But what does that mean in a broader context?
Firstly, we can be very sure that a similar PIP (Performance
Improvement Package) will also be worked out for the LEAP-1A (and the LEAP-1C
destined for the COMAC C919, as this engine has the same turbo machinery as
well). Another
report on a german website cites MTU’s Martens that the 3% improvement are
agreed with Airbus so we expect that there is a corresponding agreement between Airbus and CFM to lower SFC
around 2019/20. As the GE9X goes into service by that time frame we can expect
a lot of technology transfer from the GE9X to the LEAP-1A – and subsequently to
the LEAP-1B for the B737MAX.
Secondly, this makes the business case for any A320neo and
B737MAX successor harder. This is why I do not believe in a B757
successor in the time frame that was discussed by Scott Hamilton and others
lately. At least not in the sense of a purpose build aircraft. Here is why:
·
The 3% lower SFC for the A321neo (and probably
sooner or later also for the B737MAX-9) leads to 100+nm more range, bringing
these two aircraft even closer to the capabilities of the B757 today.
·
As of today the A321ceo can do about 95% of all
routes flown by the B757 today. And the A321neo can only NOT do five city pairs flown by the B757 today (I go that verbally
from Airbus).
Add the 100 extra miles coming out of the engine improvement
and what is left? Maybe three routes, maybe four routes, maybe still all five.
Add some improvements to the airframe and what is left then…?
I am sure there is no business case left then for building a standalone
aircraft with the capabilities of the B757. But also as part of a new family of
narrowbodies, aka the A30X and the B797, there is no real need to compromise
the efficiency of the whole family with a wing that is large enough to cover
distances more than what the A320neo/B737MAX families will do. Otherwise Airbus
and Boeing could lose market share against a Bombardier CS500 and a forthcoming
Embraer small narrowbody which are
designed for ranges less than 3000nm.
But I do not see these new breeds coming a of 2025 as James
N. Krebs postulated in this very interesting guest
column at Leeham News. But if we see a further 3% improvement from the
engines at the end of the decade, how should there be another jump of 20% in
fuel burn in 2025? The technology for an aircraft with an EIS must be defined
by 2018/19. With a regular tube-and-wing aircraft I cannot see a jump more than
10% from the airframe - if designed for the same range (more range: less
efficiency gain for shorter routes). If we take 1% efficiency gain for every
year from improved engine design (and that seems optimistic as it gets harder
and harder), we get a maximum of 15% versus neo/MAX. Not taken into account
that there can still be something done to the existing aircraft as well like building
the fuselage from AlLi or enhancing the wing. The business case for an all new
aircraft then disappears in my eyes. But I am not a bean counter…err…
accountant.
Another question is if someone will do something in the
sector left by the likes of the A300-600R and the B767-300(non ER): 250-300
seats, 4000nm max range. Being hinted to think about that, as can be read in
the Pudget Sound article. I do not count that as a B757 successor and I do not know if there is a business case for
that but Lufthansa always cried for “people mover” like that.
Airbus has the less compelling case than Boeing for a 757/737 family of replacement airplanes. The weak sister in the Boeing family is the 737-9. The 737-9 doesn't favorably compare with the A321neo (and sales figures bear this out), and a 757 operator that has evaluated the 737-9 tells me the 9 MAX doesn't have the field performance nor the range to replace its 757s. While fuel economy may improve with the SFC gains reported above, the problem for the 739 is thrust. Depending on who you believe at this stage, the airplane is 7,000-9,000 lbs heavier but only gets a 1,000 lb thrust bump.
ReplyDeleteBoeing's 737-A320 market share continues to trail significantly. The driving force to replace the 757 (from which the 737 replacement will flow) is Boeing. It will then be up to Airbus to decide if the A320 family will be competitive with the 7X7 family.
Scott Hamilton
Thanks, Scott! The field performance could be tackled by a wing redesign - remember that also the A321 has a different wing than the A320, mainly for takeoff performance. I just doubt that there is enough demand for an aircraft that falls out of the B737MAX-9 range capabilities that justifies a development for a 2025 EIS and than can be leapfrogged by an A30X around 2030. Definetly an interesting field to watch and discuss for the years to come...
DeleteThe CFM56-7 has terrible high thrust (30,000+ rating) performance retention. The engine can't take the turbine temperatures and has relatively short periods of time between overhauls. That's why most long range operators pick A321 with V2500's. You can see this in American’s orders. Short range A320’s got CFM. A321’s got V2500’s. Unless GE is 100% flawless in their execution of the advance thermal coatings in the Leap series, I don't see how any operator could have enough faith at this point to select a 737 Max for high thrust applications considering the LEAP will run hundreds of degrees hotter than the -7 series.
DeleteI do think a 240-seat top-end new narrowbody family model from Airbus and Boeing (NSR and NSA, respectively) could find traction in the market and it will have the benefit of excellent payload-range and excellent field performance if you need it. And if you do not, you paper de-rate the operating weights and engine thrust and enjoy even lower operating costs.
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate: the 7X7 would be a **family** to replace the 757 and MAX. Airbus would have little choice but to match. Boeing will have a good design; what would Airbus have to "leapfrog" other than a UDF, which continues to be problematic? RR is designing a new engine, PW can upscale the GTF and CFM will have to do a new engine since LEAP doesn't have the growth ability GTF does.
ReplyDeleteScott, of course the GTF can be upscaled, but a "new" LEAP would also be nothing more than an upscaled LEAP-1A or a downscaled GE9X. Development cost should be about the same as a percentage of a development "from scratch". IF Boeing would do the 7X7 family by 2025, then the question is how much of the efficiency gain of the 7X7 can Airbus nixe with the same engine Boeing uses and some "minor" updates to the A320 like AlLi fuselage and wing improvements. It then comes down to the question of how much better the 7X7 will remain to be in operating costs versus how much Airbus can discount the A320 vs. the 7X7 (aka the current A330 vs. B787 discussion).
DeleteWhat is more attractive to an airline: 1. An aircraft that can do all missions below say 3500nm at say efficiency of X.
ReplyDeleteOR
2. An aircraft family of say 2 aircraft with optimized wings/common fuselage, cockpit etc set for say 300-1000 nm and 1500-3500 nm. To make it work, what would need to be the gain in efficiency for the aircraft family approach? 10? 20? 30%? It would depend on the degree of commonality also...
A more capable 4000NM A322 re-wing would cost approximately E3.5 Billion and take 4 years. Airbus has been considering this for 15 years. The PW1100 will only will get better and can be scaled up to 40k lbs.
ReplyDeletehttp://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA322NEOconcept_zps13d00dcd.jpg
No rocket science, a pretty mean platform & likely forcing Boeings hands.
rgds keesje
AS I said re the comment by Scott: also the LEAP can be scaled up to 40k (with GE9X technology scaled down). The A332 re-wing is a possibility of course and could come reality if Airbus finds out that the efficiency gains from the new aircraft alone are (still) not large enough to justify the investment. Boeing found that out during their assessment what to do after Airbus launched the A320neo and was left with doing the MAX and I wonder if the situation will have changed so much in 2018 when a decision to launch the 7X7 must be made to be in sevice in 2025 - I doubt it!
DeleteBoeing's decision to do MAX instead of a New Small Airplane had more to do with the following than it did with benefits per Aeroturbopower:
Delete1. 787 program was still a debacle; AA launched the MAX in July 2011; the first 787 hadn't been delivered yet. Boeing Board of Directors didn't want to undertake another new airplane program with 787 and 748 programs still in disarray.
2. Boeing stood to lose greater single-aisle market share by going with an NSA then than sticking with the re-engine timeline. Note that the market share is around 60-40 neo-MAX as it is.
3. MAX was the only way to stay with AA, and even WN was shopping Airbus.
Scott, another factor IMO was that they saw that the COV benefit vs. the A320neo was not large enough as Boeing would have to use the same engine technology than the A320neo. And as the B737 still benefits from grandfather rights and the New Small Airplane would have to incorporate a lot of safety features that the B737MAX does not have to, it is no easy task to design a new aircraft that is much better (from a weight standpoint).
DeleteI could assume that one of the routes that the A321neo couldn't do would be PIT-CDG or could the 321neo just barley make it?
ReplyDeletePIT-CDG is 3400nm great circle distance. It would probably depend on the seat layout. If you have a high yield route with heavy business traffic you could probably do a fortune with a layout like AA has in their transcon A321's. With 102 pax the A321neo should have a range north of 4,000nm.
DeleteI appreciate the analysis as I have been saying the same thing.
ReplyDeleteThe 757 has been nibbled to death from the bottom up, and there is maybe at most 200 of that type needed.
The freighter market (UPS and FedEX) will have as much feedstock as they need and there is zero gain economics wise for them in a 757 replacement. That is 200 of the 1000 757s there.
No 757 (or economical anymore) and they will live without it or go big.
The lower end of the 767 and A300 markets as stated might have an opening but that is also noted accurately as not a 757RS.
And agreed Boeing is in trouble with the 737. They should have upgraded it when the NG came out, now they are stuck. And is there really enough efficiency to challenge Airbus if they did? As Airbus has done very little with the A320 as far as real aerodynamic improvements go, they have the entire gambit that Boeing has been scrambling making to keep the 737 even in the A320 rear view mirror. If Boeing owns the twin market Airbus certainly owns the single aisle (and only held back by lack of produciton, not orders).
Boeing needs a new fuselage cross section. The 1950ies vintage of the B737 starts to smell.
ReplyDeleteA large single aisle might be an option to introduce this section, and establish a new more efficient production process. If this process is mature, it can be used for a smaller single aisle with different technology (wing, engine). A 6-abreast cross section is good for 150-300 seats (single class ref).
Any new single aisle in the A320-class would need to be produced at a 60+ rate short time after EIS. That means extremely difficult ramp-up. Doing that out of the blue, with untested partners and processes, appears to risky. Further, Boeing cannot produce a NSA in Renton, because that would basically mean shutting down Renton for two years.
In my opinion production (and hence cost) will become a critical issue. Remember: another blogger recently unveiled an average 45% discount, which will likely become permanent when MS-21 and C-919 appear on the market with nearly identical specifications as the re-engined aircraft.
Schorsch, I think we can already consider a 45% discount rate to be permanent...and more than 50% to be a good guessing point for "strategic" customers.
DeleteI think the market for such an aircraft is much larger than the five routes you mention. As we all know the 737 and A320 attacked the 757 market space with lower CASM and trip costs.
ReplyDeleteIf we use Boeing's statements (as a guide) that a NSR (797) would be 20% more efficient than today's Narrow bodies, we would have an aircraft that is something in the range of 40% more efficient than the 757. Those are compelling numbers.
Just have a look at Asia. Consider the market for such an aircraft. Imagine, airlines with a super efficient single plane business model being able to fly the majority of Asia routes. If we throw in a fuselage width optimised for a variety of aircraft configurations (business class, etc) we just might have a game changer plane on our hands.
Michael - what do you mean when you say 20% more efficient than today's narrowbodies? 20% versus ceo/NG or versus neo/MAX? I highly doubt that you can build something by 2025 that is 20% better than neo/MAX. At least "the other guy" could immediately close the gap narrow enough (by adopting the same engine technology or AlLi for the fuselage) to destroy the business case for investing $10-$15 billion in a clean sheet design.
DeleteMost Asia routes can be flown with todays narrowbodies anyway - and with neo/MAX coming along there is not much left I guess.
I guess 20% works (versus A320NEO), if you go "all-in"
Delete- open rotor engines
- straight, high aspect-ratio wing
- laminar flow
- all there is in fancy systems
But I doubt that airlines will like it, especially when fuel prices do not rise that much. And technical risk is huge. So, for any manufacturer (and engine supplier ;-) ) a risky business. Doing nothing as long as nobody else is moving remains a robust strategy. Unfortunately.
If you don't do all-in, a small single digit percentage remains. That is the option for a large single aisle compared to an A321. And even that gets tough. Not sure if we talk about 15 billion USD, the aircraft wouldn't challenge the state-of-the-art. But we have to remember the price tag also comes from setting up the production infrastructure (tooling etc).
Sorry, I should have written 20% better than today's A320CEO and 737NG. This would put such an aircraft at a 5% advantage over the NEO and MAX.
ReplyDeleteNot big numbers, but when you consider you are also adding 20-30 paying passengers to every flight the cost / revenue equation becomes a little more interesting.
Using Singapore as a base, a 757 NSR in the 240 seat size category with 4000nm range could comfortably fly all of the Australian major ports with a full payload. I'd suggest in real terms the 737-9MAX and A321NEO are going to be payload restricted over those stage lengths.
The MAX's and NEO's might be okay for the LCC's, but I think the passenger profile changes with the longer routes. Think of the extra passenger bags, catering, etc typically required for longer lengths.
Could you please list those 5 routes you are referring to? I have a feeling there are more.
DeleteSorry, I can not. I have it only verbally that there are currently five which cannot be served by an A321.
DeleteMichael, for a 5% COC advantage NOBODY will start the development of a cleans sheet design aircraft. This is why with the neo and MAX it is even harder to justify to start the narrowbody successors. IMO they will not emerge before 2030.
DeleteThis is where we will have to disagree. In 2011 when Boeing was still considering an NSR as a replacement for the 737NG I ran the numbers over the A320CEO, A320NEO, 737NG, 737NG+ and a NSR. At this time I assumed a middle of the market NSR to sit approximately 198 seats in an all J class configuration.
DeleteI assumed a purchase price of a NSR to be 15% ($8 mil) above a 737NG+ so as to cover the development costs and industrialisation of the aircraft.
An NSR aircraft in this size bracket with 5% better fuel economy, even with the higher purchase price (and ASSOCIATED finance costs) over a ten year period had a theoretical ownership and operational costs approximately $2 million less than a A320NEO.
The numbers start to become more interesting when revenue is added to the equation. A 198 seat NSR would generate approximately $2 million extra in revenue over an A320NEO.
If we throw in potential residual values of a 10 year old NSR against the A320NEO than the numbers become even more favourable for the 198 seat NSR type aircraft
A 757 replacement aircraft is going to be a lot larger than the 198 seat NSR I analysed in 2011. So in real terms an NSR optimised around the 230-240 seat count could actually be more efficient the 5% I quoted. Using Boeing statements of a 5% advantage being available in 2011, at a guess a larger aircraft with latter generation technology could be in the range of 10-15% more efficient on a CASM basis than an A320NEO.
I’d also suggest a new build NSR aircraft would be a more flexible and adaptable aircraft to different airline models. I’d even suggest an NSR aircraft could see the emergence of a new type of airline somewhere in between a LCC and FSC.
There are a lot of it’s, but’s and maybe’s here, but I wouldn’t want to totally dismiss a 757 replacement aircraft in the 2020-25 period. On multiple levels I see it as a very exciting aircraft.
With current cost-split hourly/cyclic/fuel of 45/20/35 (but with the relative fuel factoring on the way down due to newer engine technology, so in contrast : the hourly relative cost impact expanding ...), if a 16.5' gain in TAT on a 90' (flight time) + 50' (block time) = 140' typical feeder liaison impacts (16.5/140) x 0.45 = 0.053 or 5.3 % upon leg costs, ie same as the impact of 15 % less fuel burn for the same leg, [ 0.15 x 0.35 = 0.053 ], the apport of twin aisle groundworthiness cannot be disregarded. Possibly, the most efficient SMALL twinaisle is [1+4+1], whereas the most 'realistic' (because immediately applicable to 73X or A32X Series) is the [1+3+1] configuration.
ReplyDeleteFrom a reader on my blog, responding to the "5 routes" topic; the reader is a 757 captain.
ReplyDeleteScott, I disagree with aeroturbopower´s assessment of remaining routes that require the B752s performance. Anything farther than 2600nm (ESAD) will be an issue for the B737-9MAX and about 2800nm (ESAD) for the A321neo will result in reduced payload (in both cases between 170-180 seats config). I found in a couple of hours 26 current TATL, HI and SAM routes that are well beyond that, up to about 3340nm (GC dist). There are more, as summer routes were not displayed in the Schedules I found. 22 of those routes are at a Great Circle distance of more than 3000nm, the ESAD will be quite a bit more westbound.
While I am moderately optimistic that 757RS (or whatever name its given) studies will come to anything, lets realise that every single percent they manage to squeeze out of the NEO/MAX is still only about 30 additional nautical miles at most. So any 2-3 percent improvements that have been hinted at for either type will only yield another 100nm.
I can't argue against the number of routes here. The number of FIVE routes that are actually flown with a B757 and that can't be flown by an A321 came from Airbus. So it can be more than that and probably are. But let's say there are 50 routes - that would be a possible demand of 100 aircraft to cover each route daily. Any shorter route can be flown more economically ,with the A321neo and the B737-MAX9, so the demand would be very very constraint and that is why I do not see a business case for such an aircraft. Whether it can be incorporated in a future A30X/B7X7 family remains to be seen - the compromise you have to make for the smaller aircraft family members and to cover the main bulk of routes below 1,500nm in form of non-optimal COC's is probably too bad...
DeleteI am with Aeroturbopower and predict no new narrowbody before 20130. The economics is simply not there for a new program. 2025 is 11 years from now and much will change economically. It seems as though many expect to simply have today's conditions in 2025. First off, as Adam Pilarski argues, we have to consider the real possibility of oil dropping to $60. Furthermore, in addition to the mentioned 3% GTF SFC improvement by 2019 (and further improvements beyond) what airframe PIPs plus NextGen ATC PBN savings will accrue to negate the business case for a 757 replacement. The inescapable logic is that the only way to achieve the step change economics to justify a new program is to move beyond the tube and wing towards a new configuration (perhaps along the line of MIT's D.5).
ReplyDeleteI think the A321 + Pratt GTF and possible upgrades of both, provide a serious portfolio gap for both Boeing and Rolls.
ReplyDeleteIt is not surprising Boeing and RR look at solutions together. A new technology 180-250 seater with Rolls geared turbofans seems more then a wild idea !
"The Chicago-based planemaker, the world’s largest, is gauging airline appetite for a medium-size transcontinental aircraft to replace its 757. Rolls-Royce would explore the opportunity to power such a plane, Schulz said.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-26/rolls-royce-unveils-new-engine-for-future-boeing-airbus-jets.html