UPDATE: Thank you for the comment! Of course I picked a wrong MTOW for the 777-300ER. I corrected it and the values coming out of it. The basic conclusion keeps the same, especially as the announced SFC reduction of the GE9X will be 10% rather than 7%.
Of course, even with the small increase in inner diameter of the B777-X a ten-abreast seating will be less comfortable than a 9 abreast-seating in the A350. And more capacity is always higher risk (for revenue vs. costs), but for all current B747-400 routes the B777-9 would be the ideal replacement. The A350-1000 will fly with lower costs per flight, so if you can fill the A350-1000 it will be a profit maker as well.
***
The proposed B777-X models, the larger B777-9 holding about 405 passengers and the B777-8 with about 350 seats, should slash fuel burn per seat by 15% (B777-9 vs. B777-300ER) and about 10% (B777-8 vs. B777-200LR).
Is that possible? Let's have a look by taking a very simple approach and concentrate on the comparison
Showing posts with label A350-1000. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A350-1000. Show all posts
7/19/2011
Boeing B737 whatever...???
I pledged to not write another part of the "...successor" story, so I named it differently. Scott Hamilton once again broke the news: Boeing is now leaning towards reengining. If that would really happen, this would be what John Leahy always expected (and so did I).
If we recap all what has been said before it becomes clear, why a reengining would be the best possible action for Boeing. Of course, a new airplane could be better by about 10% in operating costs, but at what cost and risk for Boeing? Just look at another story published yesterday by Scott Hamilton about the latest round in B787 delivery delays! It will take a few years for Boeing to get in a position where they earn some money with the B787. And with the refined A350-1000 Boeing might now feel the pressure to do something with the B777 earlier than planned before. The Y3(B777 successor) was currently planned around 2025, but with the A350-1000 arriving in 2017/2018, that could move to somewhere around 2020. That moves the Y1 (B737 successor) to the second half of the 2020's - and meanwhile, say in 2017 a reengined B737 could appear. Capital requirements for that, if true what Hamilton writes, should be in the same $1-1.5bn range as the A320neo program - probably a little less than Airbus's costs, as we can assume that we will only see one engine on the B737RE - a LEAP-2B, how I would call it for now: with a smaller, scaled down core, a fan with the maximum possible diameter to fit under the wing without nose gear extension.
The technical risk is minimal, compared to the risk of a new airplane a la B787. Additionally, Boeing will see if the LEAP engine will work as anticipated when entering service on the A320neo.
If we recap all what has been said before it becomes clear, why a reengining would be the best possible action for Boeing. Of course, a new airplane could be better by about 10% in operating costs, but at what cost and risk for Boeing? Just look at another story published yesterday by Scott Hamilton about the latest round in B787 delivery delays! It will take a few years for Boeing to get in a position where they earn some money with the B787. And with the refined A350-1000 Boeing might now feel the pressure to do something with the B777 earlier than planned before. The Y3(B777 successor) was currently planned around 2025, but with the A350-1000 arriving in 2017/2018, that could move to somewhere around 2020. That moves the Y1 (B737 successor) to the second half of the 2020's - and meanwhile, say in 2017 a reengined B737 could appear. Capital requirements for that, if true what Hamilton writes, should be in the same $1-1.5bn range as the A320neo program - probably a little less than Airbus's costs, as we can assume that we will only see one engine on the B737RE - a LEAP-2B, how I would call it for now: with a smaller, scaled down core, a fan with the maximum possible diameter to fit under the wing without nose gear extension.
The technical risk is minimal, compared to the risk of a new airplane a la B787. Additionally, Boeing will see if the LEAP engine will work as anticipated when entering service on the A320neo.
6/28/2011
Paris Air Show 2011
That was quite an event! I will focus on just some of the most important topics here, the most important of course being
A320NEO
1029 order and commitments! (plus a few more options) - Never ever in history there was an aircraft selling so fast. Of course, a comparison to the B737NG is unfair, as 15 years ago we did not have such big and emerging markets in China , India and all over Asia (more than 460 A320neos are ordered by Asian airlines so far). Also I am sure that a reengined B737NG or a NSA/B797 would sell as good as the A320NEO (or in the case of the – hypothetical – B797 even better). But let us roll back one year: there were many skeptics of the A320neo, saying that demand for such a “warmed-up” aircraft would just not be there. Others said that Airbus might be forced to convert many of the orders for the current A320 to the –neo model. Both are proved wrong today. Even Air Asia boss Tony Fernandes did not manage to convince John Leahy to convert some of the old orders to the –neo.
Now if American Airlines would really decide to order 100 A320neo (probably they are most interested in the A321neo) this summer, there would be lots of activities starting in Chicago and Seattle.
The A320neo brings us right away to the next big topic at this year’s Airshow.
LEAP-1A vs. PW1100G
Before I get started, please read what Addison Schonland wrote in his piece on AirInsight. As I laid out before I have my doubts about the performance claims of the LEAP-1A. And as I heard, CFM did more PW1100G-bashing at his media briefing just ahead of the Airshow than talking about their own product and it’s merits. A rock solid confidence looks different…
Nevertheless, CFM managed to get large deals at the Airshow. The largest, of course, was the order for 400+ engines for the 200 aircraft deal of AirAsia. But this was CFM’s to loose, as they are providing the CFM56 for the current 175 aircraft order from AirAsia, GE won with the CF6-80 for AirAsia’s A330-200 just recently and GE became a sponsor of Tony Fernandes F1 Lotus Team.
I did a prediction about A320neo orders and the respective engine choices just a week before the Airshow opened. I was wrong at SAS and Republic – both choose the LEAP-1A over the PW1100G. As it appears, I underestimated the market power of CFM, GE and GECAS.
I also expressed before that I think there could be an alliance between Airbus and CFM to keep potential CSeries customers away from ordering the Bombardier aircraft by giving them deals they cannot deny. This strategy can work with airlines which have business with CFM, GE and/or GECAS today.
Look at Republic: the whole Frontier fleet is powered by the CFM56 today - about half of the A319 fleet from Frontier is leased through GECAS.
Republic has the largest Embraer EJet fleet in the world, all powered by the CF34-8/-10. Most of the E170 in the fleet of Republic Airlines, one of Republics subsidiaries, is leased from GECAS.
So GECAS, CFM and GE have all possibilities to sweeten the LEAP-1A deal with discounts on spare parts and leasing rates – one thing that Pratt&Whitney can not do.
SAS on the other hand is a large B737NG customer and they also have a CRJ900 fleet powered by the CF34-8. They choose 2nd hand B737-700 over the CSeries earlier this year. This decision was probably more cash driven, as leasing rates for used aircraft are of course cheaper than for new ones and SAS is going through a tough time right now. SAS has also A319 and A321’s in their fleet, powered by the IAE V2500. But firstly the V2500 powered fleet is much smaller than the B737NG fleet, and secondly, PW always has to deal with Rolls Royce on the V2500 business. And as RR has no stakes at all in the –neo business, they have no interest in building a bridge for PW at all.
One A320neo deal that did not materialize in Paris was the anticipated order for 50 aircraft from Qatar Qatar just ordered 6 more of them in Paris ) and CFM powers 4 A340-300 in Qatar ’s fleet, the A320 fleet is powered by the V2500 and PW might to persuade Qatar
CSeries
John Leahy still thinks that Bombardier should scrap the CSeries program. As an Airbus employee he has to say that, regardless of what he thinks.
But as in the weeks before and at the Airshow there were five new customers announced (three of them unnamed so far), I think it became clear that a growing number of airlines got convinced that in this market segment an optimized aircraft is better suited than, say an A319neo. Surprisingly, the CS100 got the biggest chunk of the new orders – maybe something to think about at Embraer…
I guess we will see a few other orders for the CSeries until the end of the year:
- Delta Air Lines
- Qatar
- GoAir, which just ordered 72 A320neo, hinted for a “raft” of CSeries soon to order
Boeing
Boeing did not raise the bar very high in the run-up of the Airshow, but did extremely well with orders, especially on the widebody front. It remains to be seen, if the revised A350-1000 can break the monopoly the B777-300ER enjoys in their segment. A stretched A350-1100X was denied by Airbus officials, but we will see…if the Rolls Royce managers are wise, they build in another 5% thrust margin above the 97klbf in their revised Trent XWB nacelle lines to cover for growth.
Scott Hamilton further explains Boeing’s success – I suggest to read his entry for more.
Other stuff
There was lots of other stuff to talk about – but I won’t, at least for today…
6/17/2011
Boeing 737 successor Part V
I swear that this is the last piece in that series - before the Paris Air Show!
A recent piece in Flightglobal as well as a blog entry from Scott Hamilton this week shows that inside Boeing there are diverging blocks: one wants a new airplane, the other wants to reengine the B737NG and it seems like a "put them all in one boat"-solution to do it both. With a A320neo family arriving from 2015 onwards and a hypothetic new model from Boeing arriving in 2019 or 2020, with the CSeries entering the market in late 2013 and probably another 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer arriving at the end of the decade, who then needs a reengined B737NG? And if the backlog is so big that there are filled delivery positions even in 2018 today with todays B737NG, a reengined B737NG would only get a handful of orders from customers which did not get a delivery slot from Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer before the Boeing NSA is available.
So doing both makes no sense if the NSA is really slated for around 2020 - but a later arrival, around 2025 could make sense, as the differentiation against the A320neo in terms of engine and aircraft technology and thus operating costs could be larger then. That thinking should behind when Albaugh (quote Flightglobal) "questioned whether such an aircraft would be "good enough with rising fuel costs and emerging environmental regulations" and whether it could stay in service for 50 years." (quote end)
In the meantime, a reengining would make sense and would give that reengined B737NG a life expectation of at least ten years. At last years european ISTAT conference I spoke with some appraisers about the (the not yet launched) A320neo and they said that it would need a production run of at least ten years - the same should be true for a 737NGneo.
A "mild" reengining, maybe even avoiding changes to the front landing gear, should not bind too many engineering resources and should put Boeing in the position to counter Airbus if they should announce any changes to the A350-1000 that would make that aircraft to a better competitor to the B777-300ER than before.
A recent piece in Flightglobal as well as a blog entry from Scott Hamilton this week shows that inside Boeing there are diverging blocks: one wants a new airplane, the other wants to reengine the B737NG and it seems like a "put them all in one boat"-solution to do it both. With a A320neo family arriving from 2015 onwards and a hypothetic new model from Boeing arriving in 2019 or 2020, with the CSeries entering the market in late 2013 and probably another 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer arriving at the end of the decade, who then needs a reengined B737NG? And if the backlog is so big that there are filled delivery positions even in 2018 today with todays B737NG, a reengined B737NG would only get a handful of orders from customers which did not get a delivery slot from Airbus, Bombardier or Embraer before the Boeing NSA is available.
So doing both makes no sense if the NSA is really slated for around 2020 - but a later arrival, around 2025 could make sense, as the differentiation against the A320neo in terms of engine and aircraft technology and thus operating costs could be larger then. That thinking should behind when Albaugh (quote Flightglobal) "questioned whether such an aircraft would be "good enough with rising fuel costs and emerging environmental regulations" and whether it could stay in service for 50 years." (quote end)
In the meantime, a reengining would make sense and would give that reengined B737NG a life expectation of at least ten years. At last years european ISTAT conference I spoke with some appraisers about the (the not yet launched) A320neo and they said that it would need a production run of at least ten years - the same should be true for a 737NGneo.
A "mild" reengining, maybe even avoiding changes to the front landing gear, should not bind too many engineering resources and should put Boeing in the position to counter Airbus if they should announce any changes to the A350-1000 that would make that aircraft to a better competitor to the B777-300ER than before.
6/10/2011
A350-1000 with more range - Update II
I made a quick assessment how the new -1000/-1100 family could look like:
I enlarged the wing, so that the A350-1000 keeps the same wing loading.
I have to admit that this is a very rough assessment as I have not looked into things like climb times, takeoff performance and so on...
| A350-1000 | A350-1100 | A350-1100ER | |
| Pax | 350 | 380 | 380 |
| Range | 8500 nm | 8000 nm | 8500nm |
| MTOW | 314 t | 318 t | 331 t |
| OEW | 152 t | 157 t | 159 t |
| SLS TO Thrust | 98klbf | 100klbf | 104klbf |
I enlarged the wing, so that the A350-1000 keeps the same wing loading.
I have to admit that this is a very rough assessment as I have not looked into things like climb times, takeoff performance and so on...
6/08/2011
A350-1000 with more range - Update
Flightglobal has a new take on what is going on with the A350-1000. Contrary to Scott Hamilton, Max Kingsley-Jones thinks that the wing would be part of the design change, thus getting larger. This could indicate two things:
1. The Thrust/Weight-Ratio could get down without sacrificing runway performance as the larger wing would provide more lift. In other words, the MTOW could be lifted more than the ~5% gain in takeoff thrust, enabling the aircraft to carry more payload (especially cargo) over the reportedly new design range of 8500nm.
2. The investment for a larger wing and a "new" engine would make more sense, if another type would be added to the A350 family - call it the A350-1100 for now. With a further stretch of 4m it would have a fuselage length of roughly 80m, representing the ultimate stretch and would be a real B777-300ER competitor in terms of passenger capacity. The question then only is, if the range of the -1100 would be limited to 8000nm, comparable to the B777-300ER range, or if the -1100 would also get a range suitable for LAX-DXB (I now think that the 8500nm should work in >90% of the time for that route). If so, the "new" engine should really be a "new" engine - not just with an enlarged core, but also with a larger fan, as the thrust requirement would be more in the range of 105klbf. That would have implications to the basic design of the aircraft, especially the length of the undercarriage.
So Airbus could end up with the sub-families fo the A350 - the -900 and the -800 on the lower end and the -1000 and the -1100 on the upper end, very much comparable with the A340.
But again - until June 18 all is about speculation! But that's the fun with it...
1. The Thrust/Weight-Ratio could get down without sacrificing runway performance as the larger wing would provide more lift. In other words, the MTOW could be lifted more than the ~5% gain in takeoff thrust, enabling the aircraft to carry more payload (especially cargo) over the reportedly new design range of 8500nm.
2. The investment for a larger wing and a "new" engine would make more sense, if another type would be added to the A350 family - call it the A350-1100 for now. With a further stretch of 4m it would have a fuselage length of roughly 80m, representing the ultimate stretch and would be a real B777-300ER competitor in terms of passenger capacity. The question then only is, if the range of the -1100 would be limited to 8000nm, comparable to the B777-300ER range, or if the -1100 would also get a range suitable for LAX-DXB (I now think that the 8500nm should work in >90% of the time for that route). If so, the "new" engine should really be a "new" engine - not just with an enlarged core, but also with a larger fan, as the thrust requirement would be more in the range of 105klbf. That would have implications to the basic design of the aircraft, especially the length of the undercarriage.
So Airbus could end up with the sub-families fo the A350 - the -900 and the -800 on the lower end and the -1000 and the -1100 on the upper end, very much comparable with the A340.
But again - until June 18 all is about speculation! But that's the fun with it...
6/06/2011
A350-1000 with more range - implications for B737 successor?
Scott Hamilton just came out with this story: the A350-1000 will get more range (500nm) and a more powerful Trent XWB engine (+5000lbf).
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
A quick calculation revealed that 500nm more range need about 12.3t more MTOW. About 10 tonnes are for the extra fuel burned to cover the extra 500nm, about 2 tonnes needs the structure to carry the heavier aircraft, the balance goes for fuel reserves, as these are calculated in dependence of the actual flown range.
Thrust-to-weight ratio thus will be largely unchanged, runway performance probably a little bit worse, if the wing is unchanged. Compared to the B777-300ER, the wing is not heavily loaded, so I do not believe Airbus will enlarge the wing.
Scott writes that even the 8500nm will not meet Emirates desire of being able to fly Dubai - Los Angeles nonstop. The great circle distance for DXB-LAX is about 7250nm, so there is a 17% range margin. But is this enough to counter strong headwinds. A quick calculation shows that 17% of Ma0.85 (cruising speed of the A350) are equal to about 83nm/hr, meaning that if the average headwind on the route is higher than 83 knots, a technical stop would be necessary. I do not the average wind speed on the route over the north pole, but I could imagine that average wind speeds of 83knots and more ar possible.
The calculation also confirms that Emirates second desire - to add more pax - cannot be part of the change in the A350-1000 specification. So I wonder what is the rationality behind these changes? The 777-300ER has slightly less than the 8000nm of the "old" -1000 configuration, the 500 extra miles is good for a couple of extra city pairs, but does that justify the pain? The pain is probably bigger for RR than for Airbus, as these 5000lbf more of thrust will very likely mean that the whole core has to be changed, which means a lot of investment.
The main reason for that change might be to prevent Boeing from concentrating on the B737 successor. Airbus might hope that Boeing now feels more pressure on the B777-300ER and to concentrate R&D resources here and "only" to re-engine to B737 as Airbus always predicted.
And Airbus is apparently not alone: the recent Bernstein Research Note also suggests that Boeing should re-engine. Richard Aboulafia, VP of Teal Group, also thinks that a B737RE is the best answer to the A32XNEO, as one can reread in the AirInsight Paris Airshow Discussion transcript.
I guess we can expect the official Airbus announcement on Saturday, June 18th at the press briefing.
One is for sure - this years Paris Air Show is getting more and more interesting.
1/21/2011
CSeries impact
Last year I wrote an entry about what the Bombardier CSeries meant for aircraft development. Meanwhile Airbus announced the A320NEO programme on Dec 1st, 2010 and announced first customers. I expect more to come forward in the next weeks and months - by the time the Paris Air Show ends, Airbus could have 500+ orders (or at least MoU-like commitments) for the A320NEO in the books.
If you read how Southwest is now pushing Boeing to clarify it's plans for the B737, you can clearly see how the decision by Bombardier to lauch the CSeries affected the whole development cycle:
Virgin America, the launch customer of the A320NEO, looked very seriously to buy the CS300 - it was only when Airbus came forward with the NEO that Virgin decided to stay with Airbus. So, very clearly: without the CSeries there would not be a NEO to buy!
Boeing has to and will react - until lately I was not convinced that they would do a 737 successor. My thoughts were, like John Leahy, that they would announce a reengining of the 737 soon after a launch of the NEO. In the meantime I am a little bit more convinced that they could announce a new narrowbody. Scott Hamilton recently argued why. If Boeing is right to think that the A350-1000 will enter airline service not before 2019 is on another piece of paper - but if they are convinced, it would make sense to do the narrowbody first - well, if it is a narrowbody! It could also be the long-discussed small widebody, starting at around the capacity of todays 737-800 and going up to the capacity of the 757-300. They would leave the 150 seater market to Airbus and possibly Bombardier (CS500?) and maybe Embraer, but they would have another big market for themselves.
At the EADS press conference CEO Louis Gallois thought loudly about a tie-up between OEM's, as the market place gets increasingly crowded during the next decade. There were speculations then that Airbus could partner with Embraer and Boeing with Bombardier - I could also see some cooperations with the japanese Heavies, as I wrote earlier. All this will not happen this year, but the possibility - and good reasons - are there for it that it will happen sometime.
If you read how Southwest is now pushing Boeing to clarify it's plans for the B737, you can clearly see how the decision by Bombardier to lauch the CSeries affected the whole development cycle:
Virgin America, the launch customer of the A320NEO, looked very seriously to buy the CS300 - it was only when Airbus came forward with the NEO that Virgin decided to stay with Airbus. So, very clearly: without the CSeries there would not be a NEO to buy!
Boeing has to and will react - until lately I was not convinced that they would do a 737 successor. My thoughts were, like John Leahy, that they would announce a reengining of the 737 soon after a launch of the NEO. In the meantime I am a little bit more convinced that they could announce a new narrowbody. Scott Hamilton recently argued why. If Boeing is right to think that the A350-1000 will enter airline service not before 2019 is on another piece of paper - but if they are convinced, it would make sense to do the narrowbody first - well, if it is a narrowbody! It could also be the long-discussed small widebody, starting at around the capacity of todays 737-800 and going up to the capacity of the 757-300. They would leave the 150 seater market to Airbus and possibly Bombardier (CS500?) and maybe Embraer, but they would have another big market for themselves.
At the EADS press conference CEO Louis Gallois thought loudly about a tie-up between OEM's, as the market place gets increasingly crowded during the next decade. There were speculations then that Airbus could partner with Embraer and Boeing with Bombardier - I could also see some cooperations with the japanese Heavies, as I wrote earlier. All this will not happen this year, but the possibility - and good reasons - are there for it that it will happen sometime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)