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 | !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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

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

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

Jetstar Evaluating Airbus NEO | AVIATION WEEK

Gottya YES,,thanks

New Engine Technology
 

DERG

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

CFM International LEAP-X Engine Anything But A Derivative - GLG News

PurePower® PW1000G Engine

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

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!

see post #37
 

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.

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.

Business & Technology | Boeing's next jet likely to be 737 successor | Seattle Times Newspaper

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.

This report (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.

No open rotor according to Mike Bair
 

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

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

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.

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.

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

DREG. 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).

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.

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

Not all systems are in the public domain.

McNerney said a month ago on the A320 NEO:

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
:ouch: :ouch:

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.