B737 vs. A32X

build a modestly improved singe aisle aircraft may find himself coming up with the wrong product

the boeing exec..Clears says that inorder to get takers for the new aircraft they have to substantially better then the 737 or a320 inorder to justify integration.

If you compare the needs of different 737/32X customers, you’ll find a variety of needs. The only take these models because it is the best you can get. The big market and diverse needs in a competive situation calls for a diversification.
Second, developments in public opinion, oil prices and environmental concerns may totally change the market place and anybody who rushs to build a modestly improved singe aisle aircraft may find himself coming up with the wrong product. I saw studies for unswept-wing overwing-engine designs as well as large turbo-props, and conventional designs.
We will see lots of discussion about this issue as soon as the longe-range-happy battles of A&B have ceased. We will possibly also see that A&B partly withdraw from the market because the margins are too low.

Could possibly..but My believe is that the 737 will add to those other newer technologies over and above them which are unique to its size and aircraft capacity..there are various projects that Integrated defence,Phantom Works are currently undertaking that can pottentially offer radical differences in comfort levels,noise levels and economy via more effecient designs and use of materials..However i doubt that there would be a much radical layout..What would change is however the quality.comfort level,effeciency and a more Big jet feel from a single aisle aircraft,greater preception of space…quiter cabins and there would be some change in which the way the jets are maintained..Everything would be geared towards economy,effeciency,flexibility and passenger comfort..IT is quite common sense Boeing/airbus just needs to ask itself 2 things..1) what do airlines want and when?? 2) what would a future passenger want in terms of a balance between airline tickets and comfort levels??

I agree

The A320/B737 replacement could very well be the first time that we see the “Big Two” and Embraer all competing for the same market.

Having already built an enviable reputation with the E135/145 series and, to a lesser extent, the E170 it will be interesting to see what amount of market penetration Embraer can achieve with the E190/195, especially if assembly lines in China do actually result in lower unit costs.

Interesting times ahead.

I agree with that too. Although, I’m still a little sceptical as to whether Embrear can pull it off. The E170-195 series seems as stretched as its going to get. They’ll need to start from scratch on an all new design. And for such a relatively huge plane (relation to their current offierings, about 30% larger) that’s a lot of resources for a relatively small manufacturer.

However, in this industry anything can and,invariably, does happen.

The point I was putting across is that there is the possibility that applying 787 technology to a 737 replacement could well result in significant savings. Could.

Could possibly..but My believe is that the 737 will add to those other newer technologies over and above them which are unique to its size and aircraft capacity..there are various projects that Integrated defence,Phantom Works are currently undertaking that can pottentially offer radical differences in comfort levels,noise levels and economy via more effecient designs and use of materials..However i doubt that there would be a much radical layout..What would change is however the quality.comfort level,effeciency and a more Big jet feel from a single aisle aircraft,greater preception of space…quiter cabins and there would be some change in which the way the jets are maintained..Everything would be geared towards economy,effeciency,flexibility and passenger comfort..IT is quite common sense Boeing/airbus just needs to ask itself 2 things..1) what do airlines want and when?? 2) what would a future passenger want in terms of a balance between airline tickets and comfort levels??

The A320/B737 replacement could very well be the first time that we see the “Big Two” and Embraer all competing for the same market.

Having already built an enviable reputation with the E135/145 series and, to a lesser extent, the E170 it will be interesting to see what amount of market penetration Embraer can achieve with the E190/195, especially if assembly lines in China do actually result in lower unit costs.

Could pottentially however i doubt any serious inroads would occur.

The A320/B737 replacement could very well be the first time that we see the “Big Two” and Embraer all competing for the same market.

Having already built an enviable reputation with the E135/145 series and, to a lesser extent, the E170 it will be interesting to see what amount of market penetration Embraer can achieve with the E190/195, especially if assembly lines in China do actually result in lower unit costs.

Interesting times ahead. 🙂

sums it all up..

I agree.

The point I was putting across is that there is the possibility that applying 787 technology to a 737 replacement could well result in significant savings. Could.

So, it may boil down to breakthroughs in fuel consumption, operating costs, and other factors, along the lines of what we’re seeing with the 787. Those breakthroughs would have to be so superior to today’s airplanes that they would cause airlines to take on a new single-aisle airplane type along with the infrastructure cost associated with it.

sums it all up..

Would they be able to increase the speeds without affecting the fuel efficiency in future for the replacement aircrafts like 320/737 etc..

Is there a technically availaible viable solution for this?

No, I doubt that. The way to go is more the other way round: reduce speed and gain weight-saving and reduced fuel consumption. A speed reduction to M0.7 or M0.65 would cost you some minutes but most time you spend in taxiing, take-off and landing. All those are restricted in temrs of speed.

As I tried to explain to Bmused it is this not just as it is with previous porgrams. The manufacturers will have to go very deep inside the topic and evaluate the costs of all aspects of operation. Ths will maybe cause a diversification of the market with Bombardier, the Russians, Embrear or even the Chinese entering the market.
Definetly the market for single-aisle will be completly different than that for B787 or even A380. The single-aisle airliner will stay less sophisticated and development of a competitive design is achievable by other companies than A&B.
That is actually what I read out of the quote from the Boeing guy, just filter out the US-typical adjectives and you can find my statements in it.

Between those two aircraft the biggest difference is in the airline you fly and not the aircrafts themselves. Seat ptch is more important then aircraft type on both aircrafts. Although I must say that charter A320 are even more crammped then 737s and therefore I generall prefer the 737. Unfortunately next Summer i will be flying to the canaries on an A320. those will be long 4,5 hours.

You can say Airbus or Boeing give huge discounts on either aircraft – and they probably do – but they make the money up in after-sales services and support…they aren’t that stupid, they still make the money. Foo-Foo Valve for B7373 anyone? 😀

Exactly..not only that but they make quite a bit out of sales aswell just not as much as they do of of say a 777 or 787 and 747

Dantheman77 they still make quite a bit of money selling the 737’s and a32X regardless of their high competitive pricing..However the 737 atleast is going quite strong..This is the bulk of the market for both boeing and airbus..the 737 accounts for more then 50% of boeing’s commercial products sold and the 737 family has to date sold over 6000 airframes…the 737 NG is in all practicality a 8-9 year old offering and so far it is going strong with 2005 being its best year since its launch..The replacement for the 737 family needs to be effecient,and cost saving enough to justify its adoption into airline fleet as opposed to buying new 737’s which means that over a mid-long term period the cost of integrating the new aircraft (Bmused calls it 797) should be less compared to the savings generated from it during operations as opposed to the 737..The problem is that for airlines the 737 and a32x are quite a lot effecient..Here is what Randy Beasler has to say over at boeing…

Well, believe me we have plenty of visionaries at Boeing, and they’re working on amazing new stuff every day. And that includes looking down the road toward the next great thing in single-aisle aircraft.

But it’s not going to happen in the immediate future. And the main reason is our Next-Generation 737 is in high demand. There’s no pressure from airlines to find a successor to it. Unlike other industries, we don’t replace our current products just for the sake of replacing them. A “new flavor” or a “fresh scent” don’t work in our business.

Now, having said that, new airplanes are introduced only when we can demonstrate an improved “value proposition.” In other words, some tangible reasons why a new airplane would fulfill an unmet need, or would lower costs and/or increase revenue vs. current products in the marketplace.

This is usually driven by a set of breakthrough technologies. A perfect example of this is the 787 Dreamliner, with its dramatic improvements in efficiency, operating costs, and range.

Of course we’re continuously studying new technologies and future products. We involve our customers and suppliers in that work. And it may be possible that the technologies going into the Dreamliner could achieve the same breakthroughs in a future single-aisle product.

It’s just a matter of timing. Market timing and our timing. And right now the market isn’t calling for it and we have no firm schedule for replacing our single-aisle product line.

Even so, let’s talk about it. Both Airbus and Boeing are seeing a significant increase in demand for their existing single-aisle products. And the fact is few airlines are calling for an all-new airplane type.

The 737NG, 10 years newer than the A320, was first delivered in December 1997, and it’s going strong. In fact, Boeing has delivered more than 1,700 Next-Generation 737s to about 150 operators.

So far in 2005 we have more than 450 orders for 737s and have added 9 new customers. This is already the single biggest year in terms of orders in the history of the 737 program. And we have a backlog of more than 1,000 of these airplanes right now.

The 737NG is popular with airlines because it has lower fuel consumption and operating costs than the competition, along with higher reliability. So the question is, what kind of breakthroughs would we need in order to add value to our single-aisle product line? What would cause airlines to demand an all-new single-aisle airplane?

In the case of the Dreamliner, the 787 – compared with current airplanes in its segment – brings more than 20% lower fuel consumption and more than 10% lower operating cost. Strategically, those benefits are of huge value to airlines. The 787 also offers lower noise, faster speed, more comfort, and most importantly, more nonstop market access with its 2,000 nautical mile range improvement over current product offerings in its size.

So, it may boil down to breakthroughs in fuel consumption, operating costs, and other factors, along the lines of what we’re seeing with the 787. Those breakthroughs would have to be so superior to today’s airplanes that they would cause airlines to take on a new single-aisle airplane type along with the infrastructure cost associated with it.

Given all that, as is the case with all of our products, we’re always looking toward the future. But the time for a new breed of single-aisle airplanes is still a ways off. Most likely you won’t see a new single-aisle Boeing airplane enter into service for another ten years, give or take a few. The market will let us know when the time is right.

ok i apologise if this has been in a previous thread…

The 737/A32X market is highly competitive, with both companies offering discounts galore and freebies (training or maitenence training), would it be true to say that both companies discount so much that it makes developing a sucessor to both models to be restricted.
The 737NG model wasnt a great step forward in terms of technology (unless u count improved powerplant and flightdeck) but the A32X family has been kicking around since the 1980’s and included fly by wire,composite structures etc etc. I would say that both aircraft are here to stay for along time to come, simply because the technology isnt available or too expensive to put on a highly competitive market, unless one manufacturer is prepared to take losses, and that wouldnt please the shareholders!

Would they be able to increase the speeds without affecting the fuel efficiency in future for the replacement aircrafts like 320/737 etc..

Is there a technically availaible viable solution for this?

I think we’re both not understanding each other completely. Lets just leave it as is and get back onto the topic of peoples personal preferences.

You can’t fit high bypass engines easily under twin aisle aircraft?
I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of the 757, or ther 737, or perhaps the A320?

Guess, I did! All mentioned aircraft have BR of around 6, 787 wil incorporate engines with BR of 10ish. So, no still no engine advantage for the “797”.

Even a 60% composite 787 would present a much lighter aircraft for its size.

That is without doubt. I never said anything else. But try to see it this way: Which percentage of weight saving was achieved on the 787? How many tons would that be on a 737-like aircraft?

As most airports charge airlines per weight of aircraft, this is surely of benefit of airlines.
The composite will reduce maintenance costs, the lighter weight will benefit fuel burn and as I just said, will reduce landing and take off fees (you’ll be able to operate a flight with a load similar to a 767’s but pay less due to the reduced weight). There’s a lot more to the composite fuselage than simply making the 787 lighter. For example, the underside of the fuselage will be made stronger to make the 787 resistant to “ramp rash”, further reducing maintenance. Its projected that the 787 will be able to resist knocks from airport equipment that would puncture an aluminium skin.

Boeing says … a lot. Outcome is uncertain. They never had a full composite-hull aircraft (and funnily the want to make the surrounding of the cargo doors out of aluminium, these are the areas most affected by ground crew mishandeling). And if you ever by chance punctuate a composite hull, it will be really tricky to repair it.
The fee-argument is like the fuel: The achieveable weight-saving will not have a significant impact. I actually must say that employing most advanced and possible risky (in terms of cost) technologies for the reason of saving a few bucks on fees is of no point.

Also, an additional benefit the 787 will have is interchangable engines. A technology being developed by Boeing. This will make the 787 more attractive to the second hand market as an airline can buy one and fit the engines it wants in a short space of time.

Interesting feature, but second hand market doesn’t procure aircrafts. They take what they get. Maybe a point for leasing companies. In the end this sounds more than a production streamlining than any benefit for the airline
(although clever Boeing people sell it as “a major advantage”).

I agree with you that some 787-technology will be used for a 737-successor and that it will happen some time. But I disagree with any detailed assumptions and especially with the opinion, that building “a 787 of the size of a 737” will bring the benefit.
The single-aisle question is here to stay for at least the next 5 to 10 years. Both manufacturers indentified this market as biggest in the future. Future single-aisle aircraft will in the first place employ strategies for reduced procurement cost. So the contribution of the 787 will not be any composite “advanced materials” bigger passanger window non-sense, but a higher proportion of “cheap” chinese labour involved in its production. Because that does reduce operating costs!

You can’t fit high bypass engines easily under twin aisle aircraft?
I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard of the 757, or ther 737, or perhaps the A320?

Even a 60% composite 787 would present a much lighter aircraft for its size. As most airports charge airlines per weight of aircraft, this is surely of benefit of airlines.
The composite will reduce maintenance costs, the lighter weight will benefit fuel burn and as I just said, will reduce landing and take off fees (you’ll be able to operate a flight with a load similar to a 767’s but pay less due to the reduced weight). There’s a lot more to the composite fuselage than simply making the 787 lighter. For example, the underside of the fuselage will be made stronger to make the 787 resistant to “ramp rash”, further reducing maintenance. Its projected that the 787 will be able to resist knocks from airport equipment that would puncture an aluminium skin.

Also, an additional benefit the 787 will have is interchangable engines. A technology being developed by Boeing. This will make the 787 more attractive to the second hand market as an airline can buy one and fit the engines it wants in a short space of time.

As to whether any of this works, we’ll find out, but if it does you can bet the farm that Boeing will encorporate these benefits into a 737 replacement when the time comes.

And no doubt Airbus will be watching the 787 VERY closely and following Boeings lead with an A320 replacement when the time comes, should the technology that Boeing is pouring into the project work out as expected.

If the 787-fuselage will be all composite is known when the first 787 will be certified. Working here on the A380 lets me get a grasp how it works in a new project.

The fuel efficiency claim of Boeing is to be confirmed, too. I’m sure it will be a fine aircraft, but 20% less than B767, A300, A330 is such an unspecific claim, that you can hide a 707 in it (so, is it the A300 (easy), the 767 (respectable) or the A330 (tough)?)
Just to point out: I’m not bashing on Boeing. It is just that in modern aviation determination of costs is a complicated issue and very much depending on the airline’s situation.

I am actually living on a planet called earth. On this plant airlines have costs operating their aircraft. These costs are
– fuel
– crew
– maintenance
– finance
– fees (airport, ATC)
– insurance, misc
and other non-aircraft specific expenses (marketing, overhead, etc).

So, which of these costs can Mr. Composite greatly reduce, and if he is joined by Mr. Hi-Bypass (who actually can’t be mounted easily under a single-isle aircraft), what costs will decrease?

It’s fuel and maybe maintenance. On a typical short-range trip the fuel accounts for something between 15 to 20% of the cost. Now you achieve 10% less fuel consumption (what is a great achievement) resulting in 0.1 * (0.15 .. 0.2) = 0.015 .. 0.02 saving (that is 1.5 to 2%).

Yeah, that’s it! New technology, here we come! If the overall interesst rate rises by 1% it is actually cheaper to continue to operate that old A320/B737 because it doesn’t have any finance costs any more.

The 787 was an all-composite aircraft at time of announcement but isn’t any more. They percentage of “advanced material” is stabilising somewhere at 60%.
The engine technology is the critical part of whole equation. And because I guess that Boeing and Airbus are constantly talking to the engine manufacturers, they know that before 2010 a launch is not due.

The proposed 3% in fule saving and 9% in overall saving won’t bring too much saving for an airline.

The 787 fuselage will be 100% composite. That is gauranteed, what will all the manufacturing tests they’ve done and the huge ovens they have commissioned.
Other components will still be metal yes. It was never claimed the 787 will be 100% composite throughout.
The 787 is proposed to save around 20% in fuel and related costs relative to existing aircraft in its class (767, A300, A330).

And as for a 9% overall saving not bringing much to the airlines, what planet are you on?!! Airlines are scrambling to upgrade their 737s with winglets for a 2 to 3% saving. You can imagine what they’ed do if a plane came out with a 9% overall saving. For a fleet of say 30 aircraft (purely for example), that is one hell of a difference! But let me make this clear, the 3% and 9% savings I cite are purely examples, not Boeing quotes.

Anyway, my point is, with 787 technology Boeing should be able to offer a 737 replacement with some enticeing performance and economic improvements compared to the current 737 and A320 offerings.

It is already well known that Southwest Airlines are pushing Boeing for a new 737. Their CEO is on record in saying: “The 787 looks like a great aircraft, if Boeing made one 737 sized I’d buy it”.

Boeing will most likely make the 797 fuselage entirely out of composite, as they are doing with the 787. This alone will give them a lighter aircraft compared to the 737 and A320 of the same size. Again, we’re not talking hundreds of tonnes here, but consider this, even a 3% deacrease in fuel consumption quickly adds up over a year to a substantial saving. and say Boeing can decrease overall operating costs by 9% with a new plane? That’s a lot!

As for the engines, yes it is a fairly simple case of outline to GE or RR what they need. If it can be done, GE or RR will get to it and give it a go.
Eventually the current 737 and A320 models will need to be replaced. No product lasts forever.

In short, yes the 737NG and A320 are good aircraft, fairly equal on most respects and are selling very well. But sooner or later, the Airlines will be demaning a newer product that will take advantage of new technologies. It’s innevitable.

The 787 was an all-composite aircraft at time of announcement but isn’t any more. They percentage of “advanced material” is stabilising somewhere at 60%.
The engine technology is the critical part of whole equation. And because I guess that Boeing and Airbus are constantly talking to the engine manufacturers, they know that before 2010 a launch is not due.

The proposed 3% in fule saving and 9% in overall saving won’t bring too much saving for an airline.

Hui, but what technologies do you want to use? Scaling down is not the way it goes in aircraft design (scaling up is even worse).

The bleedless engines ist still to decide. Especially because you need these engines. Who should develop them? Once again: You can’t just say to GE: Make me a GEnX with 30.000lb thrust and similar efficiency.
The smaller your aircraft gets, the smaller are the savings due to structural improvements. So you can be lucky if you save in total a couple of tons on a 737 but it will be very difficult and risky.
Which airline will pay you 60 Million for a slightly advanced design if they could use the less advanced design for less financing cost?

I wasn’t saying they were literally going to scale the 787 down.

What I meant is this; Boeing have and continue to learn a great deal about composites, electrical systems and bleedless technologies due to their 787 program.

It is fairly certain that this experience will be used to eventually develop a replacement for the 737. No one is saying they will make a fantastic leap in economic between the 737 and the replacement (which for this discussion I will refer to as the 797 to save confusion.

Boeing will most likely make the 797 fuselage entirely out of composite, as they are doing with the 787. This alone will give them a lighter aircraft compared to the 737 and A320 of the same size. Again, we’re not talking hundreds of tonnes here, but consider this, even a 3% deacrease in fuel consumption quickly adds up over a year to a substantial saving. and say Boeing can decrease overall operating costs by 9% with a new plane? That’s a lot!

As for the engines, yes it is a fairly simple case of outline to GE or RR what they need. If it can be done, GE or RR will get to it and give it a go.
Eventually the current 737 and A320 models will need to be replaced. No product lasts forever.

In short, yes the 737NG and A320 are good aircraft, fairly equal on most respects and are selling very well. But sooner or later, the Airlines will be demaning a newer product that will take advantage of new technologies. It’s innevitable.