Boeing vs Airbus

Page 1 of 3123>
December 2nd, 2017 at 10:32:32 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Despite the poor sales of B737Max variations other than the basic -8 model, and the upcoming threat from the CS300, I would say that overall Boeing has a fairly commanding lead over Airbus. It's lead in widebody aircraft more than trumps the fact that it is behind by 1000 orders for single aisle jets.

Summary to 28 November 2017 Boeing
Total Net Order per A/C Family
505 737
-3 747
15 767
57 777
88 787
662 Total

4430 Total Unfilled for 737
14 Total Unfilled for 747
100 Total Unfilled for 767 combis and freghters
437 Total Unfilled for 777
670 Total Unfilled for 787

Summary Year order to 31st October 2017 Airbus
Total Net Order per A/C Family
242 Single Aisle
8 A330
40 A350
-2 A380
288 TOTAL

5488 Total Unfilled for Single Aisle
321 Total Unfilled for A330
217 Total Unfilled for A350
December 3rd, 2017 at 7:12:53 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5142
Depends on what "orders" are.
I'm reminded of the Chinese Sardine Can.
The mud filled sardine can kept rising in value as the famine deepened but when some merchant actually opened the can and sued, the court ruled they were sardines for selling, not sardines for eating.
I fear some of these orders will get similar treatment.
December 3rd, 2017 at 8:33:01 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Quote: Fleastiff
Depends on what "orders" are.


You do raise a valid point, as many "firm fixed orders" seem to get cancelled all the time. It's not clear how much of a penalty is paid by the airlines.

Possibly the biggest cancellation that I can remember is Emirates cancelled its order for 70 Airbus A350s in June 2014 citing the need to reevaluate its fleet requirements.

Delta Air Lines cancelled an order for 18 787 Dreamliners worth roughly $4 billion at current list prices, which was placed by Northwest Airlines prior to its 2008 merger with Delta.

I cited "net orders" for this year instead of "gross orders" to take into consideration cancellations.

Airbus gross orders - cancellations = net orders for narrowbody aircraft
A319ceo +7 -1 =6
A319neo +1
A320ceo +54 -5 =39
A320neo +120 -19 = 101
A321ceo +59 -2 =57
A321ceo +46 -8 = 38

219: A320ceo unfilled
3510: A320neo unfilled (Frontier Airlines 186 seats)

Boeing's worst case scenario is that Airbus delivers all of it's A320s in 7 years, and uses the time to develop a version of the CS series that can seat 160. With only 5 across seating it is very unlikely that they can develop a variant of the Cseries with a max of 180-2000 seats.

But 160 seats is close enough with much better fuel efficiency to devastate the B737Max8 and A320neo market. Airbus, of course, owns Bombardier and they have a lot of orders for the A321neo. Boeing does not have a similar fall back position as the B737Max9 and B737Max10 orders have been dismal. At this point Boeing may have to make plans to withdraw from the single aisle market altogether.
December 4th, 2017 at 10:51:57 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 50
Posts: 5142
I know there are extraneous factors.
Its not just "how much airplane for the buck"?

Airports are locked into certain gate configurations as far as height and length of apron.

Airlines are not truly "locked" into maintenance and training efficiency concerns but ONE set of spare parts and ONE type of simulator do have a certain economic appeal.

Its not just 'how many passengers' but in what configuration. One aisle or a dozen aisles affects turnaround time and comfort but its really unknown if passengers make choices based on seat configuration or cabin cleanliness.

I don't see how one company could design a plane but try to lock out other manufacturers. Engineers draw diagrams and no matter what the patents say an independent design team can easily come up with a non=infringing creation.

Whatever Bombardier can tweak, Boeing can tweak.
December 4th, 2017 at 11:49:24 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Quote: Fleastiff
I don't see how one company could design a plane but try to lock out other manufacturers. Engineers draw diagrams and no matter what the patents say an independent design team can easily come up with a non=infringing creation.

Whatever Bombardier can tweak, Boeing can tweak.


The B737−800 entered service in 1998. The 737-800 seats 162 passengers in a two-class layout, or 189 in one class, and competes with the A320. For many airlines in the U.S., the 737-800 replaced aging Boeing 727-200 trijets.
The B737−800 has 5,041 orders of which 441 are unfulfilled
The A320ceo has 4,742 orders of which 219 are unfulfilled

The Boeing engineers knew in the 1990s that the B737 could only be modified so far, and that they needed a clean sheet design, but before they could implement it, Airbus announced the development of the A320neo family on 1 December 2010.

The Dreamliner project was taking much longer and was costing a lot more than anticipated. Boeing had been taking orders since 2004 and was now facing cancellations as the project was running late. Boeing panicked and pushed the clean sheet design of single aisle jets into the distant future. The first Dreamliner was delivered in Sept 2011 and Boeing announced the B737 Max project.

So the inevitable happened. Boeing can not produce a viable single aisle jet to compete with the A321. With the clean sheet single aisle design pushed to 2030, it is looking more and more like Boeing will transition to an all widebody manufacturer inside a decade.
December 4th, 2017 at 1:27:33 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11753
Quote: Pacomartin
So the inevitable happened. Boeing can not produce a viable single aisle jet to compete with the A321.


I've been saying this for weeks :)

Quote:
With the clean sheet single aisle design pushed to 2030, it is looking more and more like Boeing will transition to an all widebody manufacturer inside a decade.


That's ok. Bombardier can take up the North american share of the single ails market.

Oh, wait! :)

Reportedly Boeing is working on preliminary designs and requirements for a middle of the market plane (MoM), kinda like the A321neo. they've given it the 797 designation, too. But if past experience is any kind of guide, then the following will happen:

1) Boeing will come up with a twin-aisle plane
2) They'll change their minds, because the extra surface area induces drag and air resistance that defeat any possibility of matching the A321's fuel efficiency
3) They'll do a modification of the 737 by 2035

By then Airbus will either have a new narrow body, or will emulate Boeing and go with the A320NOVUM or the CS 500neo :)

Boeing might get lucky, though. If a battery breakthrough makes electric cars commonplace by 2025 or so, the oil market could collapse and aviation fuel would be cheap forever. So their MoM's inefficiency wouldn't bother anyone. But also no one in the Middle East could afford planes any longer.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
December 4th, 2017 at 1:59:07 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Quote: Nareed
Reportedly Boeing is working on preliminary designs and requirements for a middle of the market plane (MoM), kinda like the A321neo. they've given it the 797 designation, too. But if past experience is any kind of guide, then the following will happen:

1) Boeing will come up with a twin-aisle plane
2) They'll change their minds, because the extra surface area induces drag and air resistance that defeat any possibility of matching the A321's fuel efficiency
3) They'll do a modification of the 737 by 2035


Through conversations with more than 57 airlines and lessors, Boeing has settled on an 797 aircraft design that seats fewer than 250 seats in a dual-class configuration, whereas the A321neoLR will seat 206 in a dual class configuration. The 797 will fly up to 5000 nmi while the A321neoLR will fly 4000 nmi. Despite the larger drag area Boeing thinks they can match the fuel efficiency of the A321neoLR on a per seat basis.

The Airbus product is more fuel efficient than the MAX-9 (it burns 2.75% more fuel on a per aircraft basis, but the A321neoLR carries 6.94% more seats)
Airbus A321NeoLR 2016 3,400 nmi 2.99 kg/km (154 seats)
Boeing 737 MAX-9 2017 3,400 nmi 2.91 kg/km (144 seats)
Boeing 737 MAX-8 2017 3,400 nmi 2.86 kg/km (168 seats)

The biggest danger is that the Airbus plane could probably handle another stretch so that there is an A322neoLR plane. It probably won't match the B797 range, but that may not be important if it can match seating and still be considerably less expensive.

The 737 cannot handle another upgrade as there is no real way to get the range even up to 4000 nm.
December 4th, 2017 at 2:35:30 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11753
Quote: Pacomartin
Despite the larger drag area Boeing thinks they can match the fuel efficiency of the A321neoLR on a per seat basis.


I don't think they will.

Maybe on paper. But paper airplanes don't carry passengers.

Quote:
The biggest danger is that the Airbus plane could probably handle another stretch so that there is an A322neoLR plane. It probably won't match the B797 range, but that may not be important.


I find it interesting how Boeing misses with hits.

A second generation 757 with new engines and new wings, would have kicked the A321 around the block all day long. The 717 has found an amazingly long lifespan, and a second-hand market crying for more. Also, a second generation 717 might have outclassed the CS 100


Quote:
The 737 cannot handle another upgrade as there is no real way to get the range even up to 4000 nm.


It could hardly handle the current upgrade, but that didn't stop Boeing. The 737 MAX family is built on the aborted ghost of the 7J7 and the Perpetually Immaculate Sheet (no matter how many planes one wants to design, the damn thing stays clean).
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
December 4th, 2017 at 8:04:20 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8890
Quote: Nareed
I don't think they will.
Maybe on paper. But paper airplanes don't carry passengers.


It's kind of an interesting question. Does a widebody and a narrowbody plane of the same generation ever have identical fuel economy "on paper".

It is difficult to evaluate because they always build a longer range into the widebody.

In tests in 2016 both an Airbus A321NeoLR and a A330neo-900 were flown 3,400 nmi (Chicago to London Heathrow is 3435 nautical miles). The widebody burned almost exactly twice as much fuel per mile. The A321NeoLR had 154 seats and the A330neo-900 had 310 seats, which meant that they had nominally the same fuel economy per passenger.

But the A321NeoLR has a maximum of 240 seats while the a A330neo-900 has a maximum of 440 seats, which means the narrowbody has better fuel economy. Perhaps "theoretical" fuel economy doesn't matter as much as maximum range (4000 nmi to 6550 nmi).

Delta purchased 25 A330neo-900s for TATL flights, and was widely criticized by analysts. The reason is that they might not be able to fill them on the crowded TATL market.

================================
Trivia Question: Boeing is proposing a maximum range of 5000 nmi for the B797. Is that the shortest range for a twin aisle jet in history?


No! But widebodies that were this limited in range go back to the earliest years of widebody planes.

B747-100 Maximum Range 4,620 nmi (176 delivered: orders in the 1960s)
B767-200 Maximum Range 3,900 nmi (128 delivered)
B767-300 Maximum Range 3,900 nmi (104 delivered)

561 delivered
A300B4-200 Maximum Range 2,900 nmi
A300-600R Maximum Range 4,050 nmi
A310-200 Maximum Range 3,500 nmi

A310-300 Maximum Range 5,150 nmi (255 delivered : honorable mention)


I am not sure that airlines will actually order 4000 of these B797 planes unless they are really inexpensive (which is unlikely).


A319neo $99.5
A320neo $108.4
A321neo $127.0 (long range variant not listed)
A330-800 (neo) $254.8 (only 6 ordered)
A330-900 (neo) $290.6

737 MAX 7 $92.2
737 MAX 8 $112.4
737 MAX 200 $115.4
737 MAX 9 $119.2
737 MAX 10 $124.7
767-300ER $201.4 <------------ closest aircraft to New Mid Market B797
787-8 $229.5
787-9 $270.4
787-10 $312.8
December 5th, 2017 at 7:24:48 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 332
Posts: 11753
Quote: Pacomartin
It's kind of an interesting question. Does a widebody and a narrowbody plane of the same generation ever have identical fuel economy "on paper".

It is difficult to evaluate because they always build a longer range into the widebody.


You can't fight the cube law. a wider plane has a larger surface area and a much larger volume, therefore it can carry more fuel because it has more space for it.

I think the relevant figure is cost per seat, as that tells you how many seats you need to fill. But past that there's such a thing as passenger well-being and passenger experience. Wide bodies are better for the latter two.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
Page 1 of 3123>