Next (new) airplanes

After NMA is obviously no more, some people seem to believe, that Boeing could instead bring a refreshed B757 or B767 to market.

Is that viable? No, I would say, at least not for passenger traffic!

Both aircraft are late 1970’s aircraft, thus about ten years older than the A320ceo. Both were the first narrow- and widebodies with a two-crew-glass-cockpit.

But: the design of the airframe and the wing keep to be from these days, aside from getting winglets, saving up to 4% fuel burn.

So a new wing, along with the new engines, would be inevitable. Along with that goes a new center wing box. That means typically at least 50% of the development costs of a complete new aircraft.

But it does not stop here. A new cockpit with all the technology of B787 or B777X would be needed to make these airplanes attractive to airlines.

Now to the engines: for the B767 GEnx engines would be the likely candidate, and here the -2B version, as it has the right thrust and also a bleed air system. The GEnx though is an engine which was designed in the early 2000’s. The concept would me more than 20 years old if Boeing would decide to start development now with an EIS in 4 to 5 years. The basic aircraft concept would then be 50 years old.

The same is basically true for the B757: with the difference that there would not be an “off the shelf” engine with the right thrust available. But would any engine company spend $1bn for a brand new engine for a 50 year old fuselage? CFM/GE and PWA for sure not, as they have their engines in place on the A321XLR. So only RR could have an interest, but with todays news that they are laying off some 8000 people and delaying the development of their Ultra Fan this is more than questionable. In fact, I see RR in danger as they are so heavily exposed to the widebody market, which, in the opinion of all experts, will be the last market segment to recover.

So there won’t be a new aircraft from Boeing for the time being. CEO Dave Calhoun though says that the “true differentiator” of Boeing’s next aircraft will be “the way we manufacture and the way we engineer, as opposed to the… design of the airplane itself” (quote from the Flightglobal article). What does that mean? As I understand it: the B737MAX will stay the B737MAX, Boeing will (just) look into the cost of production. Well, hopefully they will get it right…

What does that mean for Airbus? A great opportunity, if they are bold and can get money in a similar manner as Boeing raised $25bn on the capital market. If Airbus can raise enough money with a lower yield than Boeing did, Airbus could use that money to invest in the so-called A320neo++, where the A320neo and the A321neo will get a new and larger composite wing and a new cockpit and both would be stretched to a “A320.5” (between todays A320 and A321) and a A322. Then Airbus would also need to develop the A220-500 and would have the perfect product line for the rest of the century and the early 2030’s.

Boeing meanwhile is stuck with the problems of the B737MAX:

1.     The grounded fleet at the airline customers has to be upgraded.

2.     The undelivered fleet has to be upgraded and to be delivered.

3.     Reacting to the potential A320neo++ would lead to the B737MAX being a non-seller

4.     The MAX is MAXed out: without a new wing, a complete new, longer undercarriage and larger bypass engines (from the A320neo) the B737MAX could not compete against the A320neo++. But would that make sense? No, then a complete new aircraft would be needed. Means another $15bn to be found somewhere, meanwhile back the $25bn bonds. Not easy…

So far for my theory…

B757 successor discussion - again!

Again, there is an interesting story about the much-talked-about B757 successor in the press. Now, as I wrote earlier I do not see a business case for that aircraft. As Addison Schonland from airinsight pointed out here, just about 50 B757 are currently flying routes the A321neo and B737MAX-9 will not be able to serve.

So what could be behind the story? I see two possible scenarios:

1.    Absolutely nothing! Maybe Mr. Foster, President of Air Astana, just wants to test the waters and hopes that other airline CEO’s and influential people join the discussion, raising the pressure for Boeing – and for Airbus, which would have to react once Boeing would announce to do something.

2.    Boeing sees that the B737MAX-9 is inferior to the A321neo and uses Mr. Foster to tell airlines around the world not to buy anymore A321neo as a better aircraft could be “just around the corner”.

I think it is more likely that it it something like scenario 1. Investing billions of dollars in such a small niche and, as Air Astana’s CEO suggested, to announce the development now with an EIS that could not be before the middle of the next decade (see Scott Hamiltons comments here) just would not make sense. Sales for the B737MAX-9 would probably suffer more than for the A321neo, as Boeing’s customer base will be more willing to wait as the customer base of Airbus, which is easier for Airbus to keep in their camp.

Also, as Scott pointed out, it would be a family of aircraft, replacing the B737MAX-8, -9 and the B757-200 (for sure not the B737MAX-7). With the 2000+ sales of the B737MAX one can calculate that the production horizon reaches until almost 2023 now. So why prevent further sales of the B737MAX now by announcing a successor too soon? It just won’t happen! Not now!

No clean sheet B757 / B767 succussor!

I refer to the story in herald.net reporting from the Boeing Investor Day on May, 21^st 2014. Reading the article we must come to the conclusion that a clean sheet design B757/767 successor will not happen for some time.

After the financial B787 debacle, which is now between $23 and $25 billion in the reds and with a costly B777X program ahead nobody in the Boeing upper management will have the will to try to sell another technical and financial adventure to the shareholders.

One could say that Boeing now has all the learning about how to develop and produce a fiber carbon aircraft and the development of the B777X wing would give further experience and would lower the risk. But this aircraft – a B757/767 successor – would have different competitors, coming partly from Boeing itself. The B737MAX-9 and the A321neo from the lower side, the B787-8 and a A330neo from the upper side. Of course, the B737MAX-9 and the A321neo would not be able to do the critical B757 missions and the A330neo and the B787-8 are optimized for longer ranges and thus would not offer optimized costs for, say, a 4000nm mission. But this market segment alone, which can not be served by the B737MAX-9 and the A321neo, would be too small  to present a business case with another $10-$15 billion investment upfront.

Sales prices would also be a problem with a A330neo, which, with a 2018 EIS by 2025 could have written down development costs and could be given to customers for prices we see today for the baseline A330 (escalated by inflation, of course).

Boeing yesterday made clear (as Airbus did before) that future aircraft will (for the foreseeable future) only see incremental developments rather than revolutionary designs. The plans from Airbus for an electric regional aircraft might be the only exception, but we have to wait another few years to see if this concept will really become reality.

Is there a demand for a B757/B767 successor? Yes, of course! Will Boeing sell one aircraft less if they (and Airbus) don’t do it? No! And this is what counts for the shareholder. Period!

B757 replacement - NSA or NST?

Two different concepts for a B757 successor emerged over the last few weeks.
First, there was an article by "The Motley Fool" (not exactly an aviation expert website) speculating about a B757MAX (and  Scott Hamilton from Leeham Co. confirming these rumours), with composite wings and a new engine. Although this rumour was quickly dismissed by Steve Wilhelm from the Puget Sound Business Journal and another "Fool" and Boeing itself assured that they are not planning any B757MAX, it would be a relatively straigthforward and easy way to fight against the A321neo, as the numbers and the market already showed that the B737MAX-9 will be an inferior aircraft (I expect some announcements in the not too distant future that will further show that Boeing has a problem here). A new wing, new wingbox and new engines (which would be a few percentage points better in SFC than the PW1100G and the LEAP-1A) would provide enough improvement to be a very good aircraft for thin transatlantic routes. But then what? Airbus would not stand by and could develop a A322 with a similar fuselage length, also a new wing and wingbox and the same engines. And with successors for both of the narrowbody families planned for 2030+ that will likely start at today's B737-800 size, an EIS around 2022 would provide a production run of 10 years at best. So that concept does not really make sense.
Meanwhile also Scott Hamilton wrote another article about the subject, making clear that the "757 replacement" can only be part of a new family of aircraft, starting at the B737-800NG/B737MAX-8 size and topping at about 240 passengers, set by the aspirations from Airbus regarding the A321neo and that an EIS would be not anytime soon, i.e. not 2022.

The other concept emerged from an article by Aspire Aviation and this is completely different. Daniel Tsang proposes a small twin aisle family with a 2-3-2 seating configuration, comprising of two models between 200 and 240 seats. This of course would be a clean sheet design with the associated high development costs. The B737MAX family would still sell, he thinks, for shorter routes, as the "NSA" (New Small Airplane, not the other one...) would be optimised for routes around 4000nm in a 200-220 seat 2-class layout (where a B737MAX-9 and a A321neo would have to trade range versus payload).

But would the market be large enough for such an aircraft to justify a completely new aircraft, built from (today) very expensive carbon fibres? I think: yes and no! No, as I think the seat count of 200-240 would not cover a market potential large enough. And yes, if this NSA (albeit then not so "small") would occupy a larger part of the market, ranging from the B757-200 all the way up to the B767-300, say, from 220-280 passengers and a range around 4,500nm, to cover transatlantic flights between the US East Coast and Europe. This aircraft would have the potential to replace all the B757-200W,  B767-300ER, A330-200/300 and maybe also some B787-8 that are used on these routes today (and more then).

Now: could this aircraft be the first Boeing to be powered by a geared engine?
A few weeks ago Rolls Royce very openly committed themselves to the geared technology and pursues such an engine for 2025. As I do not believe we would see the "NSA" (I would call it "NST", for "New Small Twin") before 2025, that could fit in Boeing's time planning.
Now with two of the big engine companies in the "geared camp" what will GE do? My bet: the next generation of narrowbody engines (beyond the A320neo/B737MAX generation) will be "geared only" - including GE! Of course nobody from GE (or Safran) will say so openly today, because that would mean to admit concede against the "gear". But I am sure that behind the scenes GE is working closely with their new affiliate Avio Aero in Italy (providing  the Fan Drive Gear System for the PW1100G) to have a an engine architecture ready for the mid 2020's. And Snecma is working on a geared open rotor in the Clean Sky project.

The B757 successor discussion

Yesterday MTU’s COO Rainer Martens revealed during the annual results presentation that there is a plan to upgrade the PW1100G engine for the A320neo with another 3% SFC jump by 2019. On a side note, as the turbo machinery of the PW1100G and the PW1400G are identical,  the MS-21 will also benefit from that as I think that P&W and their partners will not start building  two different engines.

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.

Discussion about the B757 replacement

Scott  Hamilton from Leeham has a post about the possible replacement of the B757.
 King5 then came out with it's own story, citing Scott.

I have to say I do not believe we will see a clean-sheet aircraft as a replacement for the B757 - at least not in the time frame Scott is mentioning. He sees a window for EIS opening in 2025, with Boeing probably being the first mover.
The reasons:

1. Business Case for B737MAX and A320neo. The A320neo will delivered from October 2015 onwards, the B737MAX roughly two years later (July 2017 as it looks right now). If a B757 replacement would be available in 2025, announced to the public by 2020, the B737MAX-9 would be dead by then. The B757 replacement aircraft (B757R) would be more economical on all missions - not just on the longer ones. In other words: if the -MAX9 would be more economical on shorter missions, there would be no justification for launching the B757R. In

A320 deliveries ahead of NEO

There is a lot of speculation if deliveries of the "classic" A320 will fall in 2014-2015 in anticipation of the A320NEO. Both Boeing and Airbus meanwhile are talking about accelerating deliveries - Airbus is thinking about up to 44 aircraft a month, up from the current rate of 36 and the planned rate of 40 for next year. Boeing will also increase it's output rate of the B737 line to 40 per month.
One could argue that in the case of Airbus the rate hike will only last a year, before airlines will start to negotiate conversions for deliveries close to the NEO EIS from the "Classic" to the NEO. One argument that can be heard is that deliveries of the B737 Classic plummeted from 218 in 1992 to just 76 in 1996 - but the 737NG entered airline service in 1998 and in 1997 deliveries increased again. Please read this article from 1997. Even CFMI was suprised by the large number of orders for the CFM56-3, the engine of the 737 Classic.
I think tthe ups and down in aircraft production are more related to the world economy than to the appearance of new aircraft. If the economy is thriving, aircaft deliveries will do so, too - with a time delay of one or two years as the manufacturers and suppliers cannot ramp up and down their production in days.
You can see the relationship in the chart I put together. It shows narrowbody deliveries from Boeing (B737 family) and Airbus (A320, family; sorry, I did not implement the B717 nor the B757). Then I looked up the world GDP growth rates. What you can see is that dips in deliveries always come after the GDP growth has had a low.
1. Through 1991 and 1993 world GDP growth was flat at 2%. Deliveries subsequently fell from around 350 to less than 150 in 1995 and 1996. GDP growth recovered starting in 1994 and stayed reached a high of almost 5% in 2000 with a small dent in 1998 due to the asian crisis. Deliveries soared to around 550 per year between 1999 and 2001. The boom came to a sudden stop due to 9/11.
2. In 2001 the internet bubble burst from 2000 reached the ecomomy. The economic crisis was sharpened by 9/11, leading to a lack of new orders for aircraft (apart from Ryanir). Deliveries fell back to a low of around 400 in 2003 before bouncing back, as the global economy recovered starting in 2003 with growth rates exceeding 5% in 2006.

Many "experts" thought that as a consequence to the financial and economic crisis starting with the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy aircraft deliveries would have to fall at least as dramatically as after 9/11. But this time  neither Airbus nor Boeing were forced to cut delivery rates of their narrowbody families. The reason is that, different than during the 90's of early 2000's, the emerging economies, especially in Asia are now a much more powerful part of the global economy and air traffic was growing in these countries even in 2008 and 2009.

It will depend on the world economy if delivery rates for the A320 Classic will dramatically fall in 2014 and 2015. But as in Asia air traffic is still growing and will do so for many years, I believe that even a small dip in the world GDP growth would not harm the A320 Classic deliveries too much. There are too many carriers like Tiger Airways, Jetstar, AirAsia, who need aircraft badly to satisfy demand.

Boeing creating a new market?

Air Transport World today reports that Buckingham Research expects Boeing to forego reengining the 737NG, a move still anticipated by a "meaningful number of investors" in the case that a Boeing customer would defect to Airbus.
But Buckingham noted that Boeing might be so capacity constrained in terms of orders that it might not have the possibility to reengine.
Instead of reengining Boeing would move to an all new aircraft, probably a new light twin-aisle. As I laid out before, such an aircraft would not make sense starting in the current lower capacity end of the 737, so I would guess (if true) that this aircraft would start where the 737-800 is today. The upper end then could be where the  757-300 is, just below the 787-8. That would then fill a niche, because today there are no new aircraft build in this segment - well, one could consider the Tu-204, but this aircraft is almost dead and even not competitive with the 757.
Buckingham says that Boeing would continue to improve the 737NG and is internally convinced that the 2016 737NG is competitive with the A320neo. Boeing earlier stated that the 737NG line could be open until 2026.
A move described by Buckingham would be both smart and risky:

• Risky as it is not clear if customers really will think that a more than 40 year old design will be competitive. Until then the CSeries is in the market, a similar Embraer aircraft could be on the way to the market, making the 737-700 obsolete - the backlog of the -700 is shrinking anyway (as well as the A319). The cabin diameter will still be the 737's problem, as people tend to get larger - vertically, but even worse: horizontally.
• Smart as it opens a new market field for Boeing and by that getting out of the competition with Bombardier, Embraer, the Chinese, the Russians and, to some extent, Airbus. Although for now it remains unclear if the new aircraft will have transcontinental or transatlantic range, the aircraft could be (with the right level of technology) better than the A321neo even if it is designed for more range to enable all 757 missions flown today.

But is there a huge market for these aircraft? At the lower end for sure, as the 737-800 shows - but there would be the problem. If I have two aircraft in my shop, which one should I sell the customer. The same problem appeared when Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas and the MD-95 became the B717. The B717 had to die, as it was a stand-alone aircraft, not part of a family - Boeing sold the 737-600 to SAS although the B717 would have been much better in costs for the SAS missions.
And what about Southwest, by far the largest Boeing customer today? They just ordered the 737-800, but all of their other (500+) aircraft have less than 150 seats and they also like the B717 as an addition with even lower capacity. I cannot imagine Southwest going to an all 180+ seater fleet in the future just to keep being a Boeing customer. And I cannot imagine that incremental improvements to the 737-700 are enough to keep them from defecting to Bombardier (they might one day decide to build a CS500, although saying differently, Embraer or even Airbus.
There were "just" about 757's build - for sure Boeing counts on creating a new big market segment when they really build that small twin-aisle. The question is, if that market segment will be there when the aircraft appears...

737 successor Part IV

In early March I wrote the first piece of this story and explained why I think that a "small widebody" seems unlikely as a 737 successor aircraft.
Hearing Boeing CEO McNerney at the conference call on Wednesday kind of confirms that. He said that the next new airplane will probably first address “the heart of the market,” which is 145 to 185 seats, McNerney said. “Which is not to say that we will leave the (7)57 space unaddressed at all.” (quoted from the seattle.pi blog).
So Boeing clearly will not back away from the "Southwest Airlines" market, which is (as of today) the lower end of that bandwidth, but SWA just this year also ordered their first batch of B737-800, representing the upper end of that "heart of the market".
Not leaving the 757 space unaddressed means they also plan to have an aircraft in the family with 200+ seats. But this would lead to a competitive disadvantage on the lower end, if all family members would have the same wing. If the 200+ seater should have a transatlantic range, the wing has to be considerably larger than today's 737NG wing. That would burden the 145 seat family member with a wing that is too large and too heavy. Trim drag would have to be used during cruise to keep the aircraft flying in level flight with the desired speed, as the large wing produces too much lift - alternatively the aircraft could fly slower, burning less fuel, but cutting productivity.
And by the time the new Boeing aircaft arrives, there could be, apart from the CSeries, another narrowbody - optimised for around 150 seats and probably lower range than the ~3000nm CSeries: a new 5 abreast aircraft from Embraer. With around 2200nm as today's EJets, a specific version of the GTF, the LEAP-X or even a new engine from RR, it could be better than the CSeries and the new Boeing aircraft.

Boeing of course could produce two wings - one for the lower end of the market and one for the upper end - in case of the 787 that strategy failed, but for reasons that do not apply in the narrowbody sector.

About the timing McNerney said:  “You’ll hear more from us at the end of the year.”
So, as I wrote in the third part of the story, we will obviously not hear anything spectacular from Boeing at the Paris Air Show - only a "guidance", probably further emphasizing that they lean towards an all new airplane, but not ruling out a reengining at all.

The first three parts of the story are here:
Part I
Part II
Part III

IndiGo launches the A320NEO

Well, here he is: IndiGo, the first customer for the A320NEO. A massive 150 aircraft order means a good start for the programme. Expect more big orders to come soon...
Coincidentally, Scott Hamilton talked about the prediction by Buckingham Research that Boeing will come out with two new models to replace the B717, B737 and B757 by 2018 and will launch this effort officially by late 2011 or 2012.
While Scott (or Buckingham) does not go into details, I guess this would be a single aisle aircraft for the reüplacement of the B717 and the lower end of the B737 and the "New Light Twin", which was briefly mentioned by Scott at the end of last year for the upper end of the B737 and the B757.
While it would be a good strategy in principle to replace three aircraft (families) with two new ones, I doubt that it will be that fast. How good can these aircraft be - or, in other words, how much better than the NEO? Engines for a 2018 EIS can only be slightly better than for the NEO with EIS 2016. And both CFM and PW have their hands full with developing the engines for the C919 and NEO (CFM) as well as the MRJ, CSeries, MS21 and NEO (PW). So one should not expect a completely new engine by the two manufacturers by 2018 but just minor improvements, which could also be sold to Airbus. And I do not expect RR to catch up in the 30k engine market by then - they lost the NEO competition and they have their hands full with their Trent programmes.
So the advantage has to come from the airframe. As of today, it is not clear if the A320/B737 successors will be build from carbonfibres. Bombardier opted for AlLi, apparently for good reasons.
To be clear, a new aircraft frame  by Boeing by 2018 would of course be better than the A320 frame, there would be 30 years between them. But would it be enough? - I doubt it!
The other question of course: does Boeing have the money to do it and the backing from their shareholders? Developing two aircraft takes a lot of ressources - manpower and money. If they do it, I expect the japanese to take over large parts of the responsibility for the smaller aircraft.
Another fascinating year in aviation just started!