Southwest launches the B737MAX-7

Yesterday Boeing and Southwest Airlines announced that SWA will be the launch customer of the B737MAX-7. The launch of the B737MAX-7 with an order for 30 aircraft of that type comes with

• a cancellation of 30 orders for the B737-700NG
• Southwest substituting 5 -700NG to the -800NG variant
• Southwest firming 5 options for the -800NG
• the cancellation of 5 options for NG aircraft

Technology Credibility

During the SWA web press conference about their B737MAX order, the CFM EVP Chaker Chahrour made an interesting statement. Leeham News and Comments has the quote here: "We believe we have much more credible technology than GTF."
Well, apart from that this might have been only some PR talking, I think we should shed some light on the credibility of the quote itself.

First B737MAX firm order

Southwest today firmly ordered 150 B737MAX and thus became the launch customer. Southwest also has 150 options for the MAX. The airline can accept both the -7 and the -8.
Southwest also ordered another 58 B737NG and changed all of their delivieries in 2012 and 2013 from the -700NG to the -800NG.
I think we can expect now some more firm orders for the B737MAX until the end of the year...

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

COC and DOC Part III

Today I discovered a very interesting website: The "Airline Data Project" from MIT.
There is a lot of airline data from all major american airlines in that database. From that data you can easily pull DOC and COC's and compare airline to airline, a specific airline though the years or whatever you want to find out.
Let us have a look at two typical carriers:

• American Airlines as the typical legacy carrier
• Southwest Airlines as the typical low cost carrier

I looked at two years - the first available (1995) and the one with the highest fuel prices (2008).
In 1995 the price for aircraft fuel was relatively stable at about $0.50 per gallon - unbelievably low for us today.
Im early 2008 the price already was in the region of $2.70, then climbing to almost $4.50 in July before falling rapidly to a low of about $1.00 in December 2008.

Here is the chart for American Airlines in 1995.

The cost for fuel and oil is $429 per block hour - 26% of the total cost.

We get a whole different picture for the year 2008.

Now American Airlines has to pay $2771 per block hour for fuel - a stunning 60% of the total, although the amount of fuel consumed per block hour went down from 957 to 940 gallons. This only slight decline in fuel burn shows why American now accelerated their B737-800 deliveries in the last two years. The MD-80 is fuel thirsty.

And now here is Southwest Airlines. The trend is the same:

In 1995 fuel cost were at 30% of direct operating costs. But the dollar value is about 13% less than the $492 paid by AA, as Southwest just burned 773 gallons per block hour and the total costs per flight hour were 14% lower at SWA.

And here are the SWA numbers for 2008:

 Fuel and oil costs are above 50%, but total costs are less than 60% of the costs of AA. Fuel burn per block hour was down by 9% compared to 1995 at 705 gallons, the rest of the difference is probably explainable by better fuel hedging at SWA.

I think from these charts we can understand the desire from many airlines to get more fuel efficient aircraft as soon as possible.

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