Airline Mogul Forum
Airline Mogul => General Chat => Topic started by: Virgin Serbia on July 20, 2011, 07:41:47 pm
-
It looks like the issue has been solved (at long last). Airbus (not AM) decided to change :lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14222042
260 firm and 365 options for Airbus. Only 97 firm and 103 "intentions" for Boeing, that coming from a prime Boeing customer...
-
If you read some of the other news articles it states that the Boeing 737RE is 10% beater in terms of fuel efficiency then the A320NEO, Boeing is better.
I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.
Airbus is better in the game, but if the maintence formula would be better then the Boeing 737 would be better.
But personally I think the best aircraft is the Bombardier C series, it is going to be available in 2013, 3 year before the other re-engines.
Go Boeing!!!
-
Sure, Boeing might say that the 737RE will be 10% better than the A320NEO. But...
...the 737NG was also slightly better than the A320 Classic. However it came 10 years too late, after Boeing's arrogance lost them EasyJet, United, US Airways and British Airways. What good is it to have a plane that is 10% better if they haven't even launched it yet? :roll: American Airlines, once considered Boeing's best customer is now going to operate more A32Xs than 737s. Whats next, Delta or United? They already operate the A320 Classic. Or maybe even Southwest and Ryanair... ???
Heads will certainly roll at Boeing. Hopefully they will weed out the entire management that was left over from the 1990s. They don't seem to have learned the lesson since the demise of Boeing in the late 1990s.
-
260+365 for Airbus = 625 total :o
If you read some of the other news articles it states that the Boeing 737RE is 10% beater in terms of fuel efficiency then the A320NEO, Boeing is better.
I'm sure a lot of these statistics (from both manufactures) are BS. For example, Boeing has said that the current 737NG has better economics then the future A320NEO, which just isn't true (and the airlines seems to agree here)
I'm also sure that the operating cost of the A320NEO vs the 737NG is exaggerated.
Almost all of the statements made by the manufactures are just PR that one shouldn't put much weight in. We won't know until the airplanes are up in the air.
I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.
I think the reason for a split order was that AA really, really needed to replace the MD-80. As no manufacture could possibly cover all that in a reasonable time frame, a split order was the only reasonable thing to do. With the A320 already in the fleet, it was a no-brainer to add "some" A320NEOs. This is Boeing's loss, because I believe that if Boeing could have won this order if the 737RE had been launched earlier. What Boeing really needs now is to just officially launch and get some orders for the plane (preferably from big Boeing customers like UA, WN, KL...
Delta
In the DL case, I wouldn't be too surprised if they also would make a split order. They have said they wanted new planes soon, and I think Airbus still should have some A320 classic slots left.
-
I almost believe that this belongs in the Aviation Discussion forum, since it's more about the real world performance of the aircraft much rather the ingame performance of the aircraft..
Regardless, from what I've been reading elsewhere (They seem to be more knowledgeable about things, especially considering a number of them are actually in the aviation community via working in the airlines), I wouldn't take this as a black and white interpretation to say that Boeing sucks. I brought up the point that Airbuses sell like hotcakes in comparison to the B737, and they responded with the following points;
- Airbus A320 series aircraft have a service life of 10 years according to Airbus, and thus they sell the aircraft with a 10 year liability limit. Compare this to the service life of many of Boeing's products, and I think you'll find that's a bit lacking.
- Airbuses are selling better because they can go from initial order to delivery faster. There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster. This doesn't mean that their product is any better, it just means you can get it in a shorter timeframe. (They also made the point that Airbus has a lot of A320 series aircraft in reserve just waiting to sell, enabling them to sell them at lower prices, but I'm putting that on the questionable side of things)
- Pilots and ground crew alike hate the A320 family, saying that they're unreliable as heck. There's a reason the adage "If it's not Boeing, I aint going" exists, and I imagine that this is likely why, on top of the performance issues they cited.
- On a side more relatable to the passenger (Which is most typically what we all are), the Airbuses are cramped as all heck apparently.. or at least with Delta Airlines..
There's also the adage "Just remember when you're relying on your equipment that it was made by the lowest bidder"...
-
Delta
In the DL case, I wouldn't be too surprised if they also would make a split order. They have said they wanted new planes soon, and I think Airbus still should have some A320 classic slots left.
Delta has said that they might pick the Bombardier C series, the C series is available 3 year earlier then any other option.
I personally think they only took Airbus to see which aircraft is better, so they can pick which one they like more when both Boeing and Airbus build replacement aircraft in the 2020-2030 decade.
I think the reason for a split order was that AA really, really needed to replace the MD-80. As no manufacture could possibly cover all that in a reasonable time frame, a split order was the only reasonable thing to do. With the A320 already in the fleet, it was a no-brainer to add "some" A320NEOs. This is Boeing's loss, because I believe that if Boeing could have won this order if the 737RE had been launched earlier. What Boeing really needs now is to just officially launch and get some orders for the plane (preferably from big Boeing customers like UA, WN, KL...
For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.
-
Delta has said that they might pick the Bombardier C series, the C series is available 3 year earlier then any other option.
That's a possibility. C-Series would be a good DC-9/MD replacement. They could combine that with an A320/A320NEO order, or a 737/737RE order. Or they might buy Embraers instead of the C-Series. I'm just saying that it won't be from one manufacturer, but two (or possibly even more.)
For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.
Well, they apparently preferred the A320s and 737s instead. They are also good planes to replace the MD-80s
-
What always kills me (which no, hasn't happened in this thread) is people think Airbus sells more than Boeing because Airbus always saves a good chunk of their announcements for the Paris Air Show, whilst Boeing just lets the airline of choice announce their own orders. Airbus finally wised up and let AA do the talking here. You notice both manufacturers are giving away these aircraft at VERY decent terms.
-
- Airbus A320 series aircraft have a service life of 10 years according to Airbus, and thus they sell the aircraft with a 10 year liability limit. Compare this to the service life of many of Boeing's products, and I think you'll find that's a bit lacking.
This is not true. Many A320s are operating today, despite being over 20 years old. Delta Airlines has some of the oldest A320s in service today. Check airfleets.net.
This myth is based upon the fact that the A320 is certified only for a lower number of cycles. But even then, some of the A320s have been able to operate well over 20 years. Most are retired because they are simply worn out (just like any 737 would be after 20 years), and they are worth more as spares than as a single peice. Just recently a handful of 6 year old 737-700s were scrapped for the same reason.
- Airbuses are selling better because they can go from initial order to delivery faster. There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster. This doesn't mean that their product is any better, it just means you can get it in a shorter timeframe. (They also made the point that Airbus has a lot of A320 series aircraft in reserve just waiting to sell, enabling them to sell them at lower prices, but I'm putting that on the questionable side of things)
Hardly. Up until this year when the NEO was launched, orders were actually tied between the Airbus and Boeing delivery times. They were both sold out to within a month of each others. The last few months have shown an increase in orders for the A320 in over 1500 planes, and only 200-300 for the 737. The A320 is now sold out further than the 737.
I don't know what you mean about A320's in reserve. Airbus doesn't build them unless somebody buys them.
- Pilots and ground crew alike hate the A320 family, saying that they're unreliable as heck. There's a reason the adage "If it's not Boeing, I aint going" exists, and I imagine that this is likely why, on top of the performance issues they cited.
I don't know who those pilots are, but i know plenty of pilots who say the same about the 737NG. It's a personal opinion. Apparently the cabin crew with SAS hate the 737 galley, but love the A320 galley...
- On a side more relatable to the passenger (Which is most typically what we all are), the Airbuses are cramped as all heck apparently.. or at least with Delta Airlines..
That depends on how the airline configures the plane. If Delta (Northwest) made a bad configuration, thats not Airbus' fault. And more A320s than 737s feature PTV/IFE.
There's also the adage "Just remember when you're relying on your equipment that it was made by the lowest bidder"...
Not relevant in aviation. You need to take into account financing and costs of operating the product over time. I'm sure AA could have gotten a bargain deal for 260 second hand MD-80s ;) But they won't make them any money over time... (liewise, they could have gotten a deal on 600 XXX-XXXs at a low price, but if you don't have the money to pay with, and the deal doesn't include a loan, you can't order them.)
Regardless, from what I've been reading elsewhere (They seem to be more knowledgeable about things, especially considering a number of them are actually in the aviation community via working in the airlines), I wouldn't take this as a black and white interpretation to say that Boeing sucks. I brought up the point that Airbuses sell like hotcakes in comparison to the B737, and they responded with the following points;
They are not really knowledgable about this issue. Which is shocking since they actually work in the industry. Many of my points can be proven through a simple search on the internet.
-
For the split order why idn't they go with the C series then, Bombardier is advertising it as an MD-80 replacement.
Because it isn't. It's just the bloated PR department of Bombarbier making wild statements.
The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config. The MD-81, 82, 83, 88 and 90 all seat 172 passengers. It will be good for replacing the MD-87 though, which seats 139 in 1 class. It will also be a valid replacement for the DC-9-50, which seats 135. Too bad only 76 MD-87s were made. And the only DC-9-50 operator in the west, Delta, is already replacing theirs with the MD-90.
As for Delta Airlines, i think this order will be for A320NEO, possibly with some 737X thrown in. They need to replace following types:
The DC-9 replacement has already been ordered, secondhand MD-90s.
The MD-88s and A320s can only be replaced by the 737-800X or A320NEO.
The 757-200s can be replaced with the A321NEO. The 737-900ER is a possibility, but it is slighty too small and under-ranged.
Due to the high number involved, i think it will be a mix. But i think the A320NEO will have the upper hand yet again, because it is the best 757 replacement. The MD-88s and A320s will be 50/50 Boeing/Airbus.
-
The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config.
Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.
-
"They are not really knowledgable about this issue. Which is shocking since they actually work in the industry. Many of my points can be proven through a simple search on the internet."
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.
If anything, the A320 family "selling out" faster doesn't mean that they have more longevity than the 737 family, it could mean the exact opposite. Sure there could be aircraft out there serving just as long as the Boeings, but why are there so many orders in comparison to Boeing if the aircraft are supposedly just as reliable? (Keep in mind that I'm writing this without researching it like you have apparently, too many demands on my time ATM)
"I don't know what you mean about A320's in reserve. Airbus doesn't build them unless somebody buys them."
Hence why I said that I was questionable about when they said that.
"Not relevant in aviation. You need to take into account financing and costs of operating the product over time."
Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc.. Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.
If you're talking about the plane itself, and how you fly it, then I have great respect for those pilots, as they are much more knowledgeable on the subject then I am. But...
1. As a passenger, I have just much knowledge about how cramped an airliner is (in a passengers perspective.) But, as Virgin Serbia said, this is not about the airplane itself, it's about the airline. Ryanair flies crowded 737s, but that doesn't mean all 737s are cramped.
2. I don't believe those pilots know that much about how Airbus and Boeing sells and produce those plane
There's more overall demand for Boeing products, and coupled with the economic issues that have been plaguing the US as of late I imagine that EADS and Airbus can deliver quite a bit faster.
First, there is not more demand for Boeing products, and second - It's not only the US that has had trouble with the economy. I don't think Airbus can deliver much faster then Boeing.
Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc.. Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.
2. I'd like to hear some concrete examples from them that Airbus is more fair to those airlines. Which are those airlines?
1. I don't really get this about keeping Boeings. Airbuses usually have just as long life cycle as Boeings.
-
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the opinions that I've read elsewhere regarding the Airbus family. While many of them are perspectives from pilots and ground crew, they are the people actually using the planes, while most of what you're going to find on the internet is going to be some sort of aviation "expert" or marketing team member's writings to attempt to convince you one way or another on what's better.
737 pilots/crew members are rarely qualified on A320s as well, so where do they get their knowledge? They may be the ones using the 737s, but they certainly aren't the ones using the A320s.
If anything, the A320 family "selling out" faster doesn't mean that they have more longevity than the 737 family, it could mean the exact opposite. Sure there could be aircraft out there serving just as long as the Boeings, but why are there so many orders in comparison to Boeing if the aircraft are supposedly just as reliable?
Simply because the A320NEO is a better plane than the Boeing 737? This is like suggesting that the 777-300ER has a short longevity, and the A340-600 has a long longevity, therefore no A340-600s are sold today. Airlines want planes that last more than 10 years, or else they won't buy them.
Over 1500 A320s are still flying today, despite being over 10 years old. The A320 has a longevity as good as any 737NG.
Yea, and they made the point that Airbus is more fair to airlines that just want to get out there, make a short dash at profits, and then declare bankruptcy shortly after. Airlines that don't intend to be around by the time their aircraft start wearing out, etc..
A myth based on the Skybus failure. Skybus ordered 65 A319s, but went bankrupt after 13 had been delivered. Every order has a risk involved.
Boeing sold a large order of 737-800, 737-900ER, 787-9, 777-300ER and 747-8I to the Nigerian airline Arik Air in 2008. The 747s and 777s have been cancelled, and the airline is bound to go bust any moment now.
Czech LCC SkyEurope has orders for a lot of 737-700s, but they went bust, and the orders were cancelled.
Additionally it seems that at least for some airlines keeping their older Boeings is more affordable than buying new ones or buying other aircraft, so it would seem that the 737 should have some sort of edge.
If you can't get the financing, you will have to make do with old planes. Some airlines even find it more profitable to lease older 737s rather than new planes, as the lease will be cheaper. But this won't help Boeing, so it isn't an edge for the 737.
The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config.
Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.
No, I don't think so. A 145/150 seat CS300 will only be able to replace the 737-500 and 737-300. Remember, Southwest is currently upsizing by ordering 737-800s, as is most of the industry. Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable. The CS300 is too small to cater for the 180 seat market.
EasyJet decided to order A320s, and hasn't placed any orders for the A319 since.
Frontier decided to replace the A318s with A320s.
LAN decided to replace A318s with A320s.
Airport congestion doesn't help the C-series either.
The market Bombardier should seek for the C is the regional market. Just as the A320/737 operaters, the regional airlines are also upsizing.
-
The C-series, as good as it is, will seat at most 145 passengers in a 1 class config.
Right now with current models, but they might build a 150 model, if theyn did it would be great for delta and would be a good replacement for most of Southwest's fleet.
No, I don't think so. A 145/150 seat CS300 will only be able to replace the 737-500 and 737-300. Remember, Southwest is currently upsizing by ordering 737-800s, as is most of the industry. Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable. The CS300 is too small to cater for the 180 seat market.
EasyJet decided to order A320s, and hasn't placed any orders for the A319 since.
Frontier decided to replace the A318s with A320s.
LAN decided to replace A318s with A320s.
Airport congestion doesn't help the C-series either.
The market Bombardier should seek for the C is the regional market. Just as the A320/737 operaters, the regional airlines are also upsizing.
I meant that the CS500(If produced) would be a good replacement for the Boeing 737-300,-500 for Southwest. And there 737-700,-800 are very new so they don't need replacement for awhile, probably when Boeing launches a replacement aircraft, (NOT the re-engine).
Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable.
Why does Westjet then have an order for Boeing 737-700, very few 737-800. Source: http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf (http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf)
-
Why does Westjet then have an order for Boeing 737-700, very few 737-800. Source: http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf (http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf)
He said most of the LCCs. Westjet is an exception. It is a fact that LCCs tends to go for bigger aircraft than before. Easyjet are ordering more A320s instead of A319s. Cebu Pacific and JetBlue has ordered A321NEO. Even Southwest has 738s on order. Allegiant has added 757s. Norwegian doesn't replace their 733s with 73Gs, but with 738s - The list goes on. WestJet is an exception.
-
I don't feel that either aircraft is really completely inferior to another other wise one aircraft would have more the 75% of the orders in the 100-200 seat range. I do think however that the A320 is in better shape for a re-engine project because of the height off the ground and adding of winglets (which should have been earlier and will be offered as a retrofit and on new build A320's from 2012). I bet that we will see a huge amount of orders for the 737RE just as we saw for the NEO. Boeing and Airbus will still continue the monopoly they have on this sector although it will shrink with new aircraft like the CSeries and Comac C919.
I REALLY want to to see the CSeries takeoff and capture a good chunk of the market. GO BOMBARDIER!
-
Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable.
Why does Westjet then have an order for Boeing 737-700, very few 737-800. Source: http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf (http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf)
Because they are upsizing from the 737-600! ;)
Anyways, Westjet hasn't ordered any planes since 2007 if i'm not mistaken. The trend with larger planes started when the oil prices peaked in 2008/2009, and the economic downturn ended.
-
Whereas most LCCs would order the 737-700 or A319 in the past, nowadays they find the A320 and 737-800 more profitable.
Why does Westjet then have an order for Boeing 737-700, very few 737-800. Source: http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf (http://www.westjet.com/pdf/ourFleet/fleetpdf_en.pdf)
Because they are upsizing from the 737-600! ;)
Anyways, Westjet hasn't ordered any planes since 2007 if i'm not mistaken. The trend with larger planes started when the oil prices peaked in 2008/2009, and the economic downturn ended.
But they still are keeping there 737-600, I think they might order some of the re-engines soon for replacement of there older ones, if Boeing actually launches it, as the board still needs to approve it.
List of airlines that I think will buy the 737RE:
WestJet
Southwest
Ryanair
Gol Transportes Aéreos
Qantas(Might)
Virgin Australia(Used to be Virgin Blue)
Norwegian Air Shuttle(a.k.a. Norwegian)
Flydubai(they have only Boeing 737-800s and have some on order, so possible that they could buy the re-engine variant)
Alaska Airlines
United Airlines(split order with airbus)
Delta airlines(Split with Bombardier)
-
Yes, i also think Virgin and Qantas will look into the new 737 to replace their old 'n aging 73X's.
-
From what i've gathered from various sources, the 737RE will be inferior to the NEO. The 737 is too low to fit new large engines, therefore the RE will get a special variant of the LEAP-X with smaller compressor fans. This will increase fuel burn by 1%. Noise will also increase substantially.
Meanwhile the NEO will get as large (hence more efficient) engines as Airbus wants. The NEO will be improved over the existing A320 by getting blended winglets and a new wing/body fairing, as well as new lightweight alloys.
The 737RE is not going to be able to match that. The 737 already has the blended winglets. The engines will be inferior versions of the NEO's. Boeing can only depend on lighter alloys and the existing 1-2% superiority over the A320 to gain competitiveness.
Sadly, i think Boeing is going to be uncompetitive against the MC-21 and C-919. These are both new-builds, and should be more efficient than a re-engine of a 40 year old plane. Boeing is making the same mistake McDonnell Douglas made with the MD-90. They should make a new plane.
But they still are keeping there 737-600, I think they might order some of the re-engines soon for replacement of there older ones, if Boeing actually launches it, as the board still needs to approve it.
Yes, but easy and Southwest are also keeping the A319/737-700 ;) There is no reason to get rid of a slightly profitable, hard-to-sell plane if you still make a little bit of money with it. But when time comes to replace the 737-600s, i expect Westjet to either buy a smaller more optimised plane (C-series?) or a bigger more efficient plane (737-800X, 737-700X or A319NEO/A320NEO).
Future expansion and replacement will consist of bigger planes ;)
-
looks like the Boeing 737RE is getting a little more lift.
Alaska Airlines is looking into the Boeing 737RE:http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/21/359806/alaska-shows-interest-in-re-engined-737.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/21/359806/alaska-shows-interest-in-re-engined-737.html)
The final configuration of the Boeing 737RE is down to 4 possible sizes:http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/20/359751/final-737-re-engine-configuration-down-to-four-possible-fan.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/20/359751/final-737-re-engine-configuration-down-to-four-possible-fan.html)
I also wonder if the the comparisons between aircraft fuel efficiency also include Boeing's new 2% fuel burn improvement that is starting to come out.
-
The NEO continues it's charge:
CIT firms up 50 A320NEO
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/10/360578/cit-firms-up-order-for-50-a320neos.html
Cebu Pacific places order for 30 firm A321NEO
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/08/360452/cebu-pacific-signs-firm-order-for-30-a321neos.html
In the past 7 days, Lufthansa also ordered 25 A320NEO and 5 A321NEO, and Garuda ordered 10 A320NEO.
So far the 737RE only has a commitment for 100 planes :('
8994 737s have been ordered to date (since 1965 - 46 years), with some 6848 delivered. The backlog is at 2146.
7562 A320s have been ordered to date (since 1984 - 27 years), with some 4728 delivered. The backlog is at 2834.
-
Still say that there's something we probably don't know about what's going on..
-
Sorry for the quote being below and being the entire thing as I am relying from my iPod.
Boeing has only 100 orders because the 737 RE isn't even launched yet. The board of directors still have to approve it. After the launch it there will be lots of orders.
The NEO continues it's charge:
CIT firms up 50 A320NEO
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/10/360578/cit-firms-up-order-for-50-a320neos.html
Cebu Pacific places order for 30 firm A321NEO
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/08/360452/cebu-pacific-signs-firm-order-for-30-a321neos.html
In the past 7 days, Lufthansa also ordered 25 A320NEO and 5 A321NEO, and Garuda ordered 10 A320NEO.
So far the 737RE only has a commitment for 100 planes :('
8994 737s have been ordered to date (since 1965 - 46 years), with some 6848 delivered. The backlog is at 2146.
7562 A320s have been ordered to date (since 1984 - 27 years), with some 4728 delivered. The backlog is at 2834.
-
Boeing has only 100 orders because the 737 RE isn't even launched yet. The board of directors still have to approve it. After the launch it there will be lots of orders.
Again, they are only commitments, not orders.
Why hasn't the board approved it yet? Because Boeing was caught sleeping. Boeing doesn't have anything on its drawing board to be approved yet. It only dawned opun Boeing that something was wrong at the Paris Air Show, 7 weeks ago. If Boeing really had a 737RE that was about to be approved, they would have approved it shortly after being humiliated at Paris, even if the design team wasn't ready yet.
Still say that there's something we probably don't know about what's going on..
Which also means that the airlines don't know anything. Boeing can't keep something as ambitious as a new plane a secret.
The airlines know that the NEO is rolling. The longer they wait before ordering the NEO, the longer they will need to wait until they can get it. And they have serious doubts about what Boeing can deliver.
-
Boeing has only 100 orders because the 737 RE isn't even launched yet. The board of directors still have to approve it. After the launch it there will be lots of orders.
Again, they are only commitments, not orders.
Why hasn't the board approved it yet? Because Boeing was caught sleeping. Boeing doesn't have anything on its drawing board to be approved yet. It only dawned opun Boeing that something was wrong at the Paris Air Show, 7 weeks ago. If Boeing really had a 737RE that was about to be approved, they would have approved it shortly after being humiliated at Paris, even if the design team wasn't ready yet.
They do have something, the engine is down to only 4 possible engine sizes. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/20/359751/final-737-re-engine-configuration-down-to-four-possible-fan.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/20/359751/final-737-re-engine-configuration-down-to-four-possible-fan.html)
As well i have heard of 4 carriers that are interested in the 737RE
Alaska Airlines: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/21/359806/alaska-shows-interest-in-re-engined-737.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/21/359806/alaska-shows-interest-in-re-engined-737.html)
Southwest Airlines: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/04/360387/southwest-ready-to-discuss-re-engined-737-with-boeing.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/04/360387/southwest-ready-to-discuss-re-engined-737-with-boeing.html)
Copa Airlines (from article above):Panamanian Copa Airlines has also expressed an interest in the re-engined 737.
Westjet: http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2011/08/08/westjet-beats-consensus-in-2q-with-247-gain-in-net-income/page1 (http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2011/08/08/westjet-beats-consensus-in-2q-with-247-gain-in-net-income/page1)
The company is now set with its fleet plans but is obviously anxious to discuss the planned 737 re-engining programme and whether future deliveries can be converted.
The 737RE will overtake the Airbus NEO
-
As well i have heard of 4 carriers that are interested in the 737RE
They would be stupid not to be interested in the 737RE. No airlines ignore the alternatives. Besides, Southwest has also expressed interest in the NEO.
The 737RE will overtake the Airbus NEO
I think thats extremely doubtful. The 737NG is slightly superior to the A320 Classic, but it rarely outsells the A320. And the NEO will by all accounts be a superior superior plane to the RE. The NEO will gain winglets, more efficient engines and an improved wing-body fairing. The RE just can't get as big engines (even Boeing says that), meaning a 2% disadvantage in burn. And it already has winglets, so it can't be improved there.
-
Still say that there's something we probably don't know about what's going on..
Which also means that the airlines don't know anything. Boeing can't keep something as ambitious as a new plane a secret.
The airlines know that the NEO is rolling. The longer they wait before ordering the NEO, the longer they will need to wait until they can get it. And they have serious doubts about what Boeing can deliver.
If you're trying to infer that you know better than airline CEOs simply because you have Google on your side, I'd consider that logic foolish. The internet does not make you omniscient.
-
Besides, Southwest has also expressed interest in the NEO.
They have had talks but nothing even close to an order, if they did it would jeopardize there low-cost model.
The 737RE will overtake the Airbus NEO
I think thats extremely doubtful. The 737NG is slightly superior to the A320 Classic, but it rarely outsells the A320. And the NEO will by all accounts be a superior superior plane to the RE. The NEO will gain winglets, more efficient engines and an improved wing-body fairing. The RE just can't get as big engines (even Boeing says that), meaning a 2% disadvantage in burn. And it already has winglets, so it can't be improved there.
Well Boeing hasn't side anything so the best we can say is the rumors going around the internet, which according to this one, says that the 737RE will be 2% more efficient then the NEO, and have between 90%-95% commonality with today’s 737NG.
Link: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/narrowing-the-737re-design/ (http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/narrowing-the-737re-design/)
It appears the 737RE will largely come down to this:
An airplane that is to have “minimal” change, to use the word expressed by CEO Jim McNerney on the 2Q earnings call;
R&D cost to Boeing of 10%-15% of that of a new airplane (said James Bell, CFO, on the same earnings call). This will be $1bn-$1.5bn if the assumed cost of a new airplane is $10bn (a widely quoted number but one which is only an outsider’s Wall Street analyst estimate). This further supports the “minimal change” approach. CFM’s portion of the R&D is not known;
A 66” fan on a version of the CFM LEAP engine (from information we obtained from our sourcing), which eliminates the need to increase the height of the nose gear and cause a ripple effect of changes to other structures;
A plane that is, all-in, about 10% more efficient than today’s 737NG. By all-in, this includes direct operating costs and ownership costs. This estimate is from a network carrier fleet planner who has seen the data made available so far from Boeing. Since the 737NG already has winglets, the improvement isn’t as dramatic as the A320neo/sharklet combination.
A plane that all-in will have about a 2% advantage over the corresponding A320neo (from the same fleet planner)—not the 8% claimed by Boeing to the media; and
A plane that will have between 90%-95% commonality with today’s 737NG.
So as it looks it would be a good buy for current 737 operators, current Airbus operators will probably go with the Airbus NEO.
-
Besides, Southwest has also expressed interest in the NEO.
They have had talks but nothing even close to an order, if they did it would jeopardize there low-cost model.
They have to order a replacement for the 737 at some point. Besides, many low-cost carriers find a mix very efficient. Air Berlin operates both A32X and 737NG. EasyJet operated both for many years, retiring the 737s only because of age, just like they retire A319s at a young age. The age of single-type low-cost carriers is over, thanks to fuel prices.
It appears the 737RE will largely come down to this:
An airplane that is to have “minimal” change, to use the word expressed by CEO Jim McNerney on the 2Q earnings call;
R&D cost to Boeing of 10%-15% of that of a new airplane (said James Bell, CFO, on the same earnings call). This will be $1bn-$1.5bn if the assumed cost of a new airplane is $10bn (a widely quoted number but one which is only an outsider’s Wall Street analyst estimate). This further supports the “minimal change” approach. CFM’s portion of the R&D is not known;
A 66” fan on a version of the CFM LEAP engine (from information we obtained from our sourcing), which eliminates the need to increase the height of the nose gear and cause a ripple effect of changes to other structures;
A plane that is, all-in, about 10% more efficient than today’s 737NG. By all-in, this includes direct operating costs and ownership costs. This estimate is from a network carrier fleet planner who has seen the data made available so far from Boeing. Since the 737NG already has winglets, the improvement isn’t as dramatic as the A320neo/sharklet combination.
A plane that all-in will have about a 2% advantage over the corresponding A320neo (from the same fleet planner)—not the 8% claimed by Boeing to the media; and
A plane that will have between 90%-95% commonality with today’s 737NG.
But if the 737RE is 10% better than the NG, and 11-12% better than the A320 Classic, and the NEO is 15% better than the A320 Classic, the NEO must be 3-4% better than the RE, no?
So as it looks it would be a good buy for current 737 operators, current Airbus operators will probably go with the Airbus NEO.
Yep, which is why SAS and AA went Airbus, despite operating 737s ;)
If you're trying to infer that you know better than airline CEOs simply because you have Google on your side, I'd consider that logic foolish. The internet does not make you omniscient.
I don't. I'm just saying what the airline CEOs have been saying on Google. And the airline CEOs apparently don't know much about Boeings efforts either. Southwest is extremely upset with Boeings timing.
This isn't a defence project. It's a commercial aircraft. It's all about getting orders, and making a profit, and you don't do that by keeping it a secret.
Just face it, the A320 has more to gain in terms of improvements. The 737 will need an extended nose gear (more weight and an un-aerodynamic fairing under the nose) to fit a smaller and less efficient engine. The facts are simple, you don't need Boeing or some other source to tell you that.
- Winglets save 3.5%, a gain only the A320 can get, as the 737 already relies on them.
- The engines will save about 15%, and will be fitted to both. But the 737 will have to rely on a slightly smaller version (Even with a lengthened L/G, the fan will have to be smaller)
- The A320 is an older design than the 737NG, and hence is open to more modifications that already feature on the 737
The 737RE will not only have to compete with the A320NEO, but also the all new composite United Aircraft MS-21, and the all new Comac C-919. The C-series, ARJ-21, Mitsubishi RJ, E-jet and the Sukhoi Superjet will be pushing from below.
-
If you're trying to infer that you know better than airline CEOs simply because you have Google on your side, I'd consider that logic foolish. The internet does not make you omniscient.
I don't. I'm just saying what the airline CEOs have been saying on Google. And the airline CEOs apparently don't know much about Boeings efforts either. Southwest is extremely upset with Boeings timing.
This isn't a defence project. It's a commercial aircraft. It's all about getting orders, and making a profit, and you don't do that by keeping it a secret.
Just face it, the A320 has more to gain in terms of improvements. The 737 will need an extended nose gear (more weight and an un-aerodynamic fairing under the nose) to fit a smaller and less efficient engine. The facts are simple, you don't need Boeing or some other source to tell you that.
- Winglets save 3.5%, a gain only the A320 can get, as the 737 already relies on them.
- The engines will save about 15%, and will be fitted to both. But the 737 will have to rely on a slightly smaller version (Even with a lengthened L/G, the fan will have to be smaller)
- The A320 is an older design than the 737NG, and hence is open to more modifications that already feature on the 737
The 737RE will not only have to compete with the A320NEO, but also the all new composite United Aircraft MS-21, and the all new Comac C-919. The C-series, ARJ-21, Mitsubishi RJ, E-jet and the Sukhoi Superjet will be pushing from below.
Funny thing is that CEOs don't disclose all of their positions and thoughts to the general public, it doesn't make business sense to do so. Aside from that, there's also this thing called a Non-Disclosure Agreement, which in the event that Boeing wanted to keep the development of something on the low key, they could sign people into. Why would they want to do this (In spite of everything that you've said)? Who knows. You consider it a disadvantage because it gives airlines more time to order the NEO, it could play into Boeing's hands if the B737RE or new airliner takes longer to hit the presses because Airbus is playing its entire hand with the NEO. They can't have anything up their sleeves with how much they've been (apparently) giving away, and if you ask me that puts the ball in Boeing's court.
Who says that the 737RE needs all of the things that you listed? From what Westjet was posting earlier, its entirely possible that the RE could get away with an improved engine without clearance issues. Boeing still has the raked wingtip design that they've been using in the 767 and 787 that they could bring over to the 737 (If the costs outweighed the benefits), but apparently the 737 isn't as "reliant" on the winglets since there's still a good number of 37s without the winglets (At least the last time I was to an airport it seemed the number of winglet installed aircraft equaled the number of aircraft without winglets.)
Unlike you I wouldn't even consider the NEO or RE a new design, it just seems like an upgrade package for both aircraft from what I've seen/heard. So of course if Airbus wanted the contents of said package could be changed up (At the cost of additional research fees, which is passed on to customers via higher procurement costs), the same could be said of the RE should the NEO come up with anything that's actually threatening to the existence of the 737 in the market.
From what I've been reading, it seems that most of what you listed isn't even a factor to Boeing. The most prominent of what you posted to me (In being rather unrealistic) is the Sukhoi Superjet, they don't have the infrastructure in the Americas to export to any US Airlines. They got a chance through the KC-X contract to get their foot in the door, but their offer was rejected due to deadlines not being met supposedly. In the past you've shot down the C-Series', so I don't see why that's a factor now, and I wouldn't consider the E-Series a competitor to the 737. The rest of what you listed are products that alike the Sukhoi Superjet will likely not see support outside of their regional markets, so honestly who cares. If they do become prominent in their industries, Boeing has apparently seen fit to leave that sector open and seems to instead be focusing on the long range market (With the 6-8 range of the 7X7s, along with the 747-8).
Maybe Boeing has realized that competition is heating up within the regional-short haul market and that its already in a rather bad spot and decided to fallout of the market. I can't say for certain, I don't work the design boards at Boeing. (And don't say they haven't announced anything new again, they've had projects rumored to in the past for the replacement of the 737 and its entirely possible that they're going now.)
-
Who says that the 737RE needs all of the things that you listed? From what Westjet was posting earlier, its entirely possible that the RE could get away with an improved engine without clearance issues. Boeing still has the raked wingtip design that they've been using in the 767 and 787 that they could bring over to the 737 (If the costs outweighed the benefits), but apparently the 737 isn't as "reliant" on the winglets since there's still a good number of 37s without the winglets (At least the last time I was to an airport it seemed the number of winglet installed aircraft equaled the number of aircraft without winglets.)
Regarding the engine issue, even Boeing has said that the current CFM-56 is the biggest they will fit under the 737. Anything larger will require an extension of the nose gear, like the Airbus A330-200F.
On the winglet issue, the 737 (or rather P-8) already features the raked wingtip devices. They were chosen because the normal blended winglets wouldn't be able to resist the low altitude buffeting the P-8 will be subject to. The blended winglets are better. Of course, the optimal thing would be to design an all new optimised wing, that won't have the need for winglets (see the Superjet, A350, 747-8, 787)
Alas, i don't know which airport you fly from, but just about every 737-700/800/900 and 737-300 i've seen over the past few years has been refitted with winglets. With savings of up to 4%, everyone has begun fitting them. The blended winglets became standard on the 737NG in 2006. Since then, practically all 737s the have rolled out of Renton have had them fitted. (Save for the All Nippon birds which get them retrofitted upon delivery, and the military versions)
From what I've been reading, it seems that most of what you listed isn't even a factor to Boeing. The most prominent of what you posted to me (In being rather unrealistic) is the Sukhoi Superjet, they don't have the infrastructure in the Americas to export to any US Airlines. They got a chance through the KC-X contract to get their foot in the door, but their offer was rejected due to deadlines not being met supposedly. In the past you've shot down the C-Series', so I don't see why that's a factor now, and I wouldn't consider the E-Series a competitor to the 737. The rest of what you listed are products that alike the Sukhoi Superjet will likely not see support outside of their regional markets, so honestly who cares. If they do become prominent in their industries, Boeing has apparently seen fit to leave that sector open and seems to instead be focusing on the long range market (With the 6-8 range of the 7X7s, along with the 747-8).
The US market? And what about Europe, Africa, South America, Asia and Australiasia? In terms of aviation, Europe and Asia are both larger than North America. South America is catching up, and Africa is about to begin a massive growth. The Sukhoi Superjet has already been sold to a number of EU based operators, and has plenty of support outside Russia. Nevermind the fact that Ryanair has joined the Chinese to help design the C-919.
Don't underestimate Russia and China. People joked about Embraer 20 years ago, because they were Brazilian and didn't have any experience. Russia has more than enough experience building airliners for more than 90 years. The 787 wouldn't have been made if it wasn't for Russian expertise in composites.
-
And Qantas has just ordered 78 A320NEO. Not for mainline ops, but for Jetstar and some new premium subsidiary.
Edit: It's 78 A320NEO and 32 A320 Classics. Some of the 78 NEOs will be for Qantas mainline, to replace the 737...
-
Another one, Transaero has become the Russian launch customer for the A320NEO. They have ordered 8 + 4 options. Transaero operates an all-Boeing fleet, including the 737-800...
-
Whoa Airbii fanboy. What happens when Boeing launches the 797 which offers 10% more efficiency than the NEO? Then what can we aviation nerds argue about? ;)
Yes I'm an American and will always lean towards the American company (the A320 is a superior narrowbody FWIW), but this 737RE versus the A320NEO is ludicrous. You're talking about fairings for the landing gear and winglets and so on and so forth. Boeing knows about where the NEO will come in at, and knows they have to match that with the 737RE or they should just forget the idea and launch new. They also know they're far behind the 8-ball with the NEO's massive order book, so they have to get it right (ala the 777, NOT the 787).
Engines have all but reached maximum efficiency (all but are the key two words...the geared fan that is coming into play now is all but the final leg when it comes to burning fossil fuels). It's either time to lighten the fuselage (787/A350 are the first attempts, but I'm not sold yet until I see them in service for a good 5-10 years), or finally push for a new power source (cough Hydrogen cough).
-
Whoa Airbii fanboy. What happens when Boeing launches the 797 which offers 10% more efficiency than the NEO? Then what can we aviation nerds argue about? ;)
I am also a Boeing fanboy. Which is why I am critisicing the decision to do a handicapped 737RE rather than a 797. The 737 just can't be made competitive anymore.
737RE versus the A320NEO is ludicrous. You're talking about fairings for the landing gear and winglets and so on and so forth. Boeing knows about where the NEO will come in at, and knows they have to match that with the 737RE or they should just forget the idea and launch new. They also know they're far behind the 8-ball with the NEO's massive order book, so they have to get it right (ala the 777, NOT the 787).
Agreed, it is very ludicrous - the 737RE getting slaughtered by the NEO. 1200+ orders vs 0? Those in charge of Boeing seem to be incompetent bean-counters who know nothing about designing a competitive plane. It's the 1990s all over again. Back then Boeing also got caught on the bed, ignoring the need to offer a new narrowbody.
Engines have all but reached maximum efficiency (all but are the key two words...the geared fan that is coming into play now is all but the final leg when it comes to burning fossil fuels). It's either time to lighten the fuselage (787/A350 are the first attempts, but I'm not sold yet until I see them in service for a good 5-10 years), or finally push for a new power source (cough Hydrogen cough).
But can Boeing afford to wait until 2030 before offering a 797 with hydrogen engines? I have my doubts. Thats more than 15 years out of the narrowbody market. Boeing needs to be proactive and offer a 797 with the P&W GTF or Leap-X today. You can always reengine it in 2030.
The 737 is a 1960's design. Sure, they fitted all-new wings and engines, but it really can't be made competitive unless you fit an all-new fuselage and wing-box with longer L/G. It was designed for an engine that was basically just an upscaled version of the 1st generation of jets seen during WWII, and the landing gear reflects that.
-
The 737 doesn't need to be changed anymore in my opinion, because its as good as its going to get. I'd like to see Boeing prove me wrong by managing to make the 737 that much better with some sort of design change, but as far as I could tell you it's alongside the 707 and a couple other airliners as one of the most iconic aircraft out there.
As far as I've seen on the internet, you're saying that the A320NEO is beating something that doesn't really exist at this point. Boeing might have the general consensus of what it wants to do with the project internally, but the A320NEO actually has (reliable) information available. 737RE may turn out to be vaporware essentially, as it seems Boeing is currently split between enacting the RE as a program and just moving on.
I'd remind you that the 707 was also designed around (before) the 737 but doesn't suffer the problems that you state an aircraft of that age has in terms of ground clearance, but I don't think it would get us anywhere judging by your opinion that the whole plane essentially needs to be redesigned before it can be made "competitive"..
"Of course, the optimal thing would be to design an all new optimised wing, that won't have the need for winglets (see the Superjet, A350, 747-8, 787)"
All of the aircraft you just listed essentially still have the winglets, as the raked wingtips are no different in my opinion.
"Alas, i don't know which airport you fly from, but just about every 737-700/800/900 and 737-300 i've seen over the past few years has been refitted with winglets. With savings of up to 4%, everyone has begun fitting them."
Tell that to my trip from Orlando to Dallas Fort Worth, both airports where I saw a considerable number of non-winglet installed 737s.
"The US market? And what about Europe, Africa, South America, Asia and Australiasia? In terms of aviation, Europe and Asia are both larger than North America. South America is catching up, and Africa is about to begin a massive growth. The Sukhoi Superjet has already been sold to a number of EU based operators, and has plenty of support outside Russia. Nevermind the fact that Ryanair has joined the Chinese to help design the C-919."
I don't know why this site insists on calling Oceania Australasia, but whatever. Last time I checked the Sukhoi Superjet had a ton of orders to leasing companies and a handful of Russian airlines. I talk about the US market because that is what is most relevant to what I'm likely to encounter, and because honestly that is where the majority of the manufacturers you brought up will have the most trouble.
"Don't underestimate Russia and China. People joked about Embraer 20 years ago, because they were Brazilian and didn't have any experience. Russia has more than enough experience building airliners for more than 90 years."
I'll start taking Russia and China seriously as soon as Russia comes out with a solid airliner that actually performs well on the global marketplace (That isn't from the Soviet era and plagued with their own problems) and when China makes something that isn't a derivative of an existing product. The way I see it with Embraer is that they're supported by their home government and fulfilled a niche market that the competition honestly couldn't keep up with because their own performance was going down the drain for whatever reason. Their newer jets (E-170+) I've heard many personal accounts of how they're rather horrible in comparison to some of what's out there right now.
I love aircraft as much as the next person, but I can at least realize that some of these manufacturers you're boosting right now don't have much marketing power outside of their home markets. I've heard enough stories about Bombardiers performing horribly in certain weather conditions, and what planes pilots hate and the reasons behind it.
-
The 737 doesn't need to be changed anymore in my opinion, because its as good as its going to get.
So you agree that a 797 is needed?
I'd remind you that the 707 was also designed around (before) the 737 but doesn't suffer the problems that you state an aircraft of that age has in terms of ground clearance, but I don't think it would get us anywhere judging by your opinion that the whole plane essentially needs to be redesigned before it can be made "competitive"...
Boeing didn't try to fit the LEAP-X or GTF under the 707 either.
I talk about the US market because that is what is most relevant to what I'm likely to encounter, and because honestly that is where the majority of the manufacturers you brought up will have the most trouble.
But we are debating the prospects of the 737RE vs A320NEO, which is not limited to the confines of North America. World outlook is necessary when discussing these issues. More planes are sold in Asia than in North America. The success of the 737RE will depend on it's ability to sell in the big international markets.
I'll start taking Russia and China seriously as soon as Russia comes out with a solid airliner that actually performs well on the global marketplace (That isn't from the Soviet era and plagued with their own problems)
Like the Sukhoi Superjet?
- Kartika Airlines (Indonesia) - 15+15
- Sky Aviation (Indonesia) - 12
- Malev (Hungary) - 15+15
- Interjet (Mexico) - 15+5
- Blue Panorama (Italy) - 12
- Orient Thai (Thailand) - 24
Only 46, 10 from Ilyushin, 30 from Pearl Aircraft Corporation and 6 from Willis Lease Finance, are from leasing companies.
The Sukhoi Superjet had a dispatch reliability of 98% when it entered service. Thats far better than what Boeing or Airbus have ever achieved upon EIS. Only after several months in service did the 777 or A380 reach 99%.
and when China makes something that isn't a derivative of an existing product.
The COMAC ARJ-21 might share the same fuselage as the DC-9, but the wings are all-new, as are the engines. And it is outselling the C-series. You might not take COMAC seriously, but so far they sold 239 ARJs. That makes it second only to the E-jet over the past 2 years.
You don't take the newcomers seriously because they modify an existing product, yet you take the 737NG/RE (essentially a derivative of an existing product) seriously?
The way I see it with Embraer is that they're supported by their home government
Boeing is also supported by the US government. I don't see the point with this argument. National support or not, the planes are selling like hot cakes.
and fulfilled a niche market that the competition honestly couldn't keep up with because their own performance was going down the drain for whatever reason. Their newer jets (E-170+) I've heard many personal accounts of how they're rather horrible in comparison to some of what's out there right now.
And yet that "niche" is worth over 1100 orders. I've hear many personal accounts of how great they are in comparison to some of what's out there right now (including the 737NG and A320).
-
I wouldn't say that a 797 is "needed", but if Boeing wants to make any progression in terms of capability within the market in that area then yes. You also kinda missed my point with the 707 thing, it's well capable of performing in modern times but nobody's picked it up because the trend appears to be twin engine aircraft for all matter of operations, the 747 and A340 being the exceptions to the rule.
"But we are debating the prospects of the 737RE vs A320NEO, which is not limited to the confines of North America. World outlook is necessary when discussing these issues. More planes are sold in Asia than in North America. The success of the 737RE will depend on it's ability to sell in the big international markets."
No, it seems more like we're trying to tell you that there's no contest to be had here, and if there was one it wouldn't be as horribly lopsided as you're making it out to be. I won't contest the point that more planes may be sold in Asia, they're a developing area in terms of their economy and thus there are many airlines that are coming up within the area. You also have to look at the fact that Asia is the largest freaking continent on the globe, so yes it tends to make sense that the largest continent would have the most orders for aircraft in the world.. :-X
"The Sukhoi Superjet had a dispatch reliability of 98% when it entered service. Thats far better than what Boeing or Airbus have ever achieved upon EIS. Only after several months in service did the 777 or A380 reach 99%."
And how many aircraft were operating at the time when this statistic was made? I won't question the reliability of a Russian aircraft, despite their issues in the past generally anything Russian can go through the apocalypse and still run. Point was that in the past Soviet airliners sucked, which is why manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing were able to penetrate the Russian market after the fall of the Soviet Union.
"You don't take the newcomers seriously because they modify an existing product, yet you take the 737NG/RE (essentially a derivative of an existing product) seriously?"
When you quit placing words in my mouth maybe I'll start taking you seriously as a person who isn't a fanboy trying to talk about the market like as if you're an expert. Yes, generally I'll give more credit to the person who's modifying HIS OWN PRODUCT over somebody who's entire commercial reputation depends on REVERSE ENGINEERING EXISTING PRODUCTS.
Have you seen the overall Chinese aviation industry? It's a mash of Russian equipment, Russian equipment that's been reverse engineered, a couple of things that European countries licensed them to produce (Which were consequently reverse engineered in the process usually), and then a handful of things that China can actually call their own that people still dispute as being the norm.
"And yet that "niche" is worth over 1100 orders. I've hear many personal accounts of how great they are in comparison to some of what's out there right now (including the 737NG and A320)."
I was referring to the early ERJs genius, and I will admit I've heard good accounts of those particular jets. The new ERJs, not so much.
-
I wouldn't say that a 797 is "needed", but if Boeing wants to make any progression in terms of capability within the market in that area then yes. You also kinda missed my point with the 707 thing, it's well capable of performing in modern times but nobody's picked it up because the trend appears to be twin engine aircraft for all matter of operations, the 747 and A340 being the exceptions to the rule.
Capable of flying? Of course, but so are many warbirds.
The 707 is uncompetitive. It has too high a fuel burn compared to the competition. To update the 707 so that it would be competitive, you would have to fit 2 high bypass engines instead of 4, and fit an all-new wing, as well as lighten the weight through the use of lighter alloys and fitting of a lighter landing gear. The result is basically a 737, with the same flaws as the 737.
The 2 vs 4 engine issue is not a trend. It is simply the most practical way to save fuel. And in the future you will see fewer and fewer 4 engined aircraft, regardless of engine/fuel technology.
No, it seems more like we're trying to tell you that there's no contest to be had here, and if there was one it wouldn't be as horribly lopsided as you're making it out to be.
The numbers are simple. 1377x NEOs vs 185x MC-21 vs 100x C919 vs 0 737RE. How can that not be lopsided?
You also have to look at the fact that Asia is the largest freaking continent on the globe, so yes it tends to make sense that the largest continent would have the most orders for aircraft in the world.. :-X
Yes, it is the biggest continent on the globe, but that only makes it more important for the manufacturers. Thats where the most money is. The asians tend not to care too much about buying Russian, Chinese or Japanese airliners either.
And how many aircraft were operating at the time when this statistic was made?
Don't be silly. Dispatch reliability upon EIS - Entry Into Service. That means the first 1 or 2 planes. And comparing the dispatch reliability on EIS between different types makes sense, as the exact same number were in service upon EIS.
I won't question the reliability of a Russian aircraft, despite their issues in the past generally anything Russian can go through the apocalypse and still run. Point was that in the past Soviet airliners sucked, which is why manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing were able to penetrate the Russian market after the fall of the Soviet Union.
They were great planes for what they were made for, when they were built. The Soviet Union hadn't really launched any new airliners between the 1970s and the 1980s, so the situation was that the Soviet airlines operated what was equivilant to VC-10s and Boeing 727s in the 1990s. Boeing and Airbus managed to enter the market because they offered something newer and better.
As for the reason the Tu-204/214 and Il-96 never got any succes? In the 1990s the manufacturers suddenly lost all financing. The planes were thus delayed, and supply chains were never established. Without the ability to get spares, no airline would want to buy the planes. Thankfully the Russians saw this problem, and finally fixed it when the An-148/158 entered service.
When you quit placing words in my mouth maybe I'll start taking you seriously as a person who isn't a fanboy trying to talk about the market like as if you're an expert.
I'm no expert. I've only mentioned the basics of launching and developing a new plane. But you don't even seem to get the fact that there is a market outside the US... :-\
Have you seen the overall Chinese aviation industry? It's a mash of Russian equipment, Russian equipment that's been reverse engineered, a couple of things that European countries licensed them to produce (Which were consequently reverse engineered in the process usually), and then a handful of things that China can actually call their own that people still dispute as being the norm.
Much of it has been reverse engineered, but at a very high quality. And they generally improve on it, to an extend where it hardly reminds of the original product.
As for those Eurocopters manufactured in China, thats not reverse engineering. Eurocopter sold them the rights (end equipment) to build them. They are entirely legitimate. The Zhi-15 is even developed in cooperation with Eurocopter.
The Chinese have also begun building lots of equipment from the ground up. They've sent Taikonauts into space on homegrown spacecraft and rockets, and they have built the J-10 and JF-17 fighters, and even the J-20 stealth fighter, and no less than 2 stealth attack helicopters.
I was referring to the early ERJs genius, and I will admit I've heard good accounts of those particular jets. The new ERJs, not so much.
Sorry, but you specifically mentioned the E-170 :o
-
No, it seems more like we're trying to tell you that there's no contest to be had here, and if there was one it wouldn't be as horribly lopsided as you're making it out to be.
The numbers are simple. 1377x NEOs vs 185x MC-21 vs 100x C919 vs 0 737RE. How can that not be lopsided?
There are NO orders for the 737RE because it is NOT launched yet.
But they are coming close to the launching it: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/18/361001/boeing-close-to-re-engined-737-fan-size-decision.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/18/361001/boeing-close-to-re-engined-737-fan-size-decision.html)
It looks like a 66in fan which would mean NO modification to the landing gear.
They would also follow the designation like the 747,777,787, with them being called 737-7,-8,-9, so it looks like NO 737-6. :'(
-
"Capable of flying? Of course, but so are many warbirds.
The 707 is uncompetitive. It has too high a fuel burn compared to the competition. To update the 707 so that it would be competitive, you would have to fit 2 high bypass engines instead of 4, and fit an all-new wing, as well as lighten the weight through the use of lighter alloys and fitting of a lighter landing gear. The result is basically a 737, with the same flaws as the 737.
The 2 vs 4 engine issue is not a trend. It is simply the most practical way to save fuel. And in the future you will see fewer and fewer 4 engined aircraft, regardless of engine/fuel technology."
Apparently you aren't reading what I said, because I pretty much affirmed that nobody's going to use it. Also note that I never said a darn thing about revamping the aircraft and yet they could still PERFORM. And yes, 2 vs. 4 engines is a trend. If not for higher gas prices I'd bet there'd be more diversity in airliners, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the concept of Boeing not reworking the 737 wouldn't be a problem.
"The numbers are simple. 1377x NEOs vs 185x MC-21 vs 100x C919 vs 0 737RE. How can that not be lopsided?"
The numbers are simple once you eliminate the fact that- like I'd originally stated- the 737RE does not exist off the design boards at Boeing. Both GPWestjet and I appear to be able to get this fact through our heads, get it through yours. In the meantime, I think I'll take a break from this "debate", as its apparent my words aren't having any positive effect with you.
"Yes, it is the biggest continent on the globe, but that only makes it more important for the manufacturers. Thats where the most money is. The asians tend not to care too much about buying Russian, Chinese or Japanese airliners either."
Once again, thanks for regurgitating what I said.
"Don't be silly. Dispatch reliability upon EIS - Entry Into Service. That means the first 1 or 2 planes. And comparing the dispatch reliability on EIS between different types makes sense, as the exact same number were in service upon EIS."
Yea, if a plane got through a rather rocky development period and got horrible EIS stats but went on to become a rather successful design I suppose you'd still hold it against it? Aviation isn't a perfect industry, and as a result I wouldn't put too much of my money into statistics.
"But you don't even seem to get the fact that there is a market outside the US... "
Actually I've admitted that I don't talk about the markets outside of the US, as that is where I am most knowledgeable. But then again, you don't seem to get the fact that a company needs market penetration and that the 737RE doesn't exist, so who are you to talk?
"As for those Eurocopters manufactured in China, thats not reverse engineering. Eurocopter sold them the rights (end equipment) to build them. They are entirely legitimate. The Zhi-15 is even developed in cooperation with Eurocopter."
Again, thanks for saying the exact same thing I said earlier.
"The Chinese have also begun building lots of equipment from the ground up. They've sent Taikonauts into space on homegrown spacecraft and rockets, and they have built the J-10 and JF-17 fighters, and even the J-20 stealth fighter, and no less than 2 stealth attack helicopters."
The J-10 relies on Russian goods to fly and was developed by the assets of the IAI Lavi program, the JF-17 is pretty much derived from their efforts in reverse engineering the MiG-21, and the J-20 is rumored to be based on what they've managed to hack out of us and the Russians. The rest I either don't have knowledge enough about or just plain out don't believe you about.
"Sorry, but you specifically mentioned the E-170"
Yea, in what I've heard personal accounts about Embraer's sucking. My original comment referencing that they've managed to fill a niche that nobody else has room in- in my opinion- was rather obviously referring to their mainstay products in the EMB-110/120/ERJ-135/145. Aside from Bombardier there's not another company with regional jets out there that is anywhere near as successful as Embraer is, and like I said earlier, Bombadiers have rather blatant performance issues from what I've heard.
Regardless, I take my break from this thread as it appears to be heading nowhere fast.
-
They would also follow the designation like the 747,777,787, with them being called 737-7,-8,-9, so it looks like NO 737-6. :'(
Interesting. So no 737-1000, 737-1100 and 737-1200 then? :( And no baby-Boeing :'(
Apparently you aren't reading what I said, because I pretty much affirmed that nobody's going to use it. Also note that I never said a darn thing about revamping the aircraft and yet they could still PERFORM. And yes, 2 vs. 4 engines is a trend. If not for higher gas prices I'd bet there'd be more diversity in airliners, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now because the concept of Boeing not reworking the 737 wouldn't be a problem.
If and if and if. Fuel prices will only rise from now on. Even the largest oil wells in Saudi Arabia are drying up. It's a fact that we have only pumped up a fraction of the total amount of oil, but it is also a fact that the remainding oil is found in places that are hard to get access to, hence the prices will rise even more.
I might as well argue that if nuclear power was safe, I'd bet we would all be flying nuclear powered airliners today. ;)
Yea, if a plane got through a rather rocky development period and got horrible EIS stats but went on to become a rather successful design I suppose you'd still hold it against it? Aviation isn't a perfect industry, and as a result I wouldn't put too much of my money into statistics.
You wrote yourself that "you would start taking Russia and China seriously as soon as Russia comes out with a solid airliner that performs well on the global marketplace and that isn't based on a soviet design, or is plagued with the soviet era-problems", no?
I gave you that, facts that show that the Superjet isn't plagued by Soviet-era problems. But apparently the statistics are not valid according to you...
How about eating you own words for once, instead of ignoring the evidence? Maybe you can post some more conclusive facts proving otherwise? Boeing and Airbus put a lot of money into the very same statistics.
Actually I've admitted that I don't talk about the markets outside of the US, as that is where I am most knowledgeable. But then again, you don't seem to get the fact that a company needs market penetration
I do, and Boeing will have a very hard time getting market penetration with fuel prices rising over $100 per barrel (possibly even $150 within too long), while facing competition from better planes. The US market alone is worth about 3000 orders. If Boeing and Airbus are going to fight for those 3000 orders Boeing will get maybe 50%, 60% at most. That is equal to about 1800 planes. The global replacement market over the next 20 years is worth over 13.000 planes. Boeing needs market penetration on the global market, not just in the US, and that is hard with a warmed over 737. Even the NEO will face problems if fuel prices rise much more.
"As for those Eurocopters manufactured in China, thats not reverse engineering. Eurocopter sold them the rights (end equipment) to build them. They are entirely legitimate. The Zhi-15 is even developed in cooperation with Eurocopter."
Again, thanks for saying the exact same thing I said earlier.
Yet you wrote: (Which were consequently reverse engineered in the process usually) :-\
The J-10 relies on Russian goods to fly and was developed by the assets of the IAI Lavi program, the JF-17 is pretty much derived from their efforts in reverse engineering the MiG-21, and the J-20 is rumored to be based on what they've managed to hack out of us and the Russians.
The J-10 relies on homegrown avionics, and while older variants used the Saturn AL-31, the newer variants use the Shenyang WS-10 Taihang. In fact, the only peice of russian equipment on the the newer J-10s is the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 gun.
Another myth is that the J-10 is developed from the Lavi, which is not true. It is developed from the MiG-21/J-7G Skyguard.
The JF-17 is derived from the Skyguard as well, but has nothing in common with the latter. Mind, did you know that the F-16 is in fact derived from the F-8 Crusader, an equally old design? Check out "American Secret Projects - Fighters and Interceptors 1945 - 1978" by Tony Buttler. You will also find that the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet actually dates back to the Northrop F-5A Freedom Fighter.
And the Yellowstone 2 study (resulting in the Boeing 787) actually started as the 767-400ERX.
On a second note, I find it funny that Cipher doesn't take "somebody who's entire commercial reputation depends on reverse engineering existing products" seriously. The pressure cabin idea was reverse engineered from the Germans. As was the swept wing. The jet-engine and turboprop were both reverse engineered from the British, and the turbofan was a German idea... :lol:
-
In september 2010 a Boeing CEO actually said that a re-engined 737 would be a bad idea. Lol, looks like even Boeing has it's doubts:
http://www.ainonline.com/ain-air-transport-perspective/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/prospects-for-re-engined-boeing-737-becomes-more-remote-26005/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[mode]=1
In other news, numbers show that the A320NEO will be significantly more fuel efficient than the 737RE on routes over 1000nm. Even more interestingly, the C-series will have a fuel burn advantage over the 737RE on routes under 1000nm...
Is the C-series poised to make a comeback? Maybe a stretched CS-500 seating 160-170? Theoretically, the C can be stretched to accomodate up to 170 passengers, possibly more. The DC-9 family featured a narrower fuselage, yet was stretched to seat 172.
-
Is the C-series poised to make a comeback? Maybe a stretched CS-500 seating 160-170? Theoretically, the C can be stretched to accomodate up to 170 passengers, possibly more. The DC-9 family featured a narrower fuselage, yet was stretched to seat 172.
I am Canadian so I am going to support Bombardier, but I don't think so.
Airbus is going to get orders from current airbus operators(mostly), Boeing is going to get current Boeing operators orders. and Bombardier is going to get whoever currently flies regionally and wants to expand, airlines that don't want to wait until Boeing makes there decision. Or for airlines that are not doing good(Losing money) that CAN'T wait until 2016/2017 for a better aircraft, the C series is available in 2013/2014, plus it is the ONLY airplane, all others are variants of there current models.
-
Delta is about to commit to 100 737-9 to replace the 757-200s. Since they didn't order anything else, and they announced that they would order 200 planes in all, I suppose that means about 100 additional NEOs to replace the MD-88s. If they were to announce addiditional Boeings, they would most likely announce it in the same order.
Just as we expected, Delta will also be a split.
The fast delivery time of the 737-9 was cited to be an important reason. The NEO is sold out through 2018.
Edit: It turns out that the order is not for the 737-9RE, but rather for the current 737-900ER. Delivery from 2013 to 2018.
Edit 2: Rumours say that the remainding 100 will be pitted between the Embraer E-195 and Bombardier C. The A320NEO vs 737RE choice will come at a later date. The 100 Cs or Es will not be a replacement for the MD-88. If true, this might be a replacement for some Delta Connection planes.
-
I was about to uh...chide you on your "I suppose" but you edited it. Thanks. ;)
There's one problem with the 737 (other than fuselage width), and it all comes back to the landing gear length.
-
There's one problem with the 737 (other than fuselage width), and it all comes back to the landing gear length.
Well, fuselage width is a rather minor one. Passengers hate it, but the more narrow fuselage should in theory also produce less drag. But a wider fuselage would surely help the 737RE a great deal.
The main landing gear on the 737 is limited by the fact that it
a) can't be stretched, coz it in that case would hit the opposite L/G. They both fold inwards, towards each others. There is no more room to extend the gear further,
b) the swivel point of the gear can't be moved further out along the wing unless the wing box is heavily modified to take the stress during hard landings.
(The red line marks the center point)
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e123/B777LR/7371.jpg)
Now imagine a wider fuselage. The center wing-box would be wider. This would allow for a longer landing-gear, while retaining the current wing-stress configuration.
(http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e123/B777LR/7372.jpg)
In order to accomodate a 78 inch fan, the fuselage would need to be widened by 60 cm, thus giving a width of 436 cm. This would add 1 additional seat in each row, giving a 7-abreast fuselage. By comparison, the A320 is 395 cm, the C-919 will be 400, and the MS-21 will be slightly over 400 cm.
Advantages
More seats. Roughly giving the 737-700 a capacity of 172, the 737-800 - 220, the 737-900 - 250.
Better CASM (cost per average seat mile) than most competitors, if seating is maxed out.
Ability to fit more fuel tanks in the belly.
Ability to fit a larger cargo area in the belly, allowing for containers.
Downsides
It will not be an easy task to redesign a wider fuselage. It might be easier to build a new fuselage.
The nose gear will still need to be extended slightly.
Current rules don't permit passengers to be more than 2 seats (not including the one he is sitting in) from the aisle in case of emergency. A 7-abreast airliner would need 2 aisles, making it a 6-abreast 737 yet again.
It would be heavy, and add more drag.
Range would probably take a hit as well.
Extra emergency exits needed on the 737-800.
A simpler sollution would be a 15 cm nose extension, and a 15 cm main extension, giving 30 cm wider fuselage. 406 cm is a bit easier to work with. This would match the MS-21 quite nicely. It wouldn't give the better cargo area though. On the up-side, the 737-900 wouldn't be such a tail-banger anymore.
-
The Boeing board of directors have officially approved and launched the 737MAX ^-^
As expected, just a 737 with the tiny 66 inch fan. In order to solve the problematic noise that would have been caused by the smaller fan, 787-style chevrons have been fitted. These reportedly increase the fuel burn on the 787 by 1%. A revised tail section, and possibly a new APU is also shown in the official photos. Apart from that, it's pretty much a standard 737NG. It will only feature the CFM LEAP-1B
Boeing has received commitments for 496 planes so far.
See link for some standard Boeing PR department nonsense and some nice pictures: http://www.newairplane.com/737/737Max/#/characteristics