StTim
Posts: 3449
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 9:33 pm

I think he means turn around times as it takes so long to get off a 321 or a 737-9 if you are at the back....
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Sun Apr 10, 2016 11:43 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 147):
Competing in commercial aircraft is a 'death march.' It is a race that never ends..

It ended for Lockheed, Douglas, Fokker, Antonov, BAe and plenty of others. Why couldn't it end for Boeing if Airbus decided to expand production of the A320 series to 90/month? If the 77X loses out to the A350, if the A330neo keeps the 787 from winning new orders, and the A320 keeps winning orders, at some point commercial aviation becomes unsustainable.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:14 am

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 151):
It ended for Lockheed, Douglas, Fokker, Antonov, BAe and plenty of others. Why couldn't it end for Boeing if Airbus decided to expand production of the A320 series to 90/month? If the 77X loses out to the A350, if the A330neo keeps the 787 from winning new orders, and the A320 keeps winning orders, at some point commercial aviation becomes unsustainable.

That type of scenario would e quite extreme.

I think the difference between Boeing "Lockheed, Douglas, Fokker, Antonov, BAe and plenty of others" is that Boeing currently have strong hold of the market place and their programs (even the problem childs) have had all their costs sunk.

From where I sit the worse case scenario for Boeing would be a write off of the book value development cost assets. The markets may not be happy, but it would probably end up being a sales bonanza for the Boeing sales team.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:06 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 152):
From where I sit the worse case scenario for Boeing would be a write off of the book value development cost assets. The markets may not be happy, but it would probably end up being a sales bonanza for the Boeing sales team.

What development cost assets?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:38 am

Wow, a lot of Doom and gloom *after* Boeing sold how many MAX in 2015?!? Is Wikipedia off in noting over 800? Boeing had a so-so 2014 and a good 2013 with MAX sales.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 151):
Why couldn't it end for Boeing if Airbus decided to expand production of the A320 series to 90/month? If the 77X loses out to the A350, if the A330neo keeps the 787 from winning new orders, and the A320 keeps winning orders, at some point commercial aviation becomes unsustainable.

The 777X has enough of a market. 306 orders. That is already more than the MD-11 or L-1011.
The 787 is doing well enough, so there will still be a Boeing competing in a decade. 6 years of backlog *before* the 787-10 enters service. Book to bill was > 1 in 2015 (and 2014).

Airbus could increase production of the A320NEO family. But that will take engine production and CFM is unlikely to help completely bury the 737 (they do have a monopoly on that type and have resisted A320 ramp up so far). Pratt would love more sales. But with the Max having a backlog of over three thousand... Boeing isn't going away in narrowbodies. The issue is re-engined demand vs. current engine demand.

This isn't Douglas who missed on MD-11 range and short field promises, MD-90 (maintenance and weight), out of date MD-80, and only had the 717 which was a great airframe without the range the market wanted (at the time) nor engine maintenance (short overhaul intervals after the CFM-56 improved). There is a product line.

Much too much doom and gloom on Boeing. Boeing lost their efficiency/pricing advantage when the A320CEO gained Sharklets. Some was 'bought back' with the new Scimitars, but not before a three way price war that probably also involve a 4th (Embraer).

Boeing has a backlog of over 4 thousand 737 aircraft in backlog. Now Airbus has over 5.5 thousand A320 in the backlog with fewer 'old engines' and more of the more profitable new engines.

The issue is CFM-56 powered aircraft just are not selling. Neither A320CEO or 737NG. Airbus has no reason to discount CEOs but, at this time, Boeing has no choice. While Boeing fills the production gap, they'll have to focus elsewhere than MAX backlog. But eventually they will sell. Same ratio? Probably not (mostly due to A321NEO vs. -9 MAX). This saga will continue...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 4:55 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 149):
Now, the A321NEO easily has the lowest CASM of the near term aircraft. But I'm an engineer, we look at the world how it could be improved. Or as an aerospace engineer, 'future market opportunities.' Mate it with the more efficient 3.5:1 ratio GTF, and we would see quite the 5,000nm to 5,500nm airframe that would have dominate economics on the 2+ hour missions.

Mate this engine and a new wing with the A321 fuselage and you will get close to this design for a fraction of the costs.
The problem for Boeing is not building such a plane, the problem is selling it, in case Airbus does make an A321 up-date, as the simple logic dictates that: If the market is big enough to do a new design, it is surely big enough to make a derivative of an existing design and aim to take half of the market.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 154):
The issue is CFM-56 powered aircraft just are not selling. Neither A320CEO or 737NG. Airbus has no reason to discount CEOs but, at this time, Boeing has no choice. While Boeing fills the production gap, they'll have to focus elsewhere than MAX backlog. But eventually they will sell. Same ratio? Probably not (mostly due to A321NEO vs. -9 MAX). This saga will continue...

The 900 also did not sell as well as the A321CEO; that is why I always wonder where "the panic" is coming from. 800 vs A320 looks good enough.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17488
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 7:49 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 154):
Wow, a lot of Doom and gloom *after* Boeing sold how many MAX in 2015?!? Is Wikipedia off in noting over 800?

409 MAX in 2015 according to Boeing themselves.
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.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 8:12 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 155):
Mate this engine and a new wing with the A321 fuselage and you will get close to this design for a fraction of the costs.

Same exactly Boeing did with the 777X
 
neutronstar73
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:57 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 12:46 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 154):
The issue is CFM-56 powered aircraft just are not selling

You could say the same with the V2500, eh?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 1:32 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 158):
You could say the same with the V2500, eh?

With the shift to the A321CEO the last few years, sales have favored the V2500. While the CFM-56-7 received a PIP, the CFM-56-5 did not in the time the V2500 had *two* PIPs. This made the V2500 the clear choice on the A321. While the CFM-56 remains the clear choice on the A319, who is buying the shortie? Airbus can sell A321CEOs still, not so much the others. It isn't that zero CFM A321CEOs are sold, but rather airlines are willing to 'split fleet' on the engines (LH, AA) and break loyalty.

CFM needs to sell more A320CEO engines due to a later start. Pratt just needs to keep A320 V2500 production going until the KC390 enters service.

This blogger estimates Boeing needs 924 more NG than Airbus needs CEO due to the later switchover. I believe CFM needs about a hundred more CEOs than Pratt due to the later switchover to NEO production. Thus it isn't just who can sell (Pratt dies have a larger CEO backlog), but also how many must sell (due to extended production). Airlines are less hesitant to take later debugged examples. It is the first 18 to 24 months of a new engine where the problems happen. (E.g., Fan issues on the 738 for the first 6 months).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
spacecookie
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:57 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:24 pm

For me the 737 is the better plane to fly with as a passenger, quieter, and they never appear the age they have,

And the 321 struggle with a full load of pax to climb, let's see the new engines.
But I don't think that this is an 757 replacement, the same for the 900er.

Both planes have nice order books so I don't understand why they have lost any battle.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 10:52 pm

Quoting spacecookie (Reply 160):
And the 321 struggle with a full load of pax to climb, let's see the new engines.
But I don't think that this is an 757 replacement, the same for the 900er.

If you are saying the A321 has high wing loading, that is true. But it is already replacing 757s, as are 739s. A slower climb does mean some fuel burn penalty, but still far thriftier than a 757.

The A321LR will have more range than a 752 but will require more runway and will have a slower climb. It will save maintenance and fuel bills. The MoM isn't here. Until then, as 757s age out, A321s or 739s will replace those not displaced by frequency


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Matt6461
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:36 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:02 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 161):
A slower climb does mean some fuel burn penalty

Isn't it also an issue of cruise fuel burn? Specifically two benefits:

(1) engine SFC improves as external temperature decreases. Temperature levels out once you reach the stratosphere at ~FL35 but changing with latitude and weather. A321neo will start its cruise around FL31.

(2) lower air density/pressure means lower parasitic and wave drag but higher induced drag. Induced is only ~1/3 of A321's drag so on net it would be better to cruise higher (bigger wing would add some wetted area but not enough to cancel out the decrease in parasitic/wave drag across the whole frame).

...anyway that's how I read the fundamentals. Does that seem right?
 
KD5MDK
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:05 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Mon Apr 11, 2016 11:49 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 154):
The 777X has enough of a market. 306 orders. That is already more than the MD-11 or L-1011.
The 787 is doing well enough, so there will still be a Boeing competing in a decade. 6 years of backlog *before* the 787-10 enters service. Book to bill was > 1 in 2015 (and 2014).

How many orders does it need to avoid being their A380? Not necessarily no sales, but not enough to be overall positive.

Quote:

Airbus could increase production of the A320NEO family. But that will take engine production and CFM is unlikely to help completely bury the 737 (they do have a monopoly on that type and have resisted A320 ramp up so far). Pratt would love more sales. But with the Max having a backlog of over three thousand... Boeing isn't going away in narrowbodies. The issue is re-engined demand vs. current engine demand.

So if Airbus increases production in alignment with Pratt, can they increase market share from 60-40 to 75-25? What is the maximum plausible marketshare, and what is the minimum marketshare Boeing needs in order to cover their fixed costs? What is the cash flow they need in order to finance a NSA program that faces a rewinged/reengined A321?
My pessimism suspects that if their orders going forward won't support a new program, they'll be stuck with even less compelling sales.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:34 am

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 163):
So if Airbus increases production in alignment with Pratt, can they increase market share from 60-40 to 75-25?

It would depend if the suppliers can go that high and if they can, what kind of guarantees they would want to ensure that when the market inevitably falls, they're covered for the cost+profit of producing 1000 chipsets a year for a market that can no longer absorb that.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:57 am

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 162):
) engine SFC improves as external temperature decreases

It is more the second point.

But it will take Billions to develop a new wing and a year+ to flight test. I have many negative things to say about the A321NEO wing *except* it will own the market for a decade+.

I would LOVE to participate in a rewing optimization study of the A321. No other plane since the Douglas jets would benefit more. But there is no business case until near MoM EIS. By that time, Airbus will decide their counter.

The A321NEO isn't horrid. The sharklets increase the effictive wingspan and area, but compare to the E2-195...
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21562
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:07 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 147):

Just one added (late) comment:
All of this poor MAX sales is really at the top size. Boeing knows this as does airbus.

Be that as it may, as platforms develop, sales tend to drift to the largest size. It also means that the A320 family has more diversity to offer. So if an airline can choose between having the 738 and the 739 or the A320 and the A321 (MAX/NEO) and the 738 is slightly better than the A320 but the 739 is way worse than the A321, guess who is likely to win that order?

Quoting spacecookie (Reply 160):

And the 321 struggle with a full load of pax to climb, let's see the new engines.
But I don't think that this is an 757 replacement, the same for the 900er.

Some time ago, I calculated that a non-wingletted A321 has 1.19x the wing loading of a non-wingletted 757 based on exposed wing area (outside the fuselage). We can assume that the addition of winglets to both wings would not make a huge difference in that ratio. What wing loading really determines (within the bounds in reasonable use on an airliner) is the optimal altitude at a given weight. The 757 with its enormous wing could climb right up to very high altitudes. But on the A321 the thrust/MTOW ratio is actually slightly better than that of the 752. The massive boost in efficiency from the new engines makes the airplane capable of much longer range.

I will point out that the two OEMs have each taken different approaches to wing loading. For the A320, the wing loading is middling, but for the A321 it is higher. The A330 and A340 had relatively low wing loading, while the A300 had a relatively small wing for its weight. The A350 and A380 have very low wing loading, although we'll see how the A35J and proposed A35K look. So Airbus went from high to middling wing loading in the past to low wing loading in the present.

Boeing used to use very big wings on aircraft like the 707, 727, 747, 752, and 762, but with the 753, 773/W and 764, Boeing went to very high wing loading. And in spite of high wing loading, the 77W is one of the most capable twin-engined airliners ever produced.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 6:24 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 166):
Boeing used to use very big wings on aircraft like the 707, 727, 747, 752, and 762, but with the 753, 773/W and 764, Boeing went to very high wing loading. And in spite of high wing loading, the 77W is one of the most capable twin-engined airliners ever produced.

An very interesting point I didn't regocnized yet. And it goes even further with the 787-9 and especially the 787-10!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:07 am

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 163):
What is the maximum plausible marketshare, and what is the minimum marketshare Boeing needs in order to cover their fixed costs?

If Boeing has to peddle their products via low prices even 50% market share might not be enough.
If their product would allow distinctly higher pricing even 25% might be enough.

But Boeing is under pricing pressure. They have to discount strongly to slow their loss of market share.
.. which directly sets demand for more profits to allow an earlier changeover to a more competitive design.

Quandary, that.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:16 am

But then we do not see the numbers, so in the end the normal Airbus price could be seen as a discount by Boeing, when Airbus aims for a margin of 8% and Boeing for 16%. On the other hand the numbers floating around for the UA 737s do not look like such a minor difference, but then this deal has other intentions than making money. It secures a Blue Chip customer for Boeing and keeps the competition out of the market. In the end it was a huge mistake to not be so aggressive against Airbus in the 1980ies.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:32 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 169):
In the end it was a huge mistake to not be so aggressive against Airbus in the 1980ies.

Why would Boeing have introduced "full fleet care" ( i..e. buy only Boeing and get a good price) with US customers than for aggressively keeping Airbus down? ( publicly offering "we don't bother about Airbus" is part of the stance.
Assume that internally Boeing never turned a blind eye on Airbus. Confessing to underestimating an unfairly propped up competitor is condonable ... .
Compare to PR language from Boeing in recent years. "problems? there are no problems and everything is improving at high speed".  

This was overcome with a better product _and_ sufficient stamina provided by the political interests behind Airbus.
Murphy is an optimist
 
giblets
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:21 am

Quoting dare100em (Reply 167):
Boeing used to use very big wings on aircraft like the 707, 727, 747, 752, and 762, but with the 753, 773/W and 764, Boeing went to very high wing loading. And in spite of high wing loading, the 77W is one of the most capable twin-engined airliners ever produced.

Isn't this related to the introduction of supercritical wings? (A310 came in about this time too, and shocked many in the US who claimed it too small before seeing the performance figures!)
146, ATR72, Q400, Saab 340, PA-46 Jetprop, Jetstream, E175/195, 707/727/737/747/757/767/777, DC-3/9/10, MD-11/80, A300/310/319/320/321/330/340/350/380 Tristar, BAC 1-11, Trident, Chipmunk, Bell 206/222, Chinook, Puma, Cessna 172, Fokker 70, 100, SRN4!
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:56 am

Quoting WIederling (Reply 168):

I don't perceive a situation of doom and gloom for Boeing. In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled. I'd even go ad far as saying we will end up seeing quite a few A321 orders being converted back to A320's.

To give this greater perspective, if Boeing leave the production rate of the 737 at 52 month (624/year) until 2025 and Airbus increase production from 2017-2025 to 63 month (756/year) Airbus will achieve a market share of 53% (2014-2025).

We have to remember Boeing will still be delivering NG models in the period Airbus start to deliver the NEO proper, so the NEO/ Max order race will not be representative of actual market share.

I would suggest the pricing pressure Boeing refer to is specific to the A321 &B737-9 order battles. With the A321 having 15 more seats including more range, lower CASM and higher RASM opportunity, to remain competitive Boeing's only trick is to reduce its prices. It cant win on performance.

From 2025 with the introduction of a MOM aircraft the narrow body market will further fragment. I don't believe we can reasonably make any predictions past this date.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2326
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:06 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
I don't perceive a situation of doom and gloom for Boeing. In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled. I'd even go ad far as saying we will end up seeing quite a few A321 orders being converted back to A320's.

Interesting take on it.

Not arguing either way - although I did read somewhere Airbus were expecting the A321 to eventually be around half of single-aisle deliveries.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:12 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
From 2025 with the introduction of a MOM aircraft the narrow body market will further fragment. I don't believe we can reasonably make any predictions past this date.

Well that depends on the MoM being built and on the MoM being a single aisle design. Neither is a given.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 10:28 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 174):
Well that depends on the MoM being built and on the MoM being a single aisle design. Neither is a given

Whatever the case, the market from 2025 forwards is just too far into the future.

If a true MOM comes to market (offered to the market in the 2020-2023 time frame) it will probably steel sales back from the A321.

[Edited 2016-04-12 03:31:39]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17488
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:06 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled. I'd even go ad far as saying we will end up seeing quite a few A321 orders being converted back to A320's.

Based on what? Passenger numbers are still growing and average plane size in the single-aisle sector is still increasing. Airbus sells and delivers proportionally more A321s year on year. As the A321's performance has improved, the sales have increased. What's going to stop, let alone reverse that trend?

Quoting travelhound (Reply 175):
If a true MOM comes to market (offered to the market in the 2020-2023 time frame) it will probably steel sales back from the A321.

Bernstein, via Leeham, suggest that MOM, if it ever appears, will be a post-2025 plane. So Airbus will continue to make hay and rake in $$$ with the A321 for at least another nine years.

http://leehamnews.com/2016/04/12/pri...s-straight-bottom-line/#more-19253
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.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:24 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 176):
Bernstein, via Leeham, suggest that MOM, if it ever appears, will be a post-2025 plane. So Airbus will continue to make hay and rake in $$$ with the A321 for at least another nine years.

Bernstein is a analyst company focused solely on consequencies for the capital site and nothing else. In the very same document they are quoted:

“If Boeing concludes that there is a significant issue with the 737MAX-9 versus the A321neo, a shorter-term approach would be needed. This could be a further stretch of the MAX-9, although that is not particularly attractive, as it would require a new landing gear. So far, such a move does not appear to be an imperative, since the narrowbody market is split 50/50 through 2020 and the A321neo is not the dominant variant choice so far.”

So everybody can judge what to make of it. Especially of the quaote that the single-aisle marked beeing 50/50. Even deliveries will be at least 55/45 with profits maybe in the 60/40 ratio (like orders) at least giving the higher efforts for the MAX and the A321 situation.

While it is true that a real MOM - beeing a clean sheet - definitely will have an EIS around 2025 their suggestion that “[Expect no new] ‘middle of the market’ airplane to materially reduce cash flows or increase risk during the next five years,” is also probably [partly] true it doesn't definitely define if a MOM materialize or not.

It furthermore doesn'r exclude a two-stage approach with an 737-Max twist adressing the A321 somehow in the medium turn with a clean-sheet MOM - above the A321 - in the long run.

Bernstein doesn't really know waht will happen and even Boeing themself may still consider different options at this stage. I guess a decision will be drawn somehow over the next 12 month.

But yes, the A321 will make a lot money for Airbus at least till about 2015 which isn't exactly new or something Bernstein discovered.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:42 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
I don't perceive a situation of doom and gloom for Boeing. In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled. I'd even go ad far as saying we will end up seeing quite a few A321 orders being converted back to A320's.

There hasn't been anything to suggest a slowing down, the A321neo has surpassed the ceo's total orders before EIS, it's won a lot of customers over and there have been suggestions that some airlines don't order it because Airbus know it's popular and thus put a premium on it. There is still quite a lot of potential, later ceo deliveries, some 757s still flying, and longer routes such as TATL, SE Asia-Australia and thin inter-Asia routes amongst others could be opened up, which is why we see airlines like TP ordering it and EI strongly considering it.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
I would suggest the pricing pressure Boeing refer to is specific to the A321 &B737-9 order battles.

Boeing faces pricing pressure across the board, but most keenly in 787 territory. Though as above, it's worth noting that Airbus gets a relative premium on the A321.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 12:39 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 170):
Why would Boeing have introduced "full fleet care" ( i..e. buy only Boeing and get a good price) with US customers than for aggressively keeping Airbus down?

They did so iin response to Airbus, who were the ones who actually introduced "full fleet care" when they (effectively) secured an exclusive supplier contract with USAir to (effectively) lock Boeing out.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:02 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled.

Airbus expects A321 deliveries to grow to 50% of output.
That does not sound like "limited outlook" to me.

There seems to be a kickoff range/payload trigger level where the
bigger frames ( with all models getting similar PIPs, MOTW++ ... ) take over
market share when exceeding this performance.

A319 in select years ( and long long ago in 2000 ) delivered more frames per year than
its bigger brother the A320. Now it is at ~5%. The A321 has been constantly on the rise
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:41 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 179):

Try again?

https://books.google.de/books?id=MmtmGCDO_XEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=boeing+exclusive+deal+US+airlines&source=bl&ots=j1IJve3k0B&sig=o767UTMAJ-Z7mZ9cbXlzoMAVXFI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG-ayE0onMAhXNJSwKHZhiDxgQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:41 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 181):
Try again?

On November 6, 1996 US Airways placed an order for up to 400 Airbus A320-series narrow body aircraft. The size of that order effectively precluded US ever looking at the 737 again. The deal also extended to widebodies and US Airways placed an order for up to 30 A330s two years later., effectively precluding US from looking at the 767 (and, by extension, the 777 as they negotiated for A340s for proposed routes to Asia from the US East Coast).


When American and Delta saw the deal US Airways had secured with Airbus, they went to Boeing in 1997 and negotiated similar contracts (at least in terms of outcome) as both were at the time effectively all-Boeing customers (AA did have some A300-600s). Continental was also talking with Boeing (as they were preparing to place a $4 billion order with them) and United talked to both Airbus and Boeing (as they had recently ordered a billion worth of Airbus jets along with $2.5 billion worth of Boeing).

[Edited 2016-04-12 14:44:17]
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 182):
On November 6, 1996 US Airways placed an order for up to 400 Airbus A320-series narrow body aircraft.

That was right around the time I had begun taking an interest in commercial aviation (was fascinated by ultralight before that, but concluded I was unfit to pilot, destined to always be a passenger in a big bird. lol)
I remember thinking, "Wow, the Europeans really have something here!"
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:42 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 180):
There seems to be a kickoff range/payload trigger level where the
bigger frames ( with all models getting similar PIPs, MOTW ... ) take over
market share when exceeding this performance.

A319 in select years ( and long long ago in 2000 ) delivered more frames per year than
its bigger brother the A320. Now it is at ~5%. The A321 has been constantly on the rise

There is a range threshold (multiple actually...) and a short field threshold. The range was exceeded in the A321CEO thanks to engine PIPs and Sharklets. The short field requirement was more by hub consolidation and 86 seat RJs displacing mainline.

I'm very excited about the A321LR and the A320neo short field kit. Since more can be done to improve A320NEO short field performance, I expect A319NEOs will only trade as parts. Unless WN wants to bid, same for the -7 MAX. With the first engine PIP, sales will be at the airline's risk (no leasor will touch them after 2020 IMHO).

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:48 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 182):

ordering "enough" is not the kind of market manipulation we are talking about.

And it is not what Boeing seems to have done.

The Allegation was that Boeing made exclusivity deals with Airlines
before any purchase and from a market dominating position.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:54 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 184):
There is a range threshold (multiple actually...) and a short field threshold.

We see the same process in the WB arena. 788 and A330-2/800 loosing customer interest.
( and very much IMHO why a MOM sits in the "uncanny valley" of low efficiency cross section.
... next ( slightly wider ) valley is between WB and DDeck designs.
Again IMHO why it does not make sense to do a "small double decker"
or shorten the A380 even more. )
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8736
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:57 am

I would wait until the MAX has its EIS. Wait for the first performance rumours from the flight tests to surface before writing the plane off.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 18151
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 10:57 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 176):
Bernstein, via Leeham, suggest that MOM, if it ever appears, will be a post-2025 plane. So Airbus will continue to make hay and rake in $$$ with the A321 for at least another nine years.

2025 is the earliest I've heard. It will take about 6 years to get the MAX into service from the Aug 30 2011 approval by the BoD. That was using the core developed for the Airbus NEO too. If the MoM is to be competitive, a longer development timeframe will, ironically, cut development costs.

The A321NEO will have many years of uncontested sales.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 180):
Airbus expects A321 deliveries to grow to 50% of output.

Only short field performance limits the types growth with added production being capable of manufacturing the type. I think the fraction could go higher... But not too much unless Toulouse builds new buildings (I think unlikely).

Quoting WIederling (Reply 186):
why a MOM sits in the "uncanny valley" of low efficiency cross section.
... next ( slightly wider ) valley is between WB and DDeck designs.

Actually, CFRP lets the designer stretch the 6 across tube further than aluminum with good structural efficiency. What would be a bad cross section is a shorty widebody.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:05 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 185):
ordering "enough" is not the kind of market manipulation we are talking about.

Well US Airways only ordered Airbus frames for the next 20 years (1996-2015) in the airframe classes Boeing also offered, which was the same period the Boeing deals would have run. So it ended up being the same kind of market manipulation and considering US ordered the A350-900 and would have assuredly ordered the A320neo, the "deal" they had with Airbus would have run 30 years or more in the end.

But anyway, this discussion is not directly relevant to the topic at hand so we should retire it, like the respective agreements themselves.  Smile

[Edited 2016-04-13 05:07:25]
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:40 pm

Interesting to see if DL chooses the A320neo or 737MAX or CS300 or a mix of 737Max/CS300 or A320neo/CS300.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
packsonflight
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:05 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
I would wait until the MAX has its EIS. Wait for the first performance rumours from the flight tests to surface before writing the plane off.

Apparently MAX customers have bin informed of increase in DOW that exceeds the increase in MTOW from the NG to the MAX, so that does not look too good.
 
astuteman
Posts: 6898
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:53 pm

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
I don't perceive a situation of doom and gloom for Boeing

nor should you. Or anyone.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
In my opinion the A321 market is limited. Once it is filled it is filled. I'd even go ad far as saying we will end up seeing quite a few A321 orders being converted back to A320's

In a sense EVERY market is limited. None of them are infinite.
But some 2000 planes have been sold into this particular space in the last 5 years (1100 x A321NEO, 400 x 737-9MAX and some 500 CEO/NG).
400 frames per year is a VERY big market.
Both OEM's agree that narrowbody sizes and capacities are growing.
That suggests this segment is only going to grow.

This is NOT a cyclic "replacement wave" type market.
Planes in this size segment will continue to sell in large (and ever larger) quantities for a very long time.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 172):
I would suggest the pricing pressure Boeing refer to is specific to the A321 &B737-9 order battles

Boeing were very specific that the pricing pressure is predominantly on the 787 (vis-à-vis the A330NEO)

What we do know is that airlines are complaining that Airbus are commanding a premium on the A321NEO and still selling them in huge quantities.
The only other plane I have seen able to do this was the 77W - a plane which dominated its immediate competitor.
Go figure  
Quoting seahawk (Reply 187):
I would wait until the MAX has its EIS. Wait for the first performance rumours from the flight tests to surface before writing the plane off.

No one in their right mind is going to "write off" a family that has sold 3 000 examples long before EIS.

Rgds
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:56 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 188):
Actually, CFRP lets the designer stretch the 6 across tube further than aluminum with good structural efficiency. What would be a bad cross section is a shorty widebody.

How much longer do you think CFRP will allow the 6 across tube to become compared to the 321 and still keeping good structural efficiency? And how would that translate into capacity?
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:24 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 190):
Interesting to see if DL chooses the A320neo or 737MAX or CS300 or a mix of 737Max/CS300 or A320neo/CS300.

Knowing DL, it will be whoever gives them the best deal at the time they are looking for whatever specific mission they need. Look at how they have both 739s and A321s - 739s do the transcons, while A321s are for shorthaul. With the size of their fleet, they have the flexibility to match the right plane and the right deal to the right mission.
 
StTim
Posts: 3449
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:25 pm

Plus how much longer can a six across tube go before turn around times become a limiting factor?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:44 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 195):
Plus how much longer can a six across tube go before turn around times become a limiting factor?

For single door operations, I would suggest the 36 meters of the 757-200 cabin is the realistic limit.
 
phxa340
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:07 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:51 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 191):

Not sure who your sources are but Aviation Week reported SFC was almost 1% better than expected.
 
trex8
Posts: 5338
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:08 pm

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 197):
Quoting packsonflight (Reply 191):

Not sure who your sources are but Aviation Week reported SFC was almost 1% better than expected.

Better SFC is no necessarily related to increased frame weight, maybe the fuel penalty from the high weight if true will be negated by the better SFC, though payload may still be hit.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Leeham: Boeing Has Lost Neo/MAX Battle Pt 2.

Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:13 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 191):
Apparently MAX customers have bin informed of increase in DOW that exceeds the increase in MTOW from the NG to the MAX, so that does not look too good.
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 197):
Not sure who your sources are but Aviation Week reported SFC was almost 1% better than expected.
packsonflight is referring to airframe weight, not engine fuel burn.

Over a year ago, natflyer reported the MAX's empty weight was some 10,000 pounds higher than the 737NG (MTOW is up 7,000 pounds and MZFW is up a bit over 7,000 pounds).

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