That issue on the 737 being vastly inferior to the A320 family...

[Virgin Serbia]

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. 

[Cipher53]

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.)

[Virgin Serbia]

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.

[Virgin Serbia]

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...

[Virgin Serbia]

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...

[GQfluffy]

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).

[Virgin Serbia]

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.

[Cipher53]

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.

[Virgin Serbia]

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).

[Cipher53]

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.. 

"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.

[Virgin Serbia]

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.. 

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

[GPWestjet]

 

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

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.

[Cipher53]

"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.

[Virgin Serbia]

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...

[Virgin Serbia]

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.