The Boeing 737.......your grandfather's technology........tomorrow.
Thread Starter
The Boeing 737.......your grandfather's technology........tomorrow.
It looks like Boeing are going to keep flogging a 1960's designed aeroplane well into the 21st century. Nothing like progress I guess....
Boeing Averts
Boeing Averts
Boeing Co. (BA) is taking a page from Airbus SAS’s playbook seven months after the European aircraft maker began reaping record sales by upgrading its workhorse jet.
The U.S. planemaker won an order for 200 single-aisle jets yesterday from American Airlines, with half of its jets updated variants of its latest 737 airliner to follow Airbus down the route of new engines. Airbus took home 260 orders, in the biggest-ever industry deal.
Boeing’s decision ends months of speculation about whether it would upgrade its 737 or pick the more expensive option of a complete redesign that can cost more than $10 billion. Airbus unveiled its A320neo in December, and has won more than 1,000 orders or commitments to make it the fastest selling jet ever.
“This could have been a catastrophe for Boeing,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based aviation consulting firm. “Boeing recognized this as the heart-attack moment that it was.”
The A320neo is slated for delivery in 2015. Boeing said its re-engined jet will enter service in “mid-decade” and reach American in 2018. Directors will vote on the matter next month, and sales will start “this fall,” Boeing said.
Like the current 737, the new variant will have one engine option only, the Leap-X power plant built by CFM International, a joint venture between General Electric Co. (GE) and Safran SA (SAF) of France. The neo, which stands for “new engine option,” offers an alternative engine made by Pratt & Whitney.
Stock Surges
Boeing rose $1.54, or 2.2 percent, to $72.07, while European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., the parent of Airbus, rose 86 cents, or 3.6 percent, to 24.79 euros in Paris trading.
With American poised to rejuvenate its fleet, Chicago-based Boeing managed to avert an upset by a carrier that had bought only U.S. jets since 1987.
Boeing decided to revamp the 737 after hitting a “stumbling block” in the effort to build an all-new jet, its preferred choice, Jim Albaugh, the commercial airplanes chief, said yesterday in an interview. While the technology for a new jet is available, it wasn’t clear that Boeing could achieve high-volume output to permit the 2020 launch that carriers were demanding, he said.
“It came down to talking to customers, and when we talked to them about the prospect of a new airplane pushing out to the right, it became pretty apparent there was a bias to do something now, to do the new engine,” Albaugh said.
As recently as last month, Albaugh said at the Paris Air Show that customers were willing to wait for “something more revolutionary.”
Boeing had plenty of time to decide, Albaugh said at the time, echoing repeated comments by executives that they favored an all-new jet ready by decade’s end. He said yesterday that the new plane now will shift “well into the next decade.”
‘We Love Competition’
Airbus also spent months studying the feasibility of re- engining. Both companies have struggled to maintain multiple programs, with Airbus still working to improve output of its A380 superjumbo and keeping its A350 wide-body jet on target for a 2013 introduction. Boeing is more than three years late on its 787 Dreamliner, and its latest 747 is also behind schedule.
“We love competition, and the fact that we have the neo on the market and they have their re-engining means that the competition will continue without dramatic differences,” Airbus sales chief, John Leahy, said in a telephone interview. “An all-new plane offer would not be stabilizing.”
Airbus has said it doesn’t expect to have the technology for an all-new narrow-body jet until the middle of next decade.
Fan Size
Boeing’s overhaul concept had earlier envisioned engines with 70-inch fans, up from 61 inches on the newest 737, and would have forced the planemaker to raise the landing gear and strengthen the wing. Engineers went back to work with engine makers to study 65- to 66-inch fans that would be more efficient and prompt fewer changes to the plane. The A320 sits further off the ground, making larger engines easier to fit.
Success in the single-aisle market is essential for both manufacturers because the segment represents the largest portion of the civil aviation industry.“something more revolutionary.”
Boeing estimates that narrow-body planes, which typically seat between 110 and 200 passengers, will make up as much as 70 percent of the market in two decades. Airbus introduced its A320 in the late 1980s and built its success on the jet, becoming industry leader in 2003.
Both companies are increasing production of single-aisle jets to meet demand, and Airbus and Boeing are sold out for several years. The 737 costs about $80 million, and an A320 is about $5 million more, though customers typically get discounts.
Old Fleet
American’s order will help retire some of the oldest jets in U.S. fleets. In 2010, its planes averaged 15 years of age, tied with Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) for the oldest among the six biggest U.S. carriers. The new jets would be 45 percent more fuel efficient than Boeing’s MD-80s for each seat flown a mile, American said. The MD-80s average more than 20 years of age.
“To the great credit of both of these manufacturers, when we approached them about not doing a split deal, but both deals, they both saw the merits in it and were extremely cooperative, great partners in getting it done,” said Vasu Raja, American’s managing director for corporate planning.
The appeal of new engines that promise efficiency gains of as much as 15 percent became evident at the Paris Air Show, the world’s biggest industry exhibition. Airbus won more than 600 orders or commitments for its A320neo, all from existing buyers. The order inflow eclipsed Boeing, which managed to sign up only a fraction of that number for its 737.
‘Neo Dominance’
“What is regrettable is that it took an established Boeing customer to convince them that a response to the neo was needed in the near term,” said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at Seattle-based consultant G2 Solutions. “Boeing might have been able to put a dent in the neo dominance in the first half of this year had it committed to a competing solution.”
Delta Air Lines Inc. is shopping for as many as 200 more fuel-efficient aircraft to replace its aging fleet. United Continental Holdings Inc. may also be looking for new jets.
“This will help Boeing get the momentum back as the battleground opens for these mega-U.S. airline orders,” said Paul Sheridan, head of risk analysis at London-based aviation consultant Ascend. “It’s great for airlines. They can negotiate pretty good deals.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Andrea Rothman in Paris at [email protected]; Susanna Ray in Seattle at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at [email protected]; Ed Dufner at [email protected]
The U.S. planemaker won an order for 200 single-aisle jets yesterday from American Airlines, with half of its jets updated variants of its latest 737 airliner to follow Airbus down the route of new engines. Airbus took home 260 orders, in the biggest-ever industry deal.
Boeing’s decision ends months of speculation about whether it would upgrade its 737 or pick the more expensive option of a complete redesign that can cost more than $10 billion. Airbus unveiled its A320neo in December, and has won more than 1,000 orders or commitments to make it the fastest selling jet ever.
“This could have been a catastrophe for Boeing,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based aviation consulting firm. “Boeing recognized this as the heart-attack moment that it was.”
The A320neo is slated for delivery in 2015. Boeing said its re-engined jet will enter service in “mid-decade” and reach American in 2018. Directors will vote on the matter next month, and sales will start “this fall,” Boeing said.
Like the current 737, the new variant will have one engine option only, the Leap-X power plant built by CFM International, a joint venture between General Electric Co. (GE) and Safran SA (SAF) of France. The neo, which stands for “new engine option,” offers an alternative engine made by Pratt & Whitney.
Stock Surges
Boeing rose $1.54, or 2.2 percent, to $72.07, while European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., the parent of Airbus, rose 86 cents, or 3.6 percent, to 24.79 euros in Paris trading.
With American poised to rejuvenate its fleet, Chicago-based Boeing managed to avert an upset by a carrier that had bought only U.S. jets since 1987.
Boeing decided to revamp the 737 after hitting a “stumbling block” in the effort to build an all-new jet, its preferred choice, Jim Albaugh, the commercial airplanes chief, said yesterday in an interview. While the technology for a new jet is available, it wasn’t clear that Boeing could achieve high-volume output to permit the 2020 launch that carriers were demanding, he said.
“It came down to talking to customers, and when we talked to them about the prospect of a new airplane pushing out to the right, it became pretty apparent there was a bias to do something now, to do the new engine,” Albaugh said.
As recently as last month, Albaugh said at the Paris Air Show that customers were willing to wait for “something more revolutionary.”
Boeing had plenty of time to decide, Albaugh said at the time, echoing repeated comments by executives that they favored an all-new jet ready by decade’s end. He said yesterday that the new plane now will shift “well into the next decade.”
‘We Love Competition’
Airbus also spent months studying the feasibility of re- engining. Both companies have struggled to maintain multiple programs, with Airbus still working to improve output of its A380 superjumbo and keeping its A350 wide-body jet on target for a 2013 introduction. Boeing is more than three years late on its 787 Dreamliner, and its latest 747 is also behind schedule.
“We love competition, and the fact that we have the neo on the market and they have their re-engining means that the competition will continue without dramatic differences,” Airbus sales chief, John Leahy, said in a telephone interview. “An all-new plane offer would not be stabilizing.”
Airbus has said it doesn’t expect to have the technology for an all-new narrow-body jet until the middle of next decade.
Fan Size
Boeing’s overhaul concept had earlier envisioned engines with 70-inch fans, up from 61 inches on the newest 737, and would have forced the planemaker to raise the landing gear and strengthen the wing. Engineers went back to work with engine makers to study 65- to 66-inch fans that would be more efficient and prompt fewer changes to the plane. The A320 sits further off the ground, making larger engines easier to fit.
Success in the single-aisle market is essential for both manufacturers because the segment represents the largest portion of the civil aviation industry.“something more revolutionary.”
Boeing estimates that narrow-body planes, which typically seat between 110 and 200 passengers, will make up as much as 70 percent of the market in two decades. Airbus introduced its A320 in the late 1980s and built its success on the jet, becoming industry leader in 2003.
Both companies are increasing production of single-aisle jets to meet demand, and Airbus and Boeing are sold out for several years. The 737 costs about $80 million, and an A320 is about $5 million more, though customers typically get discounts.
Old Fleet
American’s order will help retire some of the oldest jets in U.S. fleets. In 2010, its planes averaged 15 years of age, tied with Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL) for the oldest among the six biggest U.S. carriers. The new jets would be 45 percent more fuel efficient than Boeing’s MD-80s for each seat flown a mile, American said. The MD-80s average more than 20 years of age.
“To the great credit of both of these manufacturers, when we approached them about not doing a split deal, but both deals, they both saw the merits in it and were extremely cooperative, great partners in getting it done,” said Vasu Raja, American’s managing director for corporate planning.
The appeal of new engines that promise efficiency gains of as much as 15 percent became evident at the Paris Air Show, the world’s biggest industry exhibition. Airbus won more than 600 orders or commitments for its A320neo, all from existing buyers. The order inflow eclipsed Boeing, which managed to sign up only a fraction of that number for its 737.
‘Neo Dominance’
“What is regrettable is that it took an established Boeing customer to convince them that a response to the neo was needed in the near term,” said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at Seattle-based consultant G2 Solutions. “Boeing might have been able to put a dent in the neo dominance in the first half of this year had it committed to a competing solution.”
Delta Air Lines Inc. is shopping for as many as 200 more fuel-efficient aircraft to replace its aging fleet. United Continental Holdings Inc. may also be looking for new jets.
“This will help Boeing get the momentum back as the battleground opens for these mega-U.S. airline orders,” said Paul Sheridan, head of risk analysis at London-based aviation consultant Ascend. “It’s great for airlines. They can negotiate pretty good deals.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Andrea Rothman in Paris at [email protected]; Susanna Ray in Seattle at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at [email protected]; Ed Dufner at [email protected]
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understood what I just read, Boeing will continue to offer a single source engine for the 737, while AB will continue to offer a choice. That has been a really big deal in past 737/320 competitions, as competing engine makers really cut their prices.
It looks like Boeing are going to keep flogging a 1960's designed aeroplane well into the 21st century. Nothing like progress I guess....
Originally Posted by Bloomberg
While the technology for a new jet is available, it wasn’t clear that Boeing could achieve high-volume output to permit the 2020 launch that carriers were demanding
Neville,
My Ruger Blackhawk revolver is a useful now as it was when I first bought it. Do I really need to pay three times what I paid for it for a marginal performance improvement?
My Remington 870 pump shotgun likewise ..
The Huey (Bell) is still a fine deisgn, still works well. Been upgraded a few times.
The Hercules is yet another time tested excellent design. Still flying, still a workhorse. How old is that design?
What's wrong with a good airframe getting a few improvements and carrying on? Perhaps the initial design hit a sweet spot for a particular mission and need.
My Ruger Blackhawk revolver is a useful now as it was when I first bought it. Do I really need to pay three times what I paid for it for a marginal performance improvement?
My Remington 870 pump shotgun likewise ..
The Huey (Bell) is still a fine deisgn, still works well. Been upgraded a few times.
The Hercules is yet another time tested excellent design. Still flying, still a workhorse. How old is that design?
What's wrong with a good airframe getting a few improvements and carrying on? Perhaps the initial design hit a sweet spot for a particular mission and need.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone can build the tube, its the wing and wingbox where you make a difference. The limiting wingspan of the 37 is certainly an issue and the wings are about as good as they are going to get at this point, hence the only option is for different engines. The different engines require complete re-engineering of the wingbox, an un-needed expense and time, beating on the maxed out design.
From what I have seen, the new design of the tube was more of an ovium and had some blended wing look to it, courtesy of NASA. Boeing could have kept the engineers working on that, but now they have to stop and go back and rush the 37 design to keep up with the 320 NEO.
Unfortunately, Albaugh laid much of this out at the press conference with the CEO of Airbus sitting right there...to me that did seem too smart of a business decision.
From what I have seen, the new design of the tube was more of an ovium and had some blended wing look to it, courtesy of NASA. Boeing could have kept the engineers working on that, but now they have to stop and go back and rush the 37 design to keep up with the 320 NEO.
Unfortunately, Albaugh laid much of this out at the press conference with the CEO of Airbus sitting right there...to me that did seem too smart of a business decision.
I guess the Guys at Boeing figured out that their preferred plan wouldn't have worked as they wouldn't have been able to cover the gap betwen now and a Mass production of a completely new model. They are learning about problematic Ramp Up / EIS with their 'Nightmareliner' as we are writing these lines.
The big US airlines were so far pretty safe havens for Boeing. After the overwhelming success of the NEO so far this move from AA was the clear and final alarm signal what would happen if Boeing couldn't offer a viable alternative to the NEO until past 2020. They would have been basically 'Out of Business' by then.
They chose the safe approach. Probably a wise choice. You don't want to gamble with a Company with such a history and importance.
The big US airlines were so far pretty safe havens for Boeing. After the overwhelming success of the NEO so far this move from AA was the clear and final alarm signal what would happen if Boeing couldn't offer a viable alternative to the NEO until past 2020. They would have been basically 'Out of Business' by then.
They chose the safe approach. Probably a wise choice. You don't want to gamble with a Company with such a history and importance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
From a flying and operational standpoint, Boeing is the smartie, imho.
New engines? Nifty. New wingbox? Admirable.
Longer Landing Gear? Now you have a new 'type'. Perhaps not strictly speaking, but I think the training, performance and gripes re: new TO/LDG specs will bite AB in the behind. imho.
New engines? Nifty. New wingbox? Admirable.
Longer Landing Gear? Now you have a new 'type'. Perhaps not strictly speaking, but I think the training, performance and gripes re: new TO/LDG specs will bite AB in the behind. imho.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Greater Aldergrove
Age: 52
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While Boeing may have preferred to offer a 797, a re-engined 737 might work out well.
Firstly, it reduces financial risk. Just now, with the hits from the 787, 748 (and KC767?), another $10B investment would have been a big ask.
Also, the 737 is all about stable cashflow. With the 60 / month rate, cashflow increases sigificantly. This offsets the losses above, and helps to build the kitty for 777X and 797.
Then, you have the production system. 737 up to 60 / month should be low risk; all the suppliers and the FAL understand the aircraft inside out, so ramp up should be ok. The 737RE should also be fairly low risk both in development and production.
All in all, this might work out ok for Boeing. A 797 might have been bigger news (although would AA have taken the production risk?), but the 737 is a safer business bet.
Firstly, it reduces financial risk. Just now, with the hits from the 787, 748 (and KC767?), another $10B investment would have been a big ask.
Also, the 737 is all about stable cashflow. With the 60 / month rate, cashflow increases sigificantly. This offsets the losses above, and helps to build the kitty for 777X and 797.
Then, you have the production system. 737 up to 60 / month should be low risk; all the suppliers and the FAL understand the aircraft inside out, so ramp up should be ok. The 737RE should also be fairly low risk both in development and production.
All in all, this might work out ok for Boeing. A 797 might have been bigger news (although would AA have taken the production risk?), but the 737 is a safer business bet.
If I were the CEO of either A or B, I'd be pretty much delighted that it was playing out like this.
Whilst the 737 is old in name, it's doesn't bear much resemblance to it's ancestor other than the tube and short legs. The Bus isn't exactly a spring chicken.
There is so much technology maturing - right now - that I'd really want to play the long game. Whether it's clever materials or advances in aerodynamics, the next steps are going to be huge. These will probably define aviation for the next generation.
It seems fairly likely that there will also be a revolution in flight control electronics. It's not exactly controversial to point out that it is not doing what pilots really want. Behave or give me control, don't do anything without telling me.
Who is going to define that direction?
It's also fairly likely that the next decade will see a reshaping of the World economy. Will China still be a great place to build stuff for Boeing? Or (perish the thought) will the US be such a great place for component supply for their own aircraft industry? If (or when) the Euro collapses ,which EU country will France plead for help from/be offered help by?
As CEO, that's just too much to bet much on.
Whilst the 737 is old in name, it's doesn't bear much resemblance to it's ancestor other than the tube and short legs. The Bus isn't exactly a spring chicken.
There is so much technology maturing - right now - that I'd really want to play the long game. Whether it's clever materials or advances in aerodynamics, the next steps are going to be huge. These will probably define aviation for the next generation.
It seems fairly likely that there will also be a revolution in flight control electronics. It's not exactly controversial to point out that it is not doing what pilots really want. Behave or give me control, don't do anything without telling me.
Who is going to define that direction?
It's also fairly likely that the next decade will see a reshaping of the World economy. Will China still be a great place to build stuff for Boeing? Or (perish the thought) will the US be such a great place for component supply for their own aircraft industry? If (or when) the Euro collapses ,which EU country will France plead for help from/be offered help by?
As CEO, that's just too much to bet much on.
Thread Starter
There are also other issues with resources too. They are looking at doing mods on the 777 as well as sorting out the 787 commentators have been saying that they had to make a call in what direction they wanted to take. Obviously the 787 has killed much of their resources that could have been allocated to a new 737.
My understanding on the 737 is that there are some certification limitations put on the aircraft that would otherwise not be there just to keep the common rating. The aircraft could fly much faster aerodynamically it is just that the common rating keeps the MMO at .82. Boeing were throwing around the idea of separating the BBJ rating from the 737 just to unlock some of these performance benefits at one stage but never progressed with the idea.
Not sure if I would call a cockpit that looks like it's been plucked from a Gemini Spaceship at the Smithsonian as being all that functional for pilots either, and don't get me started on the windows and cockpit noise.........
My understanding on the 737 is that there are some certification limitations put on the aircraft that would otherwise not be there just to keep the common rating. The aircraft could fly much faster aerodynamically it is just that the common rating keeps the MMO at .82. Boeing were throwing around the idea of separating the BBJ rating from the 737 just to unlock some of these performance benefits at one stage but never progressed with the idea.
Not sure if I would call a cockpit that looks like it's been plucked from a Gemini Spaceship at the Smithsonian as being all that functional for pilots either, and don't get me started on the windows and cockpit noise.........
Remember the original B737 was designed with the JT8D engine in mind, which led to considerable challanges when updating to CFM56 turbo fans.
You can take a 1960s VW Beetle and update it all you want with fuel injection, ABS brakes, air bags, catalytic converter etc but it's still a Beetle underneath.
Looks like a sensible move by Boeing though to match Airbus with a competitive update at around the same time as the A320 neo. Get ten years out of it while working on an all new design taking advantage of the considerable improvements in technology and match Airbus with an all new type mid next decade.
Pace your opponent rather than drop back and expect to overtake in a sprint later on.
You can take a 1960s VW Beetle and update it all you want with fuel injection, ABS brakes, air bags, catalytic converter etc but it's still a Beetle underneath.
Looks like a sensible move by Boeing though to match Airbus with a competitive update at around the same time as the A320 neo. Get ten years out of it while working on an all new design taking advantage of the considerable improvements in technology and match Airbus with an all new type mid next decade.
Pace your opponent rather than drop back and expect to overtake in a sprint later on.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: GPS L INVALID
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only possible move from Boeing really - the thing is that I expect Boeing to have their all-new 737 replacement ready earlier than Airbus theirs, Airbus is still working hard on the A350, and I doubt they will be having a much easier time than Boeing with the 787. Who knows 
Common rating
Who is driving the desire for a common rating (if indeed this is a factor in the redesign vs new decision)? The customer, for savings in training or Boeing, to bypass a new certification program?
Back in my days at the Lazy B, we had a pretty well staffed group to do certification analysis/testing. But that was being wound down. And (my sources tell me) that a number of 787 problems which resulted in delays were unearthed late in the program only when the certification tasks finally caught up with the design and caught something that (figuratively or literally) wouldn't fly.
On the other hand, airlines (particularly those facing pilot shortages) will resist any changes that add training expenses or complicate operations by supporting multiple aircraft types.
Back in my days at the Lazy B, we had a pretty well staffed group to do certification analysis/testing. But that was being wound down. And (my sources tell me) that a number of 787 problems which resulted in delays were unearthed late in the program only when the certification tasks finally caught up with the design and caught something that (figuratively or literally) wouldn't fly.
On the other hand, airlines (particularly those facing pilot shortages) will resist any changes that add training expenses or complicate operations by supporting multiple aircraft types.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ lonewolf
Neville,
My Ruger Blackhawk revolver is a useful now as it was when I first bought it. Do I really need to pay three times what I paid for it for a marginal performance improvement?
My Remington 870 pump shotgun likewise ..
The Huey (Bell) is still a fine deisgn, still works well. Been upgraded a few times.
The Hercules is yet another time tested excellent design. Still flying, still a workhorse. How old is that design?
What's wrong with a good airframe getting a few improvements and carrying on? Perhaps the initial design hit a sweet spot for a particular mission and need.
My Ruger Blackhawk revolver is a useful now as it was when I first bought it. Do I really need to pay three times what I paid for it for a marginal performance improvement?
My Remington 870 pump shotgun likewise ..
The Huey (Bell) is still a fine deisgn, still works well. Been upgraded a few times.
The Hercules is yet another time tested excellent design. Still flying, still a workhorse. How old is that design?
What's wrong with a good airframe getting a few improvements and carrying on? Perhaps the initial design hit a sweet spot for a particular mission and need.
