be a 9:1 Bypass ratio version instead of the 12:1 Bypass ratio (my guess) that is going on the C Series and A320NEO. The lower bypass ratio would cut about 3% of the efficiency gain (if Pratt forecasts are correct).

They could improve the bypass ratio the same way RR is doing it for the -1000 engine; by spinning it faster. It's not an ideal solution but they claim they don't lose any SFC by doing that and using what would be considered, (at least by A.net standards), a smaller than optimum fan diameter.

I'm sure they also have some airfoil shaping options to optimize the fan for a higher rotational speed.
 
morrisond
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

RE: Randy Tinseth On 100 Days Of MAX

Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:28 am

BTW the Southwest order article now says over 900 Orders and Commitments from 13 Customers, Southwest wasn't included in the first 12....

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