RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 5727 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 12821 times:
Things are very vague regarding a 737 replacement. There were words of a 737RS, but they have faded along with the A320NSR. Both manufacturers feel that with today's technology, they cannot provide an aircraft with enough improved efficiency to warrant the additional costs.
The problem with the 737 and A320 is that they are so efficient as is. Continuous improvements in small incremental changes have kept them competitive so that a 20% improvement in efficiency seems impossible at this point. New engines and other technologies which are not currently available would be needed. With the strong sales that they have as of now, there is not going to be enough pressure to create a replacement. Both manufacturers have drastically reduced the costs of a new plane from what they were 10 years ago. Airlines simply do now want to pay 5 to 15 million more that would be required for a new airplane since improvements would not be very dramatic over current technology. With time there will be more changes, but for now small incremental improvements will continue to keep the 737 competitive and keep it the best selling commercial jet of all time.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
YXXMIKE From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 170 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 12291 times:
Do you think the installation of GTF will bring around a great enough change for the 737/A320 to keep these new plane ideas shelved for another 5 years?
I think oil prices will be the biggest factor as to what happens in the R&D department for both companies.
R12055p From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 12238 times:
I think we should not ignore the possibility of a Turboprop powered 737 replacement. WIth the economy looking the way it is, the added efficiency of the turboprop may make its relative poor performance irrelevant.
ADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 12126 times:
Bottom line is Boeing doesn't have to come up with a new plane if Airbus does not.
Both A&B are busy for years and years getting their widebodies and all their derivatives updated, designed, built, certified. Plus Boeing will want to see flight data from 787-8 before building any new airplanes.
I would assume both have a card up their sleeve for a GTF or equivalent updates to existing models. The GTF would seem to work better with the A320, but Boeing could make it fit or work with GE on eCore.
The GTF is just getting under way and I don't think P&W will have a certified A320/737 class engine to hang under a wing for many years.
Flyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 239 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 11914 times:
Quoting ADent (Reply 4): Bottom line is Boeing doesn't have to come up with a new plane if Airbus does not.
And the other way round, I expected that Airbus was never really willing to go to an all new narrow body and as they have a slightly advantage, as long as Boeing doesn't do an all new concept, no one will do.
Boeing will be busy for some years with the 787 and probably improvements in 3rd and 4th wave aircrafts based on the leanings with the 787 designs as well as creating variants. It is rather quiet some time about the 787-10, but I would believe a 787-3 'enhanced' = 787-5 medium haul optimized could come first. Further Boeing also needs to think on updating the 777 with enhancements or a 777 NG to not let Airbus capturing the larger wide body market alone over time.
The 737 with enhancements only make sense with new engines based on newest technology available. The large volumes should trigger enough with the engine manufacturers and an enhanced 737 should be capable to fit a GTF engine even if it needs more redesign. Hey aren't there some 757 drawings left at Boeing when they have been able to raise the ground clearance on the same 737/727/707 tube diameter? Not sure what they could do on weight saving with 'composite replacements' (simply speaking), as there may be some certification issues with too much change on the 'old body design'.
If this is done and depending on the enhancement, I would expect that a 737 2ndNG which I would expect not before 2012/1013 would push an all new plane even further more towards 2025-2030.
Same for Airbus: They will open some Champagne about the good news from Boeing. They can concentrate on the A350 and there to keep schedule on time and achieve or even improve performance targets. Further they can work on improving the A380 with improved engines and eventually do the long awaited A380-900 and potentially restart the freighter.
On the 'lower end' new engine technology (Genx) for the A330 could maintain the A330 as a medium haul optimized plane without spending too much money, also good for the new Tanker race.
On the A320 I am almost sure Airbus will shoot for the GTF ASAP as their enhancement and to counter Boeing's 737 2ndNG. Then it depends on the experience with the A350 composite parts if weight savings could be achieved by 'exchanging metal by composites' (simply speaking taking Airbus A350 technology into account), but this is a cost/ benefit issue I can't judge. I guess that the A320 could easier adopt such a technology then the 737 if it makes sense. The enhanced A32x line should be tuned (at least in a variant - if it would cost to much base weight) to allow all season US cost to coast rides and eventually a transatlantic trip w/o fuel stop.
Airbus A32x enhancement then is probably less costly then a B737 2ndNG enhancement.
But also Airbus will then not consider an all-new Aircraft before 2025-2030.
Oykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1709 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 11791 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1): The problem with the 737 and A320 is that they are so efficient as is. Continuous improvements in small incremental changes have kept them competitive so that a 20% improvement in efficiency seems impossible at this point.
The Leap-X technology will reduce the fuel consumtion by 16% alone. From my limited aviation skills it would be possible to redo the 737 once more. If they are able to but the 737 on a diet combined with an aerodynamic update, I am sure they could have a 20% fuel consumption reduction in 2016. That is for bringing down the fuel consumption. But when you are talking about efficiency, I suspect that you are talking about efficiencies in overall costs? Not just fuel consumption?
Will the narrowbodies not gain the same reduction in maintenance cost as the 787 with the introduction of a composite structure?
Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 2): I think oil prices will be the biggest factor as to what happens in the R&D department for both companies.
I am afraid that the EU CO2 focus are almost as important as the oilprice.
Quoting R12055p (Reply 3): I think we should not ignore the possibility of a Turboprop powered 737 replacement.
While not sure, I think that the Leap-X tecnology will make the 737 type of airplanes more suitable on longer routes because the complexity of the engine will make it les suitable on shorter routes. So I think we will see eiter 737 sized planes for the short hops with prop or at least an open FAN. They are efficient on short hops, but less efficient on longer routes.
IMO Boeing should start an update of 736 and 73G and perhaps even a smaller 737. If they got the GTF engine from say 2012 lose about 7 tonnes of weight, then the 736 and 73G would be more attractive. Then again they could from abourt 2017 offer an updated 738 and 739ER with the leap-X engine for longer routes. In simpler terms: Optimize the 736/73G for smaller segments. Optimize the 738 and 739ER for longer segments.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
LeftWing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 11280 times:
What about 100% composite winglets and Class 3 EFB's on both NG & 320 a process that is faster and the technology exists now...first one to get into the market and offer retro fit kits...will take the lead...
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1579 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 11111 times:
Quoting R12055p (Reply 3): I think we should not ignore the possibility of a Turboprop powered 737 replacement. WIth the economy looking the way it is, the added efficiency of the turboprop may make its relative poor performance irrelevant.
Don't think we'll see a turboprop replacement. From the airlines' point of view, that would appear to be a step back, not a step forward.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 1156 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 10612 times:
Quoting YXXMIKE (Reply 2): I think oil prices will be the biggest factor as to what happens in the R&D department for both companies
I do not think so. Oil is always a factor of course, but a very unpredictable one for that matter. See the Oil prices last summer and compare them to the prices we see today. You can not base the most important development program of a company on what the oil price is going to do. It is too much short notice. And the B737 successor will be the most important development program for Boeing to come, just as the A320 replacement program will be the most important development program for Airbus. These airliners sell in huge numbers and are the cash cows and the foundation of the everyday business of both OEM's.
In the (very) long run oil will become more and more expensive. But every OEM will be influenced by this. So not only the B737, but also the A320 or the Embraers, etc. will feel the effects of that.
So both OEM's will be very, very cautious to announce a successor since it will influence orders to come. Why order now if you know that in 5 years or so you can have the next-generation B737 or A320? So timing is also very important.
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 5): first. Further Boeing also needs to think on updating the 777 with enhancements or a 777 NG to not let Airbus capturing the larger wide body market alone over time.
I agree that Boeing should work on the B777, but the B77W is on some points still more capable then the A350-1000 we know today. Of course Airbus is pushing to get as much efficiency out of the new designed plane as possible, and the specifications are not clear yet. But the B77W is simply a bit bigger, that will be hard to overcome by the A350-1000 as we know it today.
So an improved NG-B77W would still give Boeing a dominant place in this part of the airliner market. I suppose an A350-1100, if it would ever emerge, would be a really tough competitor to the NG-B77W. But that A350-1100 is pure speculation from my part, and although I for sure would like to see it developed, it is not a realistic option at this time. And even if Airbus would go for it, there is no way they could bring that to the market before 2017-2018 or so. 2020 looks more realistic to me which would give Boeing plenty of time to develop the NG-B77W upgrade.
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 5): Same for Airbus: They will open some Champagne about the good news from Boeing. They can concentrate on the A350 and there to keep schedule on time and achieve or even improve performance targets. Further they can work on improving the A380 with improved engines and eventually do the long awaited A380-900 and potentially restart the freighter
I am sure that the management and workers at EADS/Airbus are pleased about the developments at Boeing lately. They see them in the same position they were in 2-3 years ago. But they will not celebrate because they know Boeing will get back on track. Just as Airbus is back on track again, Boeing will do so too. And will be a fierce competitor again as it has always been, problems or not.
But the current developments at Boeing have levelled the playing field where it looked to be a darker period for Airbus to come, now the odds are about 50-50 again. And I like it that way
Quoting Flyglobal (Reply 5): On the 'lower end' new engine technology (Genx) for the A330 could maintain the A330 as a medium haul optimized plane without spending too much money, also good for the new Tanker
Some minor improvements on the airframe (coming from the "old" A350 plans) plus the GE-nx would keep this elegant beauty competative well into the 2020's. Quite an achievement. But no decisions have been taken here as well, so we have to wait and see.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9390 times:
Quoting R12055p (Reply 3): WIth the economy looking the way it is, the added efficiency of the turboprop may make its relative poor performance irrelevant.
This would require the economy to not recover for at least 10 years. This is not a depression, it's a recession. The economy will recover and it will be stronger than it was before. It "always" happens.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 16750 posts, RR: 64 Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9241 times:
As much as airlines would like to have planes 20% more fuel efficient (even 50%, if you are JL), there are still thousands of older narrowbodies in service today where the current 737NG and A320 are that efficient or even more. Eventually, those planes need to be replaced and while airlines would love to get something 50% more efficient via a 737RS/A320NR, they will replace them with a 25% more efficient 737NG/A320 if that is all they can get because it's still a huge savings.
Boeing and Airbus have tremendous backlogs right now. And if airlines run out of money to buy 737NGs/A320s, they are not suddenly going to find it to buy 737RS/A320NRs, so right now it would be fiscally irresponsible for Boeing or Airbus to launch such a program in the near term.
And it is not like the 737NG and A320 have stood still. Boeing has been improving the 737NG for a decade and Airbus is working on a suite of improvements to make the A320 better, as well. The two models continue to compare favorably with each other and neither is in a position to take such a quantum improvement (and this includes next-generation engines) that it will suddenly become "the only choice", regardless of what some pundits might want to believe or imply to
Hoob747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 390 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7565 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): The two models continue to compare favorably with each other and neither is in a position to take such a quantum improvement (and this includes next-generation engines) that it will suddenly become "the only choice",
What exactly does the "Next-Generation" engine entail? Is this simply more fuel efficient, or radically different from a design standpoint?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 6302 posts, RR: 58 Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7337 times:
Quoting LeftWing (Reply 7): What about 100% composite winglets and Class 3 EFB's on both NG & 320 a process that is faster and the technology exists now...first one to get into the market and offer retro fit kits...will take the lead...
Winglets are mostly composite now, and the parts that are metal have good reasons for being metal. What's the benefit for going 100% composite on the winglet?
As for Class 3 EFB's, you can get them on a 737 now...I assume Airbus is following suit.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 16750 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6891 times:
Quoting Hoob747 (Reply 13): What exactly does the "Next-Generation" engine entail? Is this simply more fuel efficient, or radically different from a design standpoint?
CFM has the following goals for their LEAP-X program for the 737NG and A320 (they changed it from LEAP-56 when they officially launched the program last year):
16% lower specific fuel consumption
Reduced CO2 emissions
A 15% reduction in maintenance costs
An initial on-wing life increase of 25%
NOX emissions that are 60% lower than the current CAEP 6 regulations
Luisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6891 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 8):
Quoting R12055p (Reply 3):
I think we should not ignore the possibility of a Turboprop powered 737 replacement. WIth the economy looking the way it is, the added efficiency of the turboprop may make its relative poor performance irrelevant.
Don't think we'll see a turboprop replacement. From the airlines' point of view, that would appear to be a step back, not a step forward.
Wouldn't make much of a difference, my airline has been flying their shinny new jets at turboprop speeds to save fuel.
If it saves them $ airlines could go for a turboprop, but with current technology as they get bigger they loose their efficiency.
Travelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 279 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week ago) and read 4318 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 12): Boeing and Airbus have tremendous backlogs right now. And if airlines run out of money to buy 737NGs/A320s, they are not suddenly going to find it to buy 737RS/A320NRs, so right now it would be fiscally irresponsible for Boeing or Airbus to launch such a program in the near term.
......... and Boeing would probably find it very hard to find launch customers at the moment.
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 1): Airlines simply do now want to pay 5 to 15 million more that would be required for a new airplane since improvements would not be very dramatic over current technology.
If Leap-X adapted to existing planes can offer such significant improvements on the face of it a new plane would be fairly hard to justify.
....... but, from what I can understand from the article we are talking about a deferral of 3-5 years, not decades. If this is the case than it would suggest that the cost savings from technology and new manufacturing processes still make a new plane program viable.
With the economic crisis, delays in 787, a need to update the 777, emerging technologies still to be defined maybe Boeing has decided it would be better to update the 737 for the interim.
An ever moving target!
On a side note (and purely suggestive), with the A380 seeming to find a new level of aerodynamic efficiency, maybe Boeing are relooking at the configuration of the potential 737 replacement (finesse ratios). Any thoughts?
Lovetojetblue From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 100 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4085 times:
I've said that to replace either the 736/73G/738/739 or the A318/A319/A320/A321 families is foolish,the most obvious reason being that it would take years to pay off the aircraft. Plus, there is no reason for a replacement when technology hasn't advanced too far. Also, Both have made improvements, Airbus with its new cabin interiors, Boeing with other general improvements to the 737NG's.
Jetblue: The official airline of Springfield! And Eventually: The official airline of Quahog, RI
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10185 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3808 times:
Take care folks do not get to technical or this thread will be moved to tech/ops too. Everybody will assume it is deleted and discussion will die faster then you can imagine. But it will be located in the right place which can be very satisfying. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/245698/
Quoting R12055p (Reply 3): I think we should not ignore the possibility of a Turboprop powered 737 replacement. WIth the economy looking the way it is, the added efficiency of the turboprop may make its relative poor performance irrelevant.
Maybe there is room on short haul. Same technology props offer >20% fuel & cost efficiencies. I had some good feed back last yr on pprune.
Do you think the installation of GTF will bring around a great enough change for the 737/A320 to keep these new plane ideas shelved for another 5 years?
I think oil prices will be the biggest factor as to what happens in the R&D department for both companies.
The A318 could get the GTF, but I doubt the A320. As for the B737, no I don´t think so, they won´t do major investment in it until the B787 is on track again.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10185 posts, RR: 52 Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1683 times:
Quoting Alessandro (Reply 20): The A318 could get the GTF, but I doubt the A320. As for the B737, no I don´t think so, they won´t do major investment in it until the B787 is on track again.
The A318 proved a niche aircraft. If Airbus goes for the GTF they'll go for a version covering the A319, A320 and A321 and maybe A322.
To introduce a similar efficient GTF (with similar BPR) Boeing would have to introduce new landing gears, and even wings. That means a far bigger investment than Airbus would be required to do. I doubt if investing that much in a 45 year old program would create a sound business case.
I think it is likely regionals such as Superjet and C-series will have stretches making them real 150 seat aircraft, the sweatspot of the narrowbody market.
A much lighter CSeries powered by GTF's could leave AA, SW and Ryanair totally unimpressed with a slightly better 737. Boeing will have to act.
Hopefully Bombardier teams up with a big player soon to get this rolling..
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10185 posts, RR: 52 Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1380 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 22): I'll take a let's see approach to what Boeing and Airbus do in the next 5-10 years with their respective narrowbody programs.
Dang, I really hoped you had something substantial / non personal to add to the discussion this time
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 6302 posts, RR: 58 Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1273 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21): To introduce a similar efficient GTF (with similar BPR) Boeing would have to introduce new landing gears, and even wings.
Why? Nobody has (yet) shown why an improved pylon and nacelle won't do the job.
Tom.
25 RoseFlyer: Yes Boeing would have to invest more, but you are assuming too much if you think it would require a new wing. Calling the 737 a 45 year old program h
26 SPREE34: What would be the market for this? 736 and 318 seem to have minimum/special use sales as it is. It would surely get the FLUFF moniker.
27 PRAirbus: I recall AA CEO Arpey commenting that AA was waiting for BOEING to come up with a 737 replacement to finally decide to replace all its MD80s. Now, I g
28 DocLightning: OTOH, I wonder if Bombardier or Canadair might not jump in with a full-on new 150-250 seater. They have the experience building planes. They can star
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 7367 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 5727 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2008, 170 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 239 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 1709 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 1156 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
