Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining

[keesje]

Boeing is betting that technology will mature enough by 2019/2020 to support a new airplane to serve the all-important 100- to 200-seat market, rather than taking the option of re-engining 737NGs to compete with the Airbus A320 New Engine Option (NEO) program.

“If we can come up with the right airplanes in the roughly 2019/2020 [period], I personally think the market will wait for us,” CEO James McNerney told analysts during a 2010 earnings call yesterday. “But we have to work through the airplane [to see] more precisely what it will look like.”

Boeing Bets On Replacement 737 Over Reengining | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/01/26/awx_01_26_2011_p0-285608.xml&channel=comm)

It seems Boeing has all but decided to come up with something new.

Wonder if any new engine technology (further the PW geared turbofan or GE LEAPX technology) will be available by 2020..

[DERG]

The 737NGs have a limited life anyway. 2019 hits the airframe integrity issue right on the nose.:mad:

[keesje]

And Embraer is just waiting what Boeing will do.

Embraer waits for 737 decision before defining own plan (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/01/352634/embraer-waits-for-737-decision-before-defining-own-plan.html)

No doubt they have some ideas.

Putting new engines under the 190 seems a no brainer. I guess they have to, with the CS100, MRJ coming on line.

[Sciolistes]

Neo is probably a damp squib and Boeing's position looks strong with the 787 and 748 coming online. This leaves Boeing potentially resource rich to proceed.

It is possible that Boeing are sandbagging and that they have known how to with the 737 replacement for some time. I think this because it is clear that that the current design can't be re-engined with alacrity due to the almost certain need for a significant redesign on the undercarriage and subsequent wing, airframe and systems impact.

[grounded27]

Ok the 737/A320, it goes up and down, mostly short legs. Boeing does not care.The only major cost savings would be in the engines. Just how clean can an aircraft get?

[Jonty]

The NEO is just a stop gap. Its only bolting on a new engine and a few other systems. Its not a major undertaking at all.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Airbus will also be working on a A320 replacement for 2020.

[Chillimausl]

It's open to interpretation, but Boeing certainly did not make any firm commitment to a replacement of the B737, in my view. There was, however, a loose commitment to some sort of decision being made late this year. There's probably a replay of the 2010 result conference call on the Boeing website.

Anyway, there is an argument that replacing the B737 (and A320) like-for-like won't be the right answer in terms of the market that will exist in 2030. Very big decisions loom ahead for both Airbus and Boeing. Being able to re-engine the A320 probably gives Airbus the luxury of having more time to decide.

[Sciolistes]

Ok the 737/A320, it goes up and down, mostly short legs. Boeing does not care.The only major cost savings would be in the engines. Just how clean can an aircraft get?
And weight of course, assuming composites will make the difference. There are potentially big economies to be made with an all new airframe.

The NEO is just a stop gap. Its only bolting on a new engine and a few other systems. Its not a major undertaking at all.
But Airbus is on the back foot slightly because they still have the A350 gumming up the works until at least 2013 and with the Neo due 2015 it will put them behind if (big if!) Boeing can deliver.

I'm wondering if Neo is a bad idea.

[keesje]

Airbus says reengining the A319, A320 and A321 with new PW GTF's and new GE LEAPX will cost them around E1 Billion. Fuel saving should be around 15% or give payload / range. It will be significantly quieter and cleaner (NOx) too.

The NEO combined with the CSeries and some other entrants causes Boeing a serious headache IMO. What new engine technology will be available in 2019? It probably isn't coming from Pratt or GE. Maybe it's there when Airbus comes up with their new NB, 4-5 years later.

The Boeing backlog (2000+ 737s) runs in to 2015-2016. Will a new CFM powered 737 be a good investment for any airline after .. 2014? with clearly better competitors entering service?

A picture I produced in 2010 that stirred up the blogosphere and had even Randy Tinseth write a counterblog two days later :E

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/739A321C939MS21.jpg

[WHBM]

If we can come up with the right airplanes in the roughly 2019/2020 [period], I personally think the market will wait for us,” CEO James McNerney told analysts during a 2010 earnings call yesterday.
How does it take so long to design the things nowadays ? 9 years ? Did Boeing, with the 737 entering service in 1968, start designing it in 1959 ? Where is all the advantage that billions of dollars of investment in CAD products gives over our grandfathers with drawing boards, crew-cuts, and new Studebakers out in the parking lot ?

And in the meantime, where are Boeing going to get their cashflow from over the next nine years ? 787 delays have already knocked a huge hole in that, now the 737 will be on notice as a past-generation product for almost a decade, which must have an impact on how much you can charge for it.

[chase888]

The common denominator as of now for Boeing and Airbus is the PW GTF or the CFM Leap X (or is it ten?).
A Boeing 737 NEO no matter how difficult is going to get within a few percentage points of an A329 neo in performance at a fraction of the cost of a 797, which has to use the same engines at the moment.
Do you spend say $3 billion to tart up the 737 or $10 billion on a 797 giving probably a marginally better direct operating cost than 737 NEO for an additional $10 million in capital cost?
The dog in all these questions is that open rotor seems to be the next big step in power plants now that the noise appears to be solved, and it is going to be very difficult to come up with a common airframe to suit open rotor, GTF and LeapX.
Maybe Keesje can dream up a suitable concept?:ugh:

[chase888]

Sorry for the finger trouble! For 329 neo read 320 neo. :confused::confused:

[lasernigel]

Just as an SLF have flown all three types, got to admit that the Embraer beats all with more passenger room and quieter in flight.
All power to them they do make good aircraft and the safety record I think is better.:ok:

[ImbracableCrunk]

I've heard that SWA killed many of the improvements that Boeing had in mind for the B737NG.

I'm not a SWA basher, but I believe a big customer could lobby for or against changes.

[lomapaseo]

chase888

The dog in all these questions is that open rotor seems to be the next big step in power plants now that the noise appears to be solved, and it is going to be very difficult to come up with a common airframe to suit open rotor, GTF and LeapX.
Maybe Keesje can dream up a suitable concept?:ugh: The dog in all these questions is that open rotor seems to be the next big step in power plants now that the noise appears to be solved, and it is going to be very difficult to come up with a common airframe to suit open rotor, GTF and LeapX.
Maybe Keesje can dream up a suitable concept?:ugh:
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=6222423)

Sounds like a subject I would like to know more about in order to join in.

Could you expand the points above more

[chase888]

Sorry Lomapaseo,
Cannot direct you to a source, just has been reported a number of times that RR claim to have solved the noise issue on open rotors.
After the T900 issue on the Qantas A380, the fan containment issue may be a point, although we have been spinning open propellers for a few years, and do not fully understand why the open rotor fan(or propeller) should be such an issue.
In my simplistic way, I fail to see so much difference between a turbo-prop and the open rotor except for the physical size of the beast.
Does not answer your question I know, but thats what age does for you.
Cheers.

[keesje]

The dog in all these questions is that open rotor seems to be the next big step in power plants now that the noise appears to be solved, and it is going to be very difficult to come up with a common airframe to suit open rotor, GTF and LeapX. Maybe Keesje can dream up a suitable concept?

:O

touched the grey cells about a year ago. I contacted Henry Lam on the idea and he actually made some excellent sketches.

Name we came up with: ERC-20 (EcoRegionalConcept 2020). Then we got busy with serious things. Maybe its time to grab together what we got produce 1 story board and "launch" it here. I'll contact Henry & ask what he thinks.

sneak preview of the ECR-20
..
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20.jpg?t=1296819363

[Chillimausl]

Yes - it would be an interesting subject right enough.

As for open-rotor looking feasible, that's something I've been pondering since the A320/B737 re-engining got going.

Despite the success of IAE and despite Airbus urging IAE to come with a new engine, RR didn't play. Is that because RR felt the GTF was a blind alley? If the open-rotor has made good progress then RR's stance would be a reasonable one, perhaps.

Of course, it may just be that RR isn't convinced by re-engining programmes, perhaps in the wake of the A340-500/600. Certainly, doing the engine and airframe hand-in-hand is always going to come up with a more optimal solution.

I am sorry that this post provides nothing specific.

[lomapaseo]

Technolgy can of course make things work. Whether a company provides a product line is mostly a money thing, both in available resources to invest (engineers and money) as well as long term returns.

The open rotor concept got a good airing in the prop-jet programs. One of the chewing over points was the read-over of the current safety regulations to these unique installations. Nobody wanted to see any hint of lessening of safety in any one regulatory paragraph, regardless of any argument that overall it might look good.

There isn't much interest in starting from scratch in writing a completely new regulatory section for unique ideas so trying to fit a round block in a square hole by adopting a regulation to fit takes time away from generating novel ideas.

It isn't as simple as calling it a prop (it installs differently on larger aircraft and flies different)

[Chillimausl]

Thank-you. I now have a starting point and will try to go forward without making a complete idiot of myself. Like Captain Oates, I may be some time.

Engineering is one thing (I'm still mopping my brow after the Qantas Trent 900 thread), but money I can get to grips with, I think. Poor old P&W pioneers the way with the UDF and then settles for the GTF. Can't help but feel they've developed a habit of coming up with an answer before knowing what the question is. Mind you, given their position, I have some sympathy.

The game-changer, at least as I see it, is the price of oil. I know that safety is paramount (despite some of the stuff on the Qantas thread), but perhaps the oil price will concentrate minds.

Just a thought. Feel free to set me straight.

[DozyWannabe]

How does it take so long to design the things nowadays ? 9 years ? Did Boeing, with the 737 entering service in 1968, start designing it in 1959 ? Where is all the advantage that billions of dollars of investment in CAD products gives over our grandfathers with drawing boards, crew-cuts, and new Studebakers out in the parking lot ?

Well, no they didn't - but with the 737 they re-used some components and tooling from the 707 and 727 (and indeed the 747) for the airframe itself, so some aspects of it had been around since the early '50s.

If you're talking about a completely new design carrying over very little from earlier projects then it stands to reason that it will take longer. The A320 project grew from a concept that started in 1977 and it first flew in 1984 - but even that borrowed aspects from a Hawker-Siddeley design that dated back to 1965(!)

Boeing's last major narrow-body development was the 757, which started back in the mid-'70s. I don't know what they've been working on internally, but the company has appeared to focus primarily on widebodies for the last 30 years.

[kiwi grey]

I think EADS may be thinking that now is the time to go because a number of factors are all acting together:

They perceive that there's pressure from underneath on the A319/A320 from Bombardier (and maybe even Sukhoi and/or Comac) - the A318, like the 737-600, is already toast
They believe that open-rotor type engines are not going to be in play until closer than 2025 than 2020, so they'll get 8 to 10 years out of this 'mid-life kicker'
They think this will put a major squeeze on Boeing, and the best time to give a competitor a good kicking is when they're already down :E

A 737RE would be much more expensive than the 320NEO, because Boeing will have to do something serious about the undercarriage to make clearance for the larger engines. Even then, maybe the GTF wouldn't fit.

Boeing are in a world of financial hurt on the 787 and 747-8 programmes - it looks like they're going to make huge losses on the 787 for a number of years as they sold the first several hundred positions way too cheap, and they've had to pay off unhappy customers because they're so late. Sales of the 747-8 are, um, modest, and it's late, too
If the A350XWB performs as Airbus believe that it will, then Boeing will have to spend another pot of money on the 777 if that's going to continue to be competitive.
EADS doesn't think Boeing are going to make any money on KC-X, either because EADS will get the gig, or because EADS - who have relatively almost no development expense - have squeezed the price down so much that there'll be next to no margin for Boeing.
So from EADS' point of view, this may be a 'perfect storm' moment for Boeing, and time to go for the jugular.

[Sciolistes]

The fundementa problem that EADS has is that they can't rely on the quasi subsidies for much longer. It is those subsidies that allowed Airbus to penetrate the market and subsequent developments.

[kiwi grey]

Apparently, the WTO say that Boeing are at least as bad as EADS on the subsidy front. So that argument pretty much washes both ways.

Where EADS needs to find 'only' a billion Euros for the 320NEO, Boeing would need to find significantly more for a 737RE, and will need a 777 refresh shortly.
All this during a time when the 787 programme is haemorrhaging cash and the 747-8 isn't making much (not yet, anyway). Ouch :{

[Sciolistes]

Apparently, the WTO say that Boeing are at least as bad as EADS on the subsidy front. So that argument pretty much washes both ways.
This is a bizarrely complicated story and it does seem to depend on what report of the report you read or who you ask. The WTO reports are contradictory, obfuscated and puzzling to say the least, and I think that is the way they like it. But as far as I can ascertain, it seems that Airbus has never made money.

There is certainly some interesting stuff about how Airbus financed their development and sales in the book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" by Moham Pandey. Obviously a biased account coming from a Boeing guy and how true the picture is paint, I cannot tell; but it seems consistent with how the EU manages its affairs!

[chase888]

Would be nice to stay on topic Mr. Sciolistes.
It was a reasonably intelligent discussion before your intervention.:D

[avgenie]

I also read the book Mr. Sciolistes mentions, "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" by Mohan R. Pandey, a retired Boeing executive. The book says rather than re-engining the 767 to compete against the A330, Boeing came with a brand new 777 in the 1990s. The 777 killed the A340, and badly hurt the A330. According to the book, the 777 saved Boeing.

In 2011, Boeing is facing a similar situation with the new Russian UAC's MS21, Chinese C919, Bombardier's C-series and the recent Airbus decision to re-engine the A320 family.

Boeing has the option to re-engine its 737 to get similar fuel efficiency or change the game by coming with a new airplane to replace the 737. And make Airbus sweat.

The How Boeing Defied book says the only option Airbus has is to re-engine the A320, as its engineering resources are occupied with A350, A400M and A380 problems. On the other hand, Boeing will have the 787, 747-8 engineering resources freed soon to work on a new airplane. If Boeing comes with a new airplane to replace 737, Airbus will have nothing to match Boeing for nearly five or six years. That would be a great advantage for Boeing. No amount of subsidy may help the Airbus situation with the engineering resources.

Reading the media coverage, I did not come to the same conclusion as Mr. Kiwi Grey ("Apparently, the WTO say that Boeing are at least as bad as EADS on the subsidy front. So that argument pretty much washes both ways."). They both may be tainted but according to the media the Boeing subsidy is a fraction of the subsidies given to Airbus. Mr. Grey, please correct me if I read the story wrong.

As to financial situation, I generally agree with Mr. Grey's assessment of Boeing, but I am not sure if Boeing is in a worse shape than Airbus. I think they both are in the dumps. According to this book, Airbus is still bleeding on the A380; further, Airbus was never able to command a good price for the A380. All the compensations for the delays have not helped. A350 was late in the scene and to grab some of the market from the 787, Airbus had to sell the airplane at fire sale prices.

[DozyWannabe]

The 777 killed the A340

Really? I was flying on an A340 just the other day, and it seemed in fairly rude health to me.

I thought the A v B stuff was pretty old hat these days anyway...

[DERG]

You would never get me on a plane with two engines thats goes over

mountains the rivers and seas and the Asian Steppes in 7 or 8 000 mile

hops. Give me the A34s and 74s everytime. Even the A38s..ahem..:ok:

[keesje]

So Airbus engineering is fully occupied with the A380 and A400 and Boeing has its hands free because the 787 and 747-8 are ready? And you just went along? ;) Until recently here (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concept2Reality/composites.html) you could find an interesting illustrated article and photos of NASA Langley proudly doing developping and testing a ultimate load test on a fuel scale composite wingbox. The text proudly mentioned:
The Stitched-RFI Composite Wing Program was successfully completed with ground testing of a 42-ft-long wing box. The box was tested in the Langley Structures and Materials Laboratory under the leadership of Dawn Jegley in 2000, and the box failed at 97 percent of design ultimate load (145-percent design limit load). Boeing is seriously considering using this technology in the next generation of aircraft.

Recently NASA pulled the page from its website archive, too many hits from the wrong continent. They did a clean up, rewriting history. You won't find the topic in "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" by Mohan R. Pandey either.

[ferrydude]

And you don't think Airbus has equal access to that data? What is your point?

[Lotus-14]

I visited Boeing recently, and got a brief on the 737. Right now Boeing has got a backlog of units, if I remember correctly it is something like three years, and orders are still coming in. What I understood, is the 737 is what is saving Boeing. There were planes parked all over the place, and their output is impressive. The manufacturing has be amortized quite awhile ago. With that airframe, and its popularity, I would think that a re-engined 737 would be pretty competitive, particularly when you also consider the existing facilities and maintenance equipment. That's my opinion anyway.

[avgenie]

1. Quote:
Originally Posted by: keesje
"So Airbus engineering is fully occupied with the A380 and A400 and Boeing has its hands free because the 787 and 747-8 are ready? And you just went along? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif "

I understand the challenges in airplane development. However, you may have misread my writeup. Actually I had written the following:
"The How Boeing Defied book says the only option Airbus has is to re-engine the A320, as its engineering resources are occupied with A350, A400M and A380 problems. On the other hand, Boeing will have the 787, 747-8 engineering resources freed soon to work on a new airplane."

I am no expert. I found this book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" pretty interesting. The way I understand is the re-engine effort is for the looming global competition from Russian UAC's MS21, Chinese C919, Bombardier's C-series for A320/B737 size airplane in 2016/2017. The issue is can Boeing or Airbus come with a brand new airplane in 2017 time period or will they essentially keep the current airframe and just change the engines to gain the fuel efficiency? And how it will affect the competition, and shape the global standing of these behemoths?

2. Quote:
Originally Posted by: DERG
"You would never get me on a plane with two engines thats goes over
mountains the rivers and seas and the Asian Steppes in 7 or 8 000 mile
hops. Give me the A34s and 74s everytime. Even the A38s..ahem. "


I empathize with you but the future options for your world travels may be a little restricted with the launch of the A350XWB & 787, and with the global proliferation of ETOPS certified long range twins !! Actually this book "How Boeing Defied the Airbus Challenge" is all about last 20-years Airbus-Boeing battle over ETOPS, facts, data and emotions.

[DERG]

Hell yes I am a nervous old fart.

My kid went from Schipol to Vancouver (and return) on a KLM MD-11 after a feeder flight on a KLM Fokker RJ. That put him off aviation...really, no joke. If I had known that I would not have let him go. Until then he was quite keen.

I really don't like only two people on the flight deck either. No one can convince me that automation will ever be better than three crew.

I want FOUR hands on the yokes and another two on the throttles. I want a full instrument panel for the engineer with total command over the flight management system. Six eyes, six hands and three brains.

"future options for your world travels may be a little restricted"

Don't think so, I am not xenophobic, I like surface travel. I really don't relish air travel much anymore.

[Sciolistes]

The issue is can Boeing or Airbus come with a brand new airplane in 2017 time period or will they essentially keep the current airframe and just change the engines to gain the fuel efficiency?
And I wonder if Boeing have a game changer up their sleeves. Something that will prossibly not just be about fuel burn, but perhaps about huge efficiencies in maintenance/repair with regard to flexible schedules, spares inventory management, flexibility in lifing cmponents depending on the type of operation, etc. Perhaps somebody who understands this side of things has some ideas.

[Turbine D]

The answer is:

Boeing CEO: 'new airplane' to replace 737 - Business News - MyNorthwest.com (http://www.mynorthwest.com/category/business_news_articles/20110210/Boeing-CEO:-%27new-airplane%27-to-replace-737/)

[DERG]

Not tooo sure about this idea...

"EADS also said it would submit its bid on Thursday for its version of the tanker, based on the civilian A330. Boeing's tanker would be based on its 767."

Not too sure at all.

[keesje]

Boeing should go for a re-engined 737 instead of an all-new design, Doric Asset Finance Managing Director Mark Lapidus told Aviation Week. “Waiting for a new design until 2020 would give Airbus the opportunity to massively extend its market share [with the Airbus A320NEO] also in the U.S.,” Lapidus believes. Doric Asset Finance specializes in aircraft funds, among others, and has financed several Airbus A380s.

Once large NEO fleets have been built up, it will be difficult for Boeing to turn the market around, Lapidus argues. He says he is not surprised by the early sales success of the NEO since it “allows a nice boost in performance” that could turn the A321NEO with winglets into a viable replacement option for the Boeing 757. Airbus claims the aircraft will have full U.S. transcontinental range.


Boeing Should Re-Engine 737, Finance Firm Says | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/avd/2011/02/21/14.xml&headline=Boeing%20Should%20Re-Engine%20737,%20Finance%20Firm%20Says)

It´s what I´m afraid of too. Building the backlog of 2000 737s, OK. But that´s 2015/16. They can´t just stop for yrs after that.

[DERG]

These finance people are not that bright. Most of the time they gamble. By 2017 quite few of the B737NGs well be pensioned off because of reasons discussed elesewhere on this forum. This is a very wise move on the part of Boeing.

Now as far as manufacturing capacity goes, can they make them? Yes they can, easily. Already some parts are made in Japan and other could easily be sourced in new facilities built in China, India or Brazil. Brazil is a particular place because of NAFTA.

Competition from Airbus.

The European manufacturer does not have the depth of expertise as has Boeing. EADS is a composite of several manufacturers spread over Europe. They still have issues, for example: electrical connectors..stuff made in one place does not match up with the rest.

Finance. Airbus is underwritten by the EUR tax payer. The EUR finances pivot around the German economy. Inherently EADS depends upon political goodwill. The German politicos will not bail out EADS if it hits a sticky patch because they have plenty of other income apart from Aerospace.

The finance people will fall over themselves to finance the new B787 but they will not be too happy financing the older stock that the 787 will replace. Mark Lapidus has missed this aspect completely. The problem with these finance people is that they try to mold the future to their own pecuniary advantage. Lapidus is not without an agenda and they know how to use the media.

We have a similar situation at Rolls Royce with board members also having current or former interests in THE ECONOMIST. Don't let these folks lead you by the nose.

The B787 as it leaves the factory could be sold for an immediate profit above the contract price, such is the demand. Lapidus could well be financing Airbus products hence the somewhat biased statement he made.

[Sciolistes]

I think also, technically speaking and in terms of efficiency, A320 Neo is playing catch up. It should be more efficient than the current NG, but probably not by a significant amount. As Airbus's days of spamming the market with cheap aircraft are nearly at an end, the differential between Neo and the current NG may not be as great as imagined.

I feel that Boeing have timed their pitstop to perfection, as long as a mechanic doesn't drop a wheel, Boeing will almost certainly be well ahead Airbus.

[keesje]

I think if Airbus played catch up they would not be the market leader in sales and deliveries for yrs.

There are posts that do simulations for different flights, attitudes and payloads that suggest the A320 is more fuel efficient then the 737-800 at allmost any mission above 500NM. They are convincing & seem to debunk the new "catch up" theory..737NG's Wing Advantage — Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/290396/1/#21)

Airbus is planning to complete their A320 current backlog and sell 3000-4000 NEOs in the 2016-2024 period. Low risk solid plan IMO.

Boeing strategy for 2015-2022 seems not so clear to me. New 737 classics don't seem a great investment in that period with NEo, CSeries, C919s and MS21 entering service. A bit like getting new MD80s in the nineties.

[DERG]

KEESJE

"What new engine technology will be available in 2019? It probably isn't coming from Pratt or GE. Maybe it's there when Airbus comes up with their new NB, 4-5 years later."

Where will this engine technology come from? You think we finally will overcome Isaac Newton and mabe use something from "Star Trek"? Seriously! Who will make this new engine?

Regards

[keesje]

Derg

RR is working on new Open Rotor Technology for 3 years, with full scale demonstrators in the not to distant future. A third round of windtunnel test will start soon. They say they solved noise issues.

FARNBOROUGH: R-R urges Airbus. Boeing to reconsider narrowbody re-engining plans (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/14/344404/farnborough-r-r-urges-airbus.-boeing-to-reconsider-narrowbody-re-engining.html)

Anyway it seems more A320NEO orders in the not to distant future, AirAsia, Jetstar and Lufthansa.
Lufthansa, Airbus Said to Negotiate $2.5 Billion Plane Order - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/lufthansa-airbus-said-to-negotiate-2-5-billion-plane-order.html)

Jetstar Evaluating Airbus NEO | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=mro&id=news/awx/2011/02/21/awx_02_21_2011_p0-291412.xml&headline=Jetstar%20Evaluating%20Airbus%20NEO)

[DERG]

Gottya YES,,thanks

[Turbine D]

DERG

Where will this engine technology come from? You think we finally will overcome Isaac Newton and mabe use something from "Star Trek"? Seriously! Who will make this new engine?

The answer to your question is CFM & P&WA, Rolls Royce & IAE are sitting out on this one.

It will be available in 2016 and not 2019.

X POWER: Redefining Turbofan Engines for Narrow-Body Aircraft (http://www.cfm56.com/cfm-value/technology/x-power)

CFM International LEAP-X Engine Anything But A Derivative - GLG News (http://www.glgroup.com/News/CFM-International-LEAP-X-Engine-Anything-But-A-Derivative-50258.html)

PurePower® PW1000G Engine (http://www.purepowerengines.com/)

15% or better SFC over current engine technology is pretty sporty!

[DERG]

All looks GOOD.

I agree with Rolls Royce. Far better to design new airframes for the new engines. Technology is moving on so fast now with the new composites. Will be an exciting decade from 2015 on I guess.

Thanks for the info. Over on another thread they told me the new 787 is tough enough to enter air turbulance at Mach 0,85 which, they say, is the highest speed for this class of airplane. Then again I ahve been advised that this may not be the case.

See the thread about turbulance effects and other variables.

Lots to look forward too!

[DERG]

"this is exactly the sort of decision any responsible government would make apart from the UK government which usually sells us down the river."
Read more: Boeing set to supply tanker aircraft to US Air Force | News | The Engineer (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/1007596.article?cmpid=TE01&cmptype=newsletter&cmpdate=280211&email=true#ixzz1FGoq6exD)

[avgenie]

It is fair for the parties to think their product is the best. But, there are always going to be winners and losers. Appears EADS will get a chance to see why it lost and make its case with the investigating agency if EADS thinks the process was not fair just like Boeing did during the last round.

[DERG]

avgenie

Take a look at the size of the U.S. military and then consider the global committment.

If you were head of parts logistics or manitenance would you be happy with a supplier who made stuff in three to twelve different countries all with different languages?

Look at the issues Rolls Royce have at the moment with the T972, the issues Airbus had with the pitot tubes. 24 hrs is long time when a machine is down..and that includes shipping time and fitting time.

Neither can you expect the U.S. military to have a full inventory of spares because of the reasons above. The competition rule is good to use as a price lever, but please do not forget that EADS is under written by the EUR taxpayer.

[keesje]

Boeing, shifting focus on its next new aircraft, is now leaning toward developing a successor to its best-selling 737 single-aisle jet before making improvements to the wide-body 777.

A new plane probably would be wider than the Renton-built 737 and seat about 150 to 220 people, said Mike Bair, who leads the team formed last year to study the concept. Once that jet enters service, as soon as 2019, Boeing could put new engines and wings on the 777, he said.

Business & Technology | Boeing's next jet likely to be 737 successor | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014380563_boeing03.html)

I think that shelves the "the A320 is only catching up" non-sense spread around lately.

[Sciolistes]

I think that shelves the "the A320 is only catching up" non-sense spread around lately.
Why do you think it is nonsense? From the data I have the 737-800 outperforms the A320. The A320 does have a lower fuel burn over the longer sectors, about 150kg over 1,000nm sector but with less seats. I would imagine the average sector length is around 600nm, in which case the 738 beats the A320 on fuel burn.

This article supports that data. (http://airinsight.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/cseries-beats-neo-a320-737-on-casm-plane-mile-costs/)

This report (http://www.icao.int/icao/en/ro/allpirg/allpirg4/wp28app.pdf) (albeit a decade old) makes for interesting reading, also suggesting the A320 is more expensive to operate.

The evidence is that the 737 replacement will probably leapfrog NEO by a significant margin. The new design could also allow for mid life re-engining meaning that Airbus' A320 successor won't be significantly better, if at all. I would also expect Boeing to engineer an aircraft that is significantly cheaper to maintain than current designs, hopefully continuing what they started with the NGs slightly simpler design (compared to the Classic) and customisable maintenance programme.

[Rengineer]

Keesje, Derg:

According to this article by John Ostrower, Mike Bair has stated already that the 737 successor will have no open rotor but rather a conventional-looking engine:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/02/clean-sheet---boeings-all-new.html#more (http://http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2011/02/clean-sheet---boeings-all-new.html#more)

That should limit the potential fuel burn reduction to a few per cent beyond what the LeapX and GTF can do - essentially the next incremental upgrade. Also, the conventional tube-and-wing will probably remain. That said, if you look at the projected empty weight of planes like the Cseries, it's clear that that'll pose a challenge to heavier aircraft like the current 737/320, at least for the lower end of the market. Then OTOH, Boeing will also at one point want to replace the 757 and even 767-200 with their new model, so it seems to me they might go for a 7-abreast design and try to make that light. It would place them in a bracket just above the new entrants.

I'v also just read in Aviation Week that at least one large 737 customer is looking at cheaper, smaller planes, so that may put my above reasoning into doubt: www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/avd/2011/03/01/01.xml&headline=Ryanair%20Considering%20C919s,%20MS-21s%20For%20Fleet&channel=comm (http://www.pprune.org/www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/avd/2011/03/01/01.xml&headline=Ryanair%20Considering%20C919s,%20MS-21s%20For%20Fleet&channel=comm)

Concerning Airbus, at my last count they had 202 commitments for NEO (counting MOU's) and have a long-running effort under the moniker "A30X" for an eventual clean-sheet 320 replacement, so it seems they are taking a two-step approach. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it all ended in a continuing up-and-down between the two, first NEO, then 797, then A30X in maybe 2028, and so on.

[WHBM]

From the data I have the 737-800 outperforms the A320. The A320 does have a lower fuel burn over the longer sectors, about 150kg over 1,000nm sector but with less seats. I would imagine the average sector length is around 600nm, in which case the 738 beats the A320 on fuel burn.
Do include all the factors. The A320 fuselage is 6" wider than the 737, probably something that adds to fuel burn, but which translates into 1" extra width per seat, which is something that passengers appreciate. The 737 fuselage is the same width as that Boeing came up with in the mid-1950s, since when the "average passenger" has increased, of course.

Yes, some passengers do notice things like seating standards. It is a myth that minimum fare is the ONLY selection point.

[DERG]

The reason why the 737NGs will need replacing at around 2017/2019 are noted elsewhere on this forum...no secrets.

[forget]

DREG. Take a look at the size of the U.S. military and then consider the global committment. If you were head of parts logistics or manitenance would you be happy with a supplier who made stuff in three to twelve different countries all with different languages?

That's the Military 787 stuffed then.

Subcontracted assemblies include wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box) horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea); fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, USA; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, USA; Korean Air, South Korea); passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab, Sweden); floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);wiring (Labinal, France); wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea); landing gear (Messier-Dowty, France); and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, USA).

[DERG]

Think you missed BaE systems out "forget" they supply a lot to the U.S. DoD in one form or another. But I can see your point yes..the global nature of the business. RR supplies a lot of marine equipment too...

To clarify...I was thinking more of certification issues..not that the DoD takes much notice of them anyway..tracing the pedigree..the mating of the hardware with the software..pitot tubes..instrumentation.

[forget]

I didn't miss anything out. The list says 'subcontracted assemblies'.

[DERG]

Not all systems are in the public domain.

[keesje]

McNerney said a month ago on the A320 NEO:

I feel pretty comfortable we can defend our customer base, both because they're not going ahead of us, they're catching up to us

Now the guy in charge of the development study says the 737 replacement will probably get priority over the 777 upgrade.

It seems Boeing got some "advises" from the airlines and is a learning curve. Not suprising after what Southwest, Ryanair and Delta said on this topic.

Southwest :

“When you talk about something that’s 10 years from now, that’s not a solution, that’s an idea,” Southwest Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly said in an interview in New York. “Who among us is to say it won’t be 15 years from now? In the meantime, we’re going to spend $40 billion on fuel.”

Southwest's Kelly Pushes for Boeing Decision on New 737 Engines - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-15/southwest-airlines-ceo-kelly-pushes-for-boeing-decision-on-new-737-engines.html)
:ouch: :ouch:

[DERG]

Yeah Kees I think Southwest and JetBlue are two of the most progressive players. Both very very good operators..almost flawless. And we can be proud how well the A-320s behave with JetBlue. Think they might have the V-2500 engine but I am not sure.

[Chillimausl]

I wonder if pitching this as the 'replacement' of the A320 or B737 sets the right tone.

Looking out 20 years, it's quite likely that Airbus and Boeing will not replace the A320 and B737, respectively, on a like-for-like basis. If Airbus and Boeing believe their own projections for traffic growth, it's not clear that one aircraft type could or should replace the A320 or B737, in my view.

On the engine side, there could be opportunities for several engine manufacturers and several types of engine technology.

Meantime, the A320 NEO looks like a very good strategy for Airbus to pursue, regardless of whether it's quite as good or slightly better than the B737.

[FlightPathOBN]

this patent just updated...perhaps the 737 replacement

United States Patent 7,621,482
Sankrithi , et al. November 24, 2009

Weight optimized pressurizable aircraft fuselage structures having near elliptical cross sections.

United States Patent: 7621482 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7621482.PN.&OS=PN/7621482&RS=PN/7621482)

Check the images....

[fdcg27]

My friend,
You are as credulous an observer of Airbus on this forum as you are on others.
Airbus is a worthy competitor to Boeing, but it is hardly dominant.
Nor does Boeing dominate Airbus.
These two companies have divided the mainline narrow-body market between them for many years.
Their relative order numbers have been based largely upon availability.
Airbus is no more poised to chase Boeing from this market than is Boeing set to chase Airbus from it.
Forget the usual Airbus hyperbole about "Neo", and ignore what Boeing says for the consumption of you and I as well.
Both of these companies, as well as their customers, the airlines, have information you and I don't.
Airbus has a good soloution on the table.
Boeing has already tabled one with the decision makers who matter, and they aren't posting either here or on Airliners.net.

[keesje]

The ECR-20 I promised has 2-3-2 and has a kind of flattened 767 fuselage.

I just opened a thread on this ECR-20 concept.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/445308-ecr-20-200-seater-optimized-flights-700-nm.html

[tuna hp]

Reporting at Flight Global claims that Boeing is shopping two basic designs around to potential customers: a traditional 3-3 single aisle or a 2-3-2 twin aisle.

I know that economy always dominates these decisions, but imo the 2-3-2 767 cabin is the most comfortable economy cabin currently in service and I really hope that this layout makes an appearance on more planes. I literally jump for joy every time I'm picking my seat and I see that I'm on a 767.

Boarding and deboarding goes super fast, 86% of all seats are either a window or an aisle, and you are never more than one seat away from an aisle. And on my favorite seats, the inside aisle seats, you only have half of a person that needs to climb over you when they want to get out (because they could go the other way half the time).

According to all the industry reports and speculation that I have been reading, there is doubt as to whether this new plane will be a direct replacement for the 737's passenger capacity. Between the A320neo, Bombardier C-Series, and other new entrants from China, Russia, Japan, and probably Brazil, it might be in Boeing's interest to aim at a little bit higher passenger capacity. Dominate the market for higher volume domestic routes. 150-220 pax.

For the sake of every airline passenger's comfort, I hope that the combination of slightly larger passenger capacity than the current 737 with the faster turnarounds possible with a twin aisle will convince Boeing to build the twin aisle 2-3-2 layout.

[tuna hp]

I wonder if pitching this as the 'replacement' of the A320 or B737 sets the right tone.

Looking out 20 years, it's quite likely that Airbus and Boeing will not replace the A320 and B737, respectively, on a like-for-like basis. If Airbus and Boeing believe their own projections for traffic growth, it's not clear that one aircraft type could or should replace the A320 or B737, in my view.

On the engine side, there could be opportunities for several engine manufacturers and several types of engine technology.

Exactly. If the 737/A320 was the sweet spot over the last couple decades, I would think that pax volume will increase somewhat and a slightly higher pax plane will be the sweet spot over the next 50 or so years.

As far as engines, there will be 3 engines available around the 2020 new Boeing launch: CFM Leap-X relatively conventional twin spool, PW geared fan, and a new Rolls triple spool. Smart money says that Boeing will pick two to partner with. And one will probably be the Leap-X due to more conservative design.