Boeing Bets On Replacement Over 737 Re-engining
 

Boeing Bets On Replacement 737 Over Reengining | AVIATION WEEK

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..

Good Move
 

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

And Embraer is just waiting what Boeing will do.

Embraer waits for 737 decision before defining own plan

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.

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.

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?

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.

Hearing is believing?
 

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.

And weight of course, assuming composites will make the difference. There are potentially big economies to be made with an all new airframe.

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.

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/z...21C939MS21.jpg

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.

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:

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

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:

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.

chase888

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

Could you expand the points above more

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.

: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/z...g?t=1296819363

You and me both
 

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.

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)

I'm just going outside...
 

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.

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.

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 :{

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!

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

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.

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...

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:

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.

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

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.

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/sr...lies/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.

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.

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.

What Will Boeing Do?
 

The answer is:

Boeing CEO: 'new airplane' to replace 737 - Business News - MyNorthwest.com

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.

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.

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.

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.