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.