Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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.
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
- 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.
- 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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Subsidies
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/Concep...omposites.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:
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.
Until recently here (http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Concep...omposites.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.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: California
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737 Upgrade
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.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"
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.
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?
"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.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Will Boeing Do?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EADS for USAF
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.
"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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smart Move
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.
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.
Last edited by DERG; 22nd Feb 2011 at 11:16. Reason: additiona
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.