Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Mar 2011, 08:55
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Age: 63
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Keeping your options open

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.
Chillimausl is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 14:48
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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

Check the images....
FlightPathOBN is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2011, 23:09
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airbus kills Boeing (Part IV)

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.
fdcg27 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 07:45
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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/44530...ts-700-nm.html

Last edited by keesje; 11th Mar 2011 at 00:30.
keesje is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 20:13
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.

Last edited by tuna hp; 7th Mar 2011 at 21:18.
tuna hp is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2011, 21:25
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
tuna hp is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.