Alaska to the MAX

Why is it still the 737 range, why not 797 ?

I can see some of them starting the pick up business if they can prove their credentials with some of the early adopters, but will struggle in the short term (in the same way airbus did at first)

They’re all new compared to Boeing and small compared to Airbus/EADS.:D

No offense meant, but not exactly “big iron” commercial firms.

They are all old enough to have several generations (or long service records) of aircraft behind them, with the good/bad record for aftermarket service that entails.

They are also big enough to fund their own developments and, also, not large enough to need to care about the sometimes rather niche corners of the market (which would be a concern to airlines as they would have very little leverage with an airframer that didn’t care).

ATR/Bombardier/Embraer?

I wouldn’t call any of them new or small….

They’re all new compared to Boeing and small compared to Airbus/EADS.:D

In the late 70s, Embrear broke into the US market with the Banderante, basically an unpressurized King Air. Bombardier better known for bizjets…the the last major Canadian built airliners were Canadair-built Douglas types.
(Jubilee trivia question: what was the first type Elizabeth flew in after becoming Queen? A Canadian-built Argonaut.)
ATR has been building the regional 42/72 forever, not known for anything else.

No offense meant, but not exactly “big iron” commercial firms.

However, airlines haven’t mind buying regional aircraft from new/smaller firms.

ATR/Bombardier/Embraer?

I wouldn’t call any of them new or small….

The Chinese regional jets/turboprops haven’t seen much of an uptake outside of countries within the local Chinese sphere of influence.

The MS-21/C-919 or the A30X/737RS?

The Boeing/Airbus jets.

I haven’t read much aboutthe other two, but your thoughts on fleet maintainability are probably correct. However, airlines haven’t mind buying regional aircraft from new/smaller firms.

The real test will be when the all new planes come out.

The MS-21/C-919 or the A30X/737RS?

I cannot see the former threatening too much just yet, airlines won’t bet the house on the aftermarket support (or lack of). Even if the newcomers had a 5% sfc improvement, I think the airlines would be very reluctant…

I guess we’ll have to wait for the MAX design to be finalised, and see what the airlines make of it.

Exactly. Too early to call a winner in this.
Actually, there seems to be enough business for both.

The real test will be when the all new planes come out.

I’m with you on that, it would both severely damage the relationship with some strong customers (who would also have given up the opportunity to get early NEO slots), but give Airbus a near monopoly, and massive cashflow they could use to finance a new competitor after the new Boeing comes out.

Equally there do seem to be more and more signs/ noises that the NEO seems to be winning the performance argument, though whether that is because people are starting to see actual figures or the lack of actual figures is another issue, on the other hand, maybe it’s just marketing fluff! 🙂
I guess we’ll have to wait for the MAX design to be finalised, and see what the airlines make of it.

I don’t buy it.
Advanced engines will be the key to fuel efficiency for an all-new narrow body.
I don’t think engines are there yet (and Airbus’ Enders seems to agree), so why spend billions to design a new plane?
Likewise, the 787 will be a test (for Boeing and Airbus) case on how much composites and be used.
Again, wait until you have real-work experience before committing to that technology for a all-new aircraft.

The NEO and Max are stopgaps waiting for an engine breakthrough.

I would be very doubtful Boeing will scrap the MAX.

I think they’d sooner accept the performance shortfall, pay the penalty on any current performance promises and have strong narrowbody cashflow for the next 10+ years. In this years air show season, I expect the MAX to wipe the floor with NEO for one reason and one reason alone – slot availability.

The technologies aren’t really there yet for a new single-aisle replacement (except interim engines), it would take Boeing about 8-10 years to get one to market, so they’d:

– Be giving NEO a ~6 year headstart.
– Screwing over all MAX signatories and pushing other Boeing incumbent customers toward Airbus.
– Effectively withdrawing from the mass narrowbody market between 2016 and 2024.
– Only achieving an incremental upgrade over NEO, allowing Airbus to kill the 737RS dead with an A30X which can incorporate the revolutionary technologies (such as propfans). That would be quite ironic given the original prediction of the A320’s demise prior to launch!

According to Aviation week, there are still rumours that the MAX could get cancelled in favour of an all new design, stating that the rumours come as Boeing “struggles to re-engine the 737NG and reach the same fuel burn improvement promised by Airbus for its A320NEO”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_05_24_2012_p0-461629.xml

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-nears-max-thrust-definition-372416/

Identifying the thrust demand from the CFM International Leap-1B powerplants will confirm the type’s maximum take-off weight and range. Meanwhile, the airframer is dismissing rival Airbus’s focus on the Max’s smaller fan diameter compared with the A320neo.

“Physics doesn’t work in Europe the way it does everywhere else,” says Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice-president of marketing Randy Tinseth.

He says both airframers are designing thrust requirements around their largest re-engined aircraft – the A321neo and 737-9 – but says the Airbus twinjet needs 20% more thrust, and this allows the 737 to employ a smaller core and smaller fan. Tinseth adds that the A320’s empty weight per set is higher than the 737’s – by 5-10% across the family range – and the larger A320neo fan will simply add more weight to the aircraft.

[rant]Aye Randy you clown.

Of course, Boeing would never have installed a bigger fan if they could have to maximise the bypass ratio! Oh, wait a second… that is exactly what they wanted to do… they even rejigged the nose gear to fit a bigger fan in.

So, in Randy’s little world Airbus having the choice of an even larger fan and scaling the core exactly as they need is a bad thing.

I guess the finer details of things like propulsive efficiency, engine thermodynamic efficiencies and Lighthill’s acoustic analogy are completely lost on the powerpoint wizard?

Grrr – I hate marketing bullsh!tters[/rant]

Sorry folks… read that article and had to get it off my chest. I’ll probably run into another speech by the European clown Leahy in a bit and be back on.

Why are the journos not pulling him (Tinseth) up on such obvious bull?!?

Oh, I’d also like to see the reasoning for 20% more thrust. The wing loading is approx 11% more for an A321 when at MTOW and with a ‘clean’ wing (c.f. 737-900 at MTOW). Albeit it (A321) does carry slightly more people. Its a long way from 11% W/S to 20% more thrust.

The 737 MAX design will not be finalized until the middle of next year (2013)…so commitments are a way to reserve a production line place while (somewhat) keeping your options open. Airbus does it to.

According to Aviation Week’s 2 April 2012 edition.

Airbus 320NEO: 2400 orders, options and commitments.
1289 firm orders

Boeing 737 MAX: 1040 Orders, options and commitments.
451 firm orders.

The 3230NEO was launched in late 2010, the Boeing in mid-2011…so Airbus did have a several month headstart.

Other items of interest about the aircraft as recently reported in AW…

Values of non-MAX and NEO aircraft are expected to fall sharply after 2020 once the new models enter service.

And an analyst/economist noted at an industry conference that the world’s proven oil reserves now stands at 50 years..up from 30…and worldwide demand rose by 0.5% (western antions are saving about the amount that Chinese consumption increases).

If oil prices fall (this guy thinks they may fall to $40 a barrel…yeah, sure:rolleyes:) new orders for fuel efficient aircraft would plummet while airlines would keep older less fuel-efficient (and paid for) aircraft in service longer.

So what would be great news for us and airlines, might be a very bad thing for Airbus and Boeing. This at a time when both firms are increasing production of the small jets.

Realy? Then explain how it has garnered almost the same ammount of orders in half the time as the NEO :confused:

I’m not sure it has.

Firm orders ~= “Commitments” (whatever the fook a commitment is – an MoU?)

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers

Exactly!

Hi!

The 737 MAX looks like a great jet, although orders are being stolen by the neo from Airbus. Is there any airlines, ie Alaska, Ryanair, NAS, AAL, that would be good candidates? I would like to see this plane flying high with many global airlines, as I’m sure we all are!

-DMac10121

Greetings, and welcome to the forum. I think that there are interesting times ahead for both the major manufacturers of airliners in this category.

Which is what I was intending to say.

Both the NEO and the MAX are doing very well. There’s plenty of room in the market for both, so I wouldn’t be inclined to worry too much.

Hi!

The 737 MAX looks like a great jet, although orders are being stolen by the neo from Airbus. …..

Realy? Then explain how it has garnered almost the same ammount of orders in half the time as the NEO :confused:

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers