Narrowbody Review 2012

Slowly, but inevitably, the year 2012 is coming to an end. Here are some thoughts about the current situation of the narrowbody market:

Orders

 

Boeing now has not yet fulfilled its own prophecy and has “only” 969 firm orders for the B737MAX in its books (with 819 orders in 2012), shy only 31 from the goal to have 1,000 by the end of 2012 and I guess that there will be another order (or more) in December to fill that gap..

B737RE Early Fuel Burn Analysis

Scott Hamilton picked up a few interesting details from the Boeing Quarterly Earnings Call regarding the B737RE. The most important question regarding this program remains the fan diameter. It looks like it will settle around 66 inches, so that Boeing can go forward without touching the nose gear.
But what does that mean for fuel efficiency?

B737RE!

So we have another reengining programme! American Airlines just announced to purchase up to 300 B737 aircraft (as well as up to 625(!) A320neo). The more inportant detail of this message is that 100 (+60 options) of the B737NG's will be powered by the LEAP-X, unofficially launching the reengining program of the B737NG, as this needs confirmation by the Boeing board.
What does that tell us?

LEAP-X core temperatures

I saw this article about the latest design changes to the CFM LEAP engine. I described what I think about the seventh LPT stage and the larger fan diameter in my last blog entry. New to me in this article is, that CFM claims that the LEAP core would run at the same temperatures  - at least turbine entry temperatures - than the CFM56.
Hmm, let's start with pure physics. The LEAP engine will have an OPR of 50 at top of climb. The CFM56-5B has an OPR of 35.5 at the highest (33klbf) thrust setting.
Make it easy and consider the Fan, the LPC and the HPC as one big compressor. The formula to get the compressor exit (or burner entry) temperature is:
T2=(1/etac)*(T1*(P2/P1)^(0.4/1.4)) with P2/P1 being the OPR in this case and etac being the compressor efficiency.

CFM says that the turbine entry/burner exit temperature stays the same, they do not say anything about the burner entry temperature. But to get the highest efficiency, the burner exit temperature (T3) should be
T3=(T2^2/T1), thus being independent from the OPR.
So let's consider that the ratio of T3/T2 should be about the same. Then T2 should be the same, too.
What does that mean for the compressor efficiencies? Well, if T2LEAP and T2CFM56 should be the same, then from the first formula can conclude that:
((OPRLEAP)^(0.4/1.4))/((OPRCFM56)^(0.4/1.4))=etac(LEAP)/etac(CFM56)

Computed, you will see, that the compressor efficiency of the LEAP engine should be 10% higher than that of the CFM56.
Now, the GE90 compressor, on of the predecessors of the LEAP compressor, is thought to have an efficiency of 91%. Let's assume, the LEAP compressor, although considerably smaller, has the same efficiency (which is hard as the relative clearances are larger in a smaller compressor). Then the efficiency of the CFM56-5 compressor should stand at 90%*91%= 82% - if true, the engine would be a disaster.
So, something does not add up here. An engine with a pressure ratio of 50 can't run at the same core temperature as an engine with a 29% lower OPR  - or you did something wrong in your basic layout of the engine.

LEAP-X striking back?

CFM said over the weekend that they have four announcements on every of the first four days of this years Paris Airshow regarding LEAP-X customers. It is not clear, whether these are all for the A320neo or some of them will also be for the C919, but apparently CFM is strongly coming back from behind and it remains to be seen if the PurePower GTF engine can hold it's No.1 position on the A320neo.

According to a Bloomberg report, SAS will order the LEAP-X for their 30 A320neo. A few days ago I expected them they will go with the GTF - apparently I was wrong and I will speculate about the reasons a little bit later.
But let us look at the possible reasons of this comeback: if you read the blog entry behind the first link of this, article, there are two interesting things to note: CFM just lately changed the design of the LEAP-X engine:
1. The fan diameter got larger, from 75" before to 78" now.
2. The LPT got an additional stage - now it has seven, just as the GEnx-1B for the B787.

Both changes are good for about 1% in SFC - each. Additionally, I guess CFM changed to size of the core and made it smaller, what could yield in another 0.5% in SFC.
On the other hand, the engine gets larger, produces more drag, gets added weight and the added LPT stage produces extra maintenance costs.
Because of the added drag and added weight, the fuel burn benefit will end up in the range of 1.5-2%. Operating costs could end up being somewhere between 1-1.5% better.
If you study this site, CFM now claims a 1% better fuel burn against the GTF. Is this credible: a few weeks ago, before the design changes were made official, Bernstein, AirInsight and others said (with obviously good knowledge about the situation), that LEAP-X would trail the GTF by about 3%.
So if CFM now claims to be better by 1%, then they probably project their best possible SFC without regarding any development risk. This is not engineering practice, but as it seems, CFM can convince quite a number of customers with that strategy.

Now to the story about SAS and why they might have turned to CFM:
First, they are a flying a lot of  B737NG, thus having a number of CFM56 in their fleet and possibly a good relationship to CFM. A few weeks back they dedided to lease 2nd hand B737-700 and with that opting against the CSeries.
Easy question: who is most interested in CSeries failing in the marketplace:
1. Airbus
2. CFM
For that reason, I could see a campaign to fight all possible CSeries deals in a joint effort from Airbus und CFM. The litmus test for this thesis will be the CSeries' fate at Republic: if Republic now orders the A320neo with the LEAP-X and (sooner or later) cancels the CSeries, I would see this thesis is "proven". Also watch for Qatar...
The thriller just starts here!

Some airlines can't wait for Paris

The official opening of the Paris Air Show is still four days away, but there are a few airlines who can't wait to announce their (A32Xneo) orders.

Cebu Pacific and GoAir both placed orders today.

Cebu Pacific (I did not even have that on my list yesterday) placed an MoU for 30 A321neo. They also firmed up options for 7 A320 (Classic). Cebu stated that with the A321neo they will be able to fly to destinations which cannot be reached with the A320 today, namely Northern Japan, Australia and India. They will outfit their A321neo's with 220 seats - I have not heard of any airline with such a dense seating in a A321. Air Berlin has 210 seats, Air France in the domestic market version 206 seats.

And then there is GoAir - for 72 A320neo. I had them on my list for Paris, but for a maximum of 70 - well, not too far off. GoAir is owned by the Wadia Group, a powerful conglomerate, and got a new CEO just a few days ago, the former Chief Revenue Officer from Air One (Giorgio De Roni), which was (more or less) forced to merge with the old Alitalia.
GoAir has 10 A320 in the fleet, with 10 more to come in the next two years. By then, with a fleet of 20 aircraft and after 5 years of operation, they can fly internationally.

Both airlines fleets are powered by the CFM56 today and both airlines gave no indication of engine selection yet. It remains to be seen if my assumption that the PW1100G has the better cards in the indian market. At least the planned first delivery date (2015) for GoAir's A320neo seems to indicate a GTF selection here.

Airbus A320neo order speculations

We are just days away from the Paris Air Show 2011 and every day there are more speculations about who will order how many aircraft at the show – and which ones.

The one thing that seems to be clear though is that the A320neo will get the bulk of orders.

So let me take part in the speculation game and start with the “Star” of the show:

Here is my guessing about who will order how many and the engine choice:

AirAsia	150-200	LEAP-X
Republic	40-80	PW1100G
Qatar	30-50	PW1100G
GECAS	50-100	LEAP-X
ALC	25-50	LEAP-X/PW1100G
CIT	20-30	LEAP-X/PW1100G
GoAir	50-70	PW1100G
SAS	30	PW1100G

In total we could see more than 600 orders/commitments for the A320neo family, with both engine makers getting their share of the market.

As for the LEAP-X it is crucial to get orders – GE seems to invest heavily in the AirAsia order, with GE becoming a sponsor of Tony Fernandes’ Formula 1 Lotus Team. Even if GE says that those two deals are complete separate…

As the CFM56 is AirAsia’s current engine choice, CFM was in the front runner position anyway. It remains to be seen, if Fernandes managed Leahy to convince him that a conversion of orders for the A320 ”Classic” can be transformed into A320neo orders and how many. And we will also see if this deal will be even larger than the yet-to-be-finalised order of 180 aircraft by Indigo.

Republic already placed a deposit in Toulouse, so we can expect an announcement about a fleet rollover for Frontier soon. As they already ordered the CSeries, they probably lean towards the GTF. But it remains to be seen, if the CSeries order stays intact. The financial troubles at Republic could mean that Airbus buys Republic out of the CSeries deal.

If Qatar finally decides to order the CSeries, they should decide for the GTF on their up to 50 neo's, too. But who knows what U-Turn Al will decide when he wakes up on the day of the planned signing ceremony. If he had a bad dream, all hid plans can change in a minute...

GECAS of course is the most natural LEAP-X customer. Nothing to add here...

After opposing the A320neo from the start, even Steven Udvar-Hazy seems to jump on the bandwagon now, as was reported earlier. I expect a split between LEAP-X and the PW1100G here, as well as from CIT.

GoAir obviously is in the market also for at least 50 A320neo. That seems a lot for an airline that has just 10 aircraft by now, but the fast growing Indian market is hungry for aircraft. The V2500 has a large customer base in India today and the PW1100G made the race at IndiGo, so PW might have the upper hand here.

SAS is looking for the A320neo, too, and I think this is the airline that is speculated to be the first neo-customer currently flying the B737NG. They have looked into the CSeries also, but decided to preserve cash by leasing 2^nd hand B737-700. SAS did not rule out to order the CSeries later, so they could lean towards the PW1100G on the A320neo to have engine commonality (sort of), if they ever decide to order the CSeries.

There might be others to come forward and order more A320neo – who know. John Leahy understands how to do good marketing and always pull out a rabbit out of the hat…

LEAP-X wins first customers

Just a quick note as I am just coming back from a small vacation and saw the news that LEAP-X reportedly got their first two customers - ILFC for the remaining 40 of their 100 A320NEO order and Virgin America for 30 A320neo. The latter is no real surprise, as it was CFM to loose as the incumbent here. Lessors tend to split their A320 orders anyway, so one could anticipate that, too.
The next very-likely-LEAP-X-powered-A320neo-order should be from AirAsia. As Tony Fernandes wants to convert some of the "Classic"-orders and the current Air Asia order is CFM56-powered, a deal including a conversion of orders is only thinkable with CFM.
Still open are TAM with their MoU for 22 A320neo.
During the Paris Air Show we will probably see orders from Republic and Qatar for the A320neo. I would expect Qatar to choose the GTF, as they are also likely to order the CSeries, which is exclusively powered by the GTF. Republic as one of the existing CSeries customers is also a good candidate for the GTF on the A320neo.

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

Bernstein Research on GTF and LEAP-X

AirInsight has a post today about Bernstein Research thinks about the GTF. As I do not want to "cannibalize" AirInsight please read this post before continuing here...
So what can we take from this? The most important point for me:
CMC turbine blades availability slipped from 2018 to 2020!!! This means:

• That moving the EIS of the chinese C919 forward from 2018 to 2016 was a bad decision for CFM, as CFM was forced to speed up their development plan. But some technologies obviously need and take their time and can't be accelerated too much.
• That the 2016 LEAP-X engine for the C919 and the A320neo needs more turbine cooling than originally was planned with CMC turbine blades. As cooling air for the HPT blades is rather "expensive" (it is taken from one of the rear compressor stages), more cooling air means higher SFC.
• That the LEAP-X is not competitive with the GTF in terms of fuel burn (at least) until 2020.
• That a version of the LEAP-X for a potential B737RE would not yield an improvement good enough to keep pace with a GTF powered A320neo (at least in terms of fuel burn).
• That the LEAP-X with CMC blades would be ready "just in time" for a new Boeing aircraft in 2020. But 9 years ahead, who would count on that today?

If Bernstein Research is right about the CMC turbine blades, CFM has a big problem. To position the engine as the lower risk engine is "BS", as it is a new centerline engine as the GTF is - but the GTF neo-engine will benefit from the engines for the CSeries and the MRJ. LEAP-X is also running considerably hotter and this is always risky. So I do not see airlines will give them credit for lower risk.

As I wrote earlier, the litmus test for CFM will be a potential order for the A320neo from AirFrance-KLM, the decision from Virgin America and the anticipated order from AirAsia.

AirFrance interested in A320NEO - litmus test for LEAP-X

Reuters and others today report that AirFrance is interested in the A320NEO. As AirFrance is one of the largest Airbus customers (I think actually in second place right beghind Lufthansa), this is not a big story - but before Airbus actually launched the A320NEO, AirFrance ofiicials said that a pure reengining would not be good enough. So their mind must have changed.
What is more important is, that once AirFrance will eventually order the A320NEO, sooner or later they have to commit to one engine or another. And as AirFrance is up to now the most natural and loyal CFM customer you can imagine - CFM is 50% owned by the Safran and CFM did a version of the CFM56-5B customised for the A318 only on AirFrance's request - it would be a disaster for CFM if AirFrance would decide in favour of the GTF and clearly a sign that there is something "wrong" in the development of the LEAP-X.
An interesting thing to watch...

No new Boeing airplane in sight...?

Scott Hamilton has it here: chances that we will seen and hear an announcement from Boeing for a new airplane, call it 737RS, call it 797, are getting slim. Buckingham Research now says that they do not expect an announcement from Boeing for a new airplane at the Paris Air Show. An approval to offer would not come before the end of 2012/ early 2013.
As I argued earlier, there is no real technical case for a new aircraft in the 2020 timeframe. And if there is no technical case, there is no business case. No business man will spend $10-15 billion without getting a decent return, if he can get the same return by spending $1-1.5 billion, as Airbus does it.
I don't want to say that Boeing now will do the 737RE - but in my eyes it would do much more sense. And this is one if the rare occasions I agree with Richard Aboulafia, who just today at the Aero Club in Wichita said that Boeing should quickly go forward with the reengining.
If they do not move quickly, there is a real danger that long-time Boeing customers are moving to Airbus.

A problem with reengining for Boeing could be the emerging signs that the CFM LEAP-X could be a little bit behind schedule. At least there is no customer for the LEAP-X on the A320NEO yet. As EIS for the NEO is 4.5 years away, some airlines (as well as ILFC) seem to be confident enough to order the GTF, but not the LEAP-X. They could also wait another year or even two and decide then about the engine - means ordering one engine now that they are sure that the other is not ready in time? Leahy last week said that the LEAP-X would be available by about 9 months, but no more than 12 months after the GTF. As EIS of the NEO was moved forward by 6 months at the same time, that means that the LEAP-X would have been 3-6 months later than the GTF per original schedule. Three to six months should not really be the deciding factor when ordering an aircraft that is used for twenty years and longer. So there could be something more behind all that...

The absent LEAP-X customers

It is very early to say anything about the long-term share of the Geared Turbo Fan and the LEAP-X on the A320neo. On the other hand it is notable that there are now three announced engine choices for the A320neo and none of them is in favour of the LEAP-X.

• ILFC opted for the GTF for at least 60 of their 100 aircraft (MoU with Airbus yet to be firmed up). They have an option for the GTF for the remaining 40 aircraft, but are in talks with CFM about the LEAP-X. Apparently ILFC is not yet convinced to order the LEAP-X.
• Indigo: this can be deemed as an easy win for P&W, although also CFM fought hard for this large deal. Indigo currently uses the V2500 on their "classic" A320.
• Lufthansa: as I wrote in another blog entry, the most important win for P&W so far. They initially ordered the V2500 for their A320, but when RR had problems with the High Pressure Compressor, they had to switch to the CFM56. By the time the A321 was launched, the V2500 then became Lufthansa's choice again - but for the A319 Lufthansa favoured the CFM56. I see two reasons for their split: one is to get a maintenance license for both engines, as Lufthansa Technik is a major player also in the engine maintenance business and saw business opportunities with third parties. Another reason is that the A321 typically flies on longer routes than the A320 and A319, where the better engine SFC of the V2500 plays a bigger role. On the other hand, the CFM56 could have an edge if you fly shorter routes and more sectors a day, as the CFM56 with it's single stage turbine has lower maintenance costs than the V2500. Now Lufthansa ordered the GTF for both the A320neo and the A321neo - a significant move in my eyes!

Now - who is the most probable LEAP-X customer, once ordering the A320neo? GECAS of course! There is no order for the A320neo from GECAS so far - this is no judgement so far, but if Airbus collects some more and potentially large orders by the time of the Paris Air Show in June and GECAS does not come on board, I have a sense that there could be a problem with the LEAP-X - as GECAS should be the customer who has the best insight into the engine.

Pratt did it again - with Lufthansa!

Pratt did it again! Third engine announcement, third win - a good run! And I would say, the third is the most important one, as I explained in earlier blog entry. The engine choice from Lufthansa for the PW1133G will probably be a signal for many other airlines, which do not have such a large and well-experienced technical department as Lufthansa. So we can expect that the Geared Turbo Fan will keep the lead position against the LEAP-X for the next months - and as we can expect a few more orders for the A320neo until the Paris Air Show in June, this could translate in many orders for the GTF as well.

Geared Turbo Fan scores big (again)

Flightglobal just has this story out. If it gets materialized (and I have no doubts), this is indeed a big coup for Pratt & Whitney and their PW1133G Geared Turbo Fan. After ILFC's selection for at least 60 of their 100 ordered A320NEO family aircraft (well, it is still an MoU as far as we know, but consider that it will be a firm order by June the latest), this is the second win over the LEAP-X engine. This is a bit surprising, as P&W can be considered a "new" engine OEM in the narrowbody market, as the V2500 offered now is sold by the IAE consortium and not by P&W themselves. So Pratt was believed to have a more difficult start to sell their engine, as they can not count on an own customer base like CFM can.
An advantage in this particular case was that IAE is providing the V2500 for the A320 ordered by Indigo before.
Meanwhile AirAsia CEO Fernandes said that an announcement for a A320NEO order would come soon and there would be some order conversions from the old order for classic A320's to the NEO version. Here CFM has a clear edge over P&W, as AirAsia currently uses the CFM56 and it would be difficult to convert an order from CFM56 powered A320's to GTF powered A320neo's.

There are orders and MoU's for 332 A320NEO family aircraft so far - 210 aircraft will be equipped with the GTF, so the GTF has a market share of (at least) 65% today. I am curious where this is after the Paris Air Show...

P.S.: Meanwhile the press release from P&W is out.

Lufthansa next in line for A320/A321NEO

Lufthansa yesterday revealed that their supervisory board approved the purchase of 25 A320NEO and 5 A321NEO (along with 5 B777F, which is also significant, but another topic).
Why is Lufthansa significant? Firstly, because they have one of the best technical departments of all airlines. If they order an aircraft, often this is a sign for other airlines with less capable aircraft evaluation departments. Secondly, Lufthansa is the first european full service carrier (or "legacy airline" or "flag carrier", what ever one might call it) to commit to the NEO. Before we had two low cost airlines (Indigo, Virgin America), a south american airline (TAM) and ILFC as the first lessor. So the customer base not only gets larger, it gets more diversed, showing the attractiveness of the NEO for different kinds of business models. Well, not really surprisingly, as money savings (through fuel savings) works in every business model. But Nico Buchholz, fleet manager of the Lufthansa Group was to be convinced that the fuel savings are not eaten up by higher maintenance costs for the engines. The engine manufacturers always claimed lower (PW) or same (CFM)maintenance costs for their new engines when compared to their current offerings. But as the engines are running considerably hotter, I can understand why many are a little bit skeptical. We don't know yet which engine LH will have on their NEO's - but at least one of the two engine makers must have convinced them - or both: remember that LH is currently using CFM56 on their A319/A320 fleet and the V2500 on their A321's.
A few weeks ago Buchholz gave a interview to AirInsight where he talked about the CSeries, the NEO, the GTF and LEAP-X. He sounded very optimistic about the GTF and saw no risk in the gear anymore. Well, he (LH) is already a customer for the GTF via the CSeries...
The NEO order does not include any A319NEO. This might be a sign of more orders for the CSeries from Lufthansa, especially for the CS300, in the future - they still have 30 options along the 30 firm ordered aircraft.
This morning I read an article about the ISTAT meeting early this week which was very interesting: apparently the lessors reversed their opinion about the NEO from what they thought prior to the launch last October. They now think that residual values for the "Classic A320" would not immediately fall. I argued in October 2010 after the ISTAT meeting why I think that would not happen.
Even Steve Udvar-Hazy, who had no good word for the NEO last year, said that it was the "most sensible thing" for Airbus to do.

Geared Turbo Fan scores first

Now we have the long-awaited first battle "GTF vs. LEAP-X" fought out: the GTF (PW1133G) won at ILFC. Today they ordered up to 100 A320NEO aircraft, 60 of them will be powered by the GTF, the rest remains open.
Of course, this is only the first round of the battle, with many more to follow.
But many, including me, would have thought that a leasing company would opt for both engines, leaving their customers a choice.
Per CFM and PW, both engines promise the same reduction in fuel burn.
PW states that the GTF has 20% lower maintenance costs compared to today's engines - probably they compare the GTF to the V2500. CFM says maintenance costs for the LEAP-X will stay where they are with the CFM56 today. So at the end of the day the maintenance cost should be comparable, as the V2500 with it's 2nd HPT stage has "by definition" higher maintenance cost than the CFM56.
So the question is: why ILFC feels better with the GTF than with the LEAP-X - at least for the time being? Do they know something the public does not know?
One could say it is just a matter of a good deal, of course, and that could be right. PW might have offered ILFC a to good deal not to make. But on the other hand, pricing power should be something that CFM could play with - they have thousands of engines in the field and will have many more when the deal comes "online" in 2016 and beyond, so they could cross-subsidize more easily than PW can with their limited market power in the narrowbody market, as they are tied to RR in the V2500 - not to speak about the virtually non-existent widebody market power, where their only really selling products are the GP7000 (in a joint venture with GE) - the PW4000 picked up a little bit recently after it got the Advatage70 package.
Bottom line: it is unlikely that pricing power was the driving factor behind the engine decision from ILFC.
Let's wait for the next battles and their outcomes - maybe we can see some kind of a pattern then...

Oh, and by the way - I would love to know what our "friend" Saj Ahmad from the fleetbuzz Editorial has to say about the GTF now...

Boeing 737 successor

Reportedly, Boeing focuses on a replacement of the B737 rather than doing something with the B777 in the nearer future. Mike Bair, who leads the B737RS studies at Boeing, said in the interview with Bloomberg, that "Six or nine months ago, we were leaning toward a bigger airplane sooner" - meaning that Boeing did not expect Airbus to launch the A320NEO and now finds itself captured between Bombardier on the low-end side of the single-aisle market and Airbus trying to steal traditional B737 customers. So they have to react, but reading carefully the Bloomberg interview and also the latest blog entries from Flightblogger Jon Ostrower makes me believe that they are not really sure what to do. Basically, they have two choices:

• A 6 abreast family sized from 149 seats (to please Southwest Airlines in particular) to around 200 seats. That would mean, that todays -700 would grow a little bit, todays -800 and -900 could stay in cabin lenght were they are today. For sure, cabin diameter has to increase to "speed loading and unloading, with either a wider aisle or possibly two aisles".
• That brings us to the second option: a 7 abreast in 2-3-2 configuration with two aisles. That configuration would make it very hard to please Southwest with a 149 seater. The aircraft's fuselage would be heavy in comparison with a 6 abreast aircraft, as the extra aisle takes extra space you have to buid around. Then the 149 seater would have 22 seat rows, compared to 23 rows of the  -700 with 137 seats in Southwest configuration today. It would not only look like a "Mini Guppy" (see below), but the problem is that in case of "one engine out" the stabilizer has a small moment arm and thus has to have a relatively large area, comprising weight for the larger family members, which does not need the large stab. Vice versa is the case with the wing: to get exceptable runway performance and range for the largest family member (runway performance is today's weak point of the -900ER), the wing has to be sized accordingly, which means extra weight for the smallest member. Of course that's a problem of today's B737 and A320 families, too. But with the CSeries entering the market, which is optimized around 135 seats and trans-con range, there is an alternative available which does not have to make this heavy compromises.

Another question Boeing and the engine manufacturers have to answer (first for themselves) is: what are the improvements in SFC for an engine with an EIS 2010 compared to EIS 2013 (CSeries) or EIS 2016 (A320NEO, C919, MS-21).
Boeing today dismisses the NEO as the 15% fuel burn improvement would be not enough. Remember: fuel is about 40% of Direct Operating Costs (DOC), even for narrowbodies (the numbers in Jon Ostrowers interview with Mike Bair seem to be too low) and it could rise even further. Historically, SFC gets down by 0.5-1% per year. So the best we can expect for a EIS 2020 engine is 4% better than the NEO engines will be - and they could be upgraded as the V2500 and the CFM56 were upgraded several times in their life.
So where could the big advantage in DOC come from?

• Aircraft weight: the new aircraft will benefit from new and lighter materials. If you read the interview, it will probably not be a plastic aircraft but a will get a Al-Li fuselage, like the CSeries.
• Plastic wing with smaller wing area (compared to today's B737) with higher aspect ratio: that leads to lower drag, lower weight and better aerodynamics
• The first two bullets both lead to a lower thrust requirement, directly leading to lower fuel burn.
• Maintenance costs of the aircraft: as the B737 today is the airline's darling when it comes to maintenance costs I can't see where this could get dramatically better
• Maintenance costs of the engines: as these engines will (most probably) be enhanced versions of the LEAP-X and the GTF or something similar from RR (Advantage 2 or 3), the difference in maintenance costs to the NEO engines would be small if at all. They could be even higher, as one way to improve SFC would be to raise OPR and therefore core temperatures.

Conclusion: there will be an cost advantage of the 737RS/797 compared to the NEO: of course. But will it be a step change? I can't see it today. And there are alternatives like the Bombardier CSeries and maybe another 5 abreast model from Embraer - they will decide what to do after Boeing announces their final plans - what could happen in June according to Bair. So in the second half of the year, we should have an announcement from Brasil...watch out!

This is how a 130 seater in a 2-3-2 seat configuration would look like...



Meanwhile there are three more blog entries about the possible 737 successor:
Part II
Part III
Part IV

NEO is out!

The time of the "unknown unknowns" is over! Airbus just this morning officially announced that starting in Spring 2016 the new "NEO" version of the A320 family can be delivered to the customers. Airlines (and others who can afford) then have the choice between four engines with the CFM LEAP-X and the PW1100G being the new choices - I guess this is a "first time" in aviation history; although not a really important one, as my guess would be that there will be only a few who will opt for the old engines (CFM56 and V2500).
Airbus claims that the NEO versions, which will also feature the sharklets, will have a 15% advantage in fuel burn versus today's aircraft. To explain, why it is only 15%, although CFM and PW both talk about a 15% SFC advantage for their engines (vs. CFM56 and V2500) and Airbus said that the sharklets lead to a fuel burn reduction up to 3.5%, we have to remember:

• that the new engines will be heavier than the old ones,
• will have a larger fan diameter, thus produce more drag
• there will be additional weight in the wings and pylons to accommodate the heavier engines

These three points are taking something away from the 15% SFC (uninstalled) advantage +3.5% fuel burn advantage, leading to (approximately) 15% fuel burn reduction.

Now - as Airbus came forward today: what is the rest of the (aviation) world doing?

A320NEO - picture taken from the Airbus website

Boeing

The most important question of course is, what the other "big one" will do:
My guess is that this is hinging on what the two most important customers for the B737, Southwest and Ryanair, will have to say.
In the last weeks both airlines talked up the reengining, saying that "doing" nothing" would be no option. A new 737 would of course be the solution they prefer, but Southwest was skeptical, that Boeing would be able to deliver a 737 successor in the 2020 timeframe.
And the 737 is not the only battlefield for Boeing. The 777 has to be (at least) updated and this should be done in the same timeframe as the A350-1000 comes to market - whenever this will be. Probably this will not happen exactly in 2015. If Airbus decides to please Emirates they might opt to alter the -1000 design to a -1100ER, meaning that the airplane gets larger and gets a little bit more range. But the thrust has to rise into the 100klbf range then, and I doubt that the core of the Trent XWB would not be capable of that. As suggested that would open the door for a GE90 variant - an article in Aviation Week suggested that it would just be a downrated version of today's GE90-115B, but the SFC would not meet the requirements, so there would be some technology infusion from GEnx required. But the same engine then could be used by Boeing for their 777 update/successor.
So the path regarding the 777 seems more obvious than that on the 737. At the last quarterly call Boeing kind of negated the possibility to do both programmes at the same time. The question is: what will be first:

• If the 737 is first, Boeing's only choice would be to do a reengining - which would be more costly (if a significant fuel burn saving should be achieved) than for Airbus. A clean-sheet design would not be that much better than the A320NEO (as they would have to work with the same engine technology) to justify the $10billion+ investment.
• If the 777 is first, they will probably loose some market share to Airbus in the narrowbody market for a couple of years.

Embraer

As we all know, also Embraer is thinking, along other options, about reengining their EJet-Family. With Airbus launching the NEO this option becomes more likely. Bombardier eating into their market with the CS100, Sukhoi having a low cost option with the Superjet and Airbus with a A319NEO having an aircraft with probably not much higher trip costs but more seats than the E195 would make a reengining (maybe with the CSeries GTF?) a good option as I explained earlier.

Bombardier

Well, Bombardier was leasing the pack with the CSeries. Without the CSeries, there would not be -NEO launch today (or anytime soon). The A319NEO will eat into the CS300 cake. Question is if Bombardier can react to it and if yes: how?
Could they stretch the CS300 a little bit to reach in between the A319 and the A320. Could they launch a CS500 that would maybe come to market in 2016? And if yes, would they use the same engine (PW1524G) and the same wing, thus compromising range, but optimizing trip and seat costs for typically flown trips around 1000nm. Or can they even hang the same engine under the (strengthened) wing without enlarging the main landing gear?

Bottom line: the first "unknown unknowns" is away - but now there are many others out there...good for us bloggers!

The Chinese "Threat"

At the Zhuhai Airshow COMAC presented first customers for their C919, aimed to be a competitor to the A320 and B737 narrowbody families.

COMAC said that there are now “up to 100 orders” – a closer look shows that 50 of these orders are firm orders the rest are options.

The four big airlines in China – Air China, China Eastern, China Southern and Hainan Airlines – all ordered the C919. The first three all ordered “up to 20”, probably meaning that 10 for each airline are firm orders and 10 are options.

GECAS is another launch customer – for 5 firm orders and another 5 options. This is not a big surprise, as GECAS is also a customer for the much-delayed ARJ21-700 and GE delivers the engines for both aircraft (as part of the CFM consortium in the case of the C919).

The last launch customer is CDB (China Development Bank) – also not a big surprise, as CDB wants to play a big role in aircraft leasing in the future and signed MoU’s with all civil aircraft manufacturers recently. An anticipated order for the Bombardier CSeries is still in the pipeline and will most probably not being made public during the Zhuhai Airshow, as Scott Hamilton assumed recently.

So the C919 got their first customers – fine! But do we see a threat for Airbus and Boeing here? Not really for the next 10-15 years to come, I would say. Let’s have a look at the numbers for outstanding firm orders from the Chinese airlines that now ordered the C919.

Airbus

Airline	A319	A320	A321	Sum
Air China		28	14	42
China Eastern	5	26	5	36
China Southern		25		25
Hainan	5	26		31
Sum	10	105	19	131

These are the numbers as in the Airbus O&D table from October 31, 2010.

We have to add the order the 50 A320 aircraft which was signed early November.

So the total is 181 open orders.

Boeing

Airline	B737-700	B737-800	B737-900ER	Sum
Air China		50		50
China Southern	25	30		55
Sum	25	80		105

Additionally, there are 46 open orders from other Chinese airlines for the B737 family for a total of 151 open orders.

This is a total of 332 open orders for Airbus and Boeing narrowbodies.

Let’s have a look at the actual aircraft and the (small set of) date given to the media by COMAC at the Airshow (Flightglobals headline was “Comac releases C919 specifications”, which was a little bit exaggerated) and compare it to the A320.

	C919	A320
Span	35.8m	34.1m
Length	38.9m	37.6m
Cabin width	3.90m	3.70m

Efficiency is driven largely by two values: aircraft (empty) weight and engine SFC. Another important factor Is the wing efficiency, expressed in L/D (lift-to-drag ratio).

The thrust needed to power the aircraft in level flight is mass*(L/D).

From press releases it is known that the LEAP-X1C for the C919 is designed for a thrust of 30klbf. The 1.3m shorter A320 has a thrust rating of 27klbf, the engines on the 5.6m longer A321 produce 33klbf of thrust at takeoff.

Weight is not given by COMAC, but the span gives a good indication of the weight. Assumed that the aspect ratio of the C919 wing is not that different from a A320 or B737 wing, the wing area is at least the same as the wing of A320. Wing loading at takeoff (takeoff mass/wing area) is - together with the takeoff thrust – the driving factor for the takeoff length. The C919 is designed with hot-and-high airports in Western China in mind, so wing loading should not be far beyond the A320.

L/D could of course be a little bit better, as the A320 wing design is well over twenty years old.

Given all that we can preclude that the C919 won’t have a large weight advantage against the A320. The main driver for efficiency will be the engine. No doubt that the LEAP-X1C will be far better in SFC than the V2500 and the CFM56-5B on the A320. But what if Airbus does the –NEO? And what if the LEAP-X1C is not the “real” LEAP, as discussed here and elsewhere?

Conclusion: for me, the C919 is not a big deal for the next ten to fifteen years – at least technically. If China decides one day that chinese airlines have to buy nothing but Chinese, then it’s a different story – and confined to the Chinese market and close allies.

By then the Chinese aircraft market could very well cool down, as high speed rail eats into air travel wherever a rail line opens.

Update:
There is a good artice on the Aviation Week Website detailing the C919 orders. It's a little bit different than originally reported by Flight International...