Boeing 737MAX

Piquée chez Aweb, à Lightweight, pas de honte à le dire (Ni d'interdiction non plus)
_____________
Bien vu et grand merci Lightweight !

Depuis le temps que l'on en parle, enfin une avancée concrète chez Boeing pour le 737 !
Évidemment la cible c'est le "Short Haul", et les aéroports avec beaucoup d'attentes !
Reste a voir le devis de poids final.

Je vous le pique pour Avia, celui la !
-------------------------

Bonjour,

Nous avions évoqué récemment la propulsion électrique pour le roulage, il semble que ce sera le 737 NG qui en bénéficiera dès 2012 peut-être...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/mr ... d=blogDest

JPRS

Bonsoir à tous,

La suite de la déclaration du directeur financier de Boeing concerne le 737 revampé :
Les clients ne seraient pas si intéressé que cela !
Info ou intox ?

...
He said the Boeing, the second-largest commercial plane maker after Airbus, still aims to announce by year end its decision on whether to re-engine the hot-selling narrowbody 737 or make a new plane.
"Our customers haven't shown a real interest in a re-engined airplane," Bell said.
...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3122648120100831

Amicalement

Bonjour !

Bon, la contribution de James Bell, BA CFO, à l'invitation de Morgan Stanley , sort bribes par bribes, depuis hier, à travers les agences de presse, un puzzle difficile à reconstituer, désolé, je n'ai pas été invité !
Je ressors cette com d'ATW, juste pour un point qui me paraît trés important !
Si tant est que l'on peut faire confiance à un Financier, pour la partie technique !
Le point :
Boeing ne voit pas comment sortir du B737 plus de 1 digit d'écos (9 points max, donc) à travers une remotorisation, on suppose, Leap-X, ou GTF, ils ont les mêmes options que Airbus !
Lequel Airbus, admet perdre entre 1 et 2 %, à travers des moteurs adaptés !
C'est à dire que le gain d'efficacité sera dans les 14 % pour le A320!

Si les éléments sont exacts, on comprends que Boeing, pense fortement à une vraie NG !
Et ... que Airbus fonce vers les A320 NEO !
Mais ... 5-6 % de différence d'écos de carburant,entre 320 et 737, suivant les projections de A et B ...
C'est quand même difficile à avaler, cette différence !
James Bell avait une mission, pour faire passer des chiffres assez précis ... peut être pluspour convaincre les clients "Airliners" de Boeing, que les investisseurs et actionnaires !

Alors qui "Manipule" qui ??

------------Extrait de ATW ----------------

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/boeing-cfo-says-737-re-engining-unlikely-0831?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AtwDailyNews+%28ATW+Daily+News%29

Boeing Corporate President and CFO James Bell indicated Tuesday that
the manufacturer is unlikely to re-engine the 737, saying the potential
fuel-burn improvement over today's narrowbodies does not look
"sufficient enough" to justify a "business case" for doing so.
Speaking to the Morgan Stanley Global Industrials Conference in New
York, available via webcast, Bell said Boeing's analysis has revealed
aircraft adjustments and engine weight would mean efficiency gains would
be well below the 16% fuel-burn improvement over current narrowbody
powerplants projected by Pratt & Whitney for its PW1000G geared
turbofan (ATW Daily News, April 1) and the 14%-16% gain predicted by CFM International for its LEAP-X (ATW Daily News, April 30).
"It looks more like a single-digit improvement, which we don't think
our customers are interested in," Bell explained, adding, "Our customers
haven't shown a real interest in a re-engined airplane."
He emphasized Boeing has not "dismissed" re-engining and won't make a
final decision until later in the year. But he said the only way the
company would likely move forward with a re-engined 737 is if it
determines the technology for an all-new 737 is "30 years out…but we
don't think that's the case." Based on Boeing's assessment to date, "we
don't think the performance improvement is sufficient enough to
re-engine," he said.
JPRS

Boeing : Je t'aime, moi non plus !
Le fait est que le 737 a été sans doute plus optimisé que le 320 et qu'il ne reste plus beaucoup de viande sur l'os.
C'est quand même une curieuse valse-hésitation qui montre bien que les marchés financiers actuels sont incapables de prévoir le long terme et sont obsédés par le rendement à court terme. Un peu comme ces conducteurs qui conduisent le nez entre les branches du volant.

Salut Jean !
Ben ce qui sauve les miches de McNerney, ce sont les 10 milliards de $ sur lesquels il est assis !
Mais ça va fondre !
Dans le mois et années à venir !
Et les fusibles, ben ils ont tous fondu, même plusieurs fois, certains !
Le siège est devenu " Ejectable" heureusement, avec les bretelles et le parachute bien en place !
On peut lui faire confiance sur le sujet !

JPRS

Un parachute doré, tu veux dire !
Leur gros problème, ce sont les fonds qui ont investi dans leur titre en pensant au rendement à court terme. Même s'ils arrivent à mettre sur pied une chaîne de production valable et homogène, ils n'en sont même pas encore à la phase d'industrialisation et ce n'est pas de la tarte (voir A380). Le rentabilité de ce programme est, au mieux, lointaine. Ils vivent des rentrées du 777 et du 737, d'où leur timidité. Mais comme tu dis McNermey s'en fout, il a son parachute. Ce sont les fonds de retraite qui vont éponger la casse. "Too big to fail", ce n'est plus un certitude aussi absolue après la crise et les déboires (prévisibles) de GMC qu'on a rebaptisé ici Government Motors Corp.

Bonsoir !

Un article de Airinsight, qui descend Boeing, sauve Airbus et fait la part belle à Bombardier !
A lire, bien fait et rien de nouveau !
Comme toutes les coms Insight, dates incertaines et auteurs peu visibles !

Ca m'arrive comme ça !

Will the Mid-Decade Narrow Body Revolution Exclude Boeing?

Ernest Arvai | September 1, 2010 at 12:47 pm |

A lire, long et bien fait !
----------------------------

http://airinsight.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/will-the-mid-decade-narrow-body-revolution-exclude-boeing/

JPRS

Bonjour !

Boeing devant son problème pour augmenter les cadences du 737 !
Reçu de :AirInsight/Leeham l
Bon, je diffuse !

Note perso : Si Boeing va NEO, on peut comprendre qu'ils aient besoin de résorber le carnet de cde en livrant un peu plus vite, comme Airbus !
Et dans le cas contraire, si Boeing va NG, pour dans 7-8 ans mini, au vu du trou d'air qu'ils risquent de rencontrer, après 2015, je ne vois pas pourquoi ils précipiteraient les livraisons, la crainte d'annulations peut être !

JPRS

--------------- Le lien AirInsight -----------

http://airinsight.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/737-rate-hike-too-costly-for-boeing-its-chief-likes-the-numbers/#more-260

------------

737 rate hike too costly for Boeing? Its chief likes the numbers leehamnet | September 1, 2010 at 8:06 pm |

-----------

737 rate hike too costly for Boeing? Its chief likes the numbers

The comments this week by Boeing Chief
Financial Officer James Bell that the prospective expansion of the 737
line from 35 aircraft a month to 40 may be too costly were generally
misunderstood by observers. For the most part, they took this to mean
too costly to Boeing.
The Renton (WA) plant, where the 737 is assembled, has the room for
40 airplanes a month and with a little effort can even go to 42 a month
if 737-based P-8A Poseidon work is moved out of the building. The real
issue is two key suppliers to Boeing who will have to physically expand
and the cost to them in capital expenditures and the return on
investment.
In a discussion I had with Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, at Farnborough, he said:
“We have a couple of partners who have a pinch point who would have
to invest a not insignificant amount of capital in order to get to 40.
We’re working through that with them, about how real the market is and
how long the market can sustain itself. I think that by the time we have
to make a decision on this, and we are targeting September, that we
will have our ducks in a row about what we would have to invest and what
the supply chain would have to invest. I know the numbers in terms of
the total investment and I can tell you that the payback on that
investment is pretty attractive.”
Thus, Albaugh likes the investment, but the underlying questions include:

• How long will the 737NG be produced at the 40 rate to achieve an ROI that is necessary for the cap-ex?
  
• If the two suppliers—and Spirit Aerosystems, which makes the
  fuselage, is one of them—invest the cap-ex to expand, what of the
  prospect of a replacement airplane for the 737? Would the cap-ex be
  worth it if Boeing turns around and launches a new airplane with
  an EIS of 2019-2020? Construction would have to begin no later than
  2015, only a short time after going to 40 a month (projected at
  the moment to be in 2012).
  

These are two key questions and if the answer to them falls on the
negative side, then it doesn’t make sense for Boeing to go beyond 35 a
month, a rate suppliers can make without cap-ex.
What, then, does this mean for the prospect of a new airplane? The
odds increase dramatically. Boeing has made it clear that while the 737
can be re-engined, the value proposition isn’t where official believe it
should be. Without a re-engine, Airbus will have a significant
advantage with its New Engine Option/sharklet combination.
A new airplane also means Pratt & Whitney will have a real shot
at putting the P1000G PurePower Geared Turbo Fan on the aircraft. CFM
has the exclusive supplier contract to power the 737, but there is no
exclusivity for the new airplane. Boeing’s interest in the P1000G
extends beyond the 737 class. The GTF in its present form can grow to
40,000 lbs of thrust, or the size for of the 757. But at Farnborough
2008, Boeing was inquiring of PW the prospect of a GTF for a wide-body
airplane. Boeing has been talking with PW about re-engining the 737,
ultimately a non-starter because of the CFM exclusivity clause, and it
is talking with PW about powering a new airplane.
All the poppycock about the GTF being a dud simply is belied by the
fact that three manufacturers have chosen it, Airbus is likely to for
its NEO (along with the CFM Leap-X) and Boeing has real interest in it.
Bottom line:

• Airbus announces in October it will proceed with the NEO program;
  
• PW’s GTF and CFM’s Leap-X will be on the NEO;
  

• Look for Boeing to roll the dice and go for a new airplane;
  
• PW and CFM will be in a real horse-race to power the 7X7, and
  perhaps Boeing will choose to go with dual-sourcing this time.
  

Ton analyse me semble pertinente, comme un signe avant coureur d'une décision négative d'un 737Neo. Cela signifie-t-il pour autant qu'ils (Boeing) lanceraient le remplaçant du 737 avant le remplaçant du 777 ?

C'est ce qui doit empêcher McNerney de dormir ! Voodoo !

Moi je crois qu'ils tenteront le 737 remotorisé au plus simple avec seulement le Leap X
Pour évider un suicide, ou disons un cadeau de 200O MC bien vendus par Airbus, alors qu'ils devront passer des prix sous le plancher pendant 4 ans au moins avec le 737 actuel, pour continuer à le vendre, et maintenir la chaine !

Juste mon avis !

JPRS

C'est vrai que ça bouge beaucoup sur le futur produit de Boeing.

Mais je crois que dans l'affaire ils manipulent un peu aussi les analystes financiers en allumant des contre-feux.
Je ne pense pas que le 737 puisse être encore beaucoup amélioré donc on irait vers un tout nouvel avion. Cependant Boeing attend selon moi une chose pour se décider: les ventes de l'A 350-1000 et il a besoin de temp savant de se décider.
Si le 777 résiste alors ils s'occuperont du nouveau mono-couloir.

La question est de savoir où il est plus avantageux de consentir des remises pour garder des parts de marché: sur le 737 ou sur le 777. Pour le savoir il faut voir quel modèle rapporte le plus.
Si quelqu'un a des idées.

Bonjour à tous

Qq petits mots en provenance de Boeing

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2010/09/as-prospects-re-engined-737-fa.html

When it set out to evaluate all its options for the future of its narrowbody product, Boeing established three potential goal posts for itself: An all new aircraft, a re-enginged 737, or leave the venerable workhorse alone, avoiding a costly investment against a re-engined Airbus A320 and Bombardier's CS100.

While its final end-of-year decision has yet to be announced, the company's thinking around its future plans have evolves significantly over the past year. As it stands today, Being is entertaining a fourth option, dubbed by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO, Jim Albaugh, as the 737 Next Generation Plus or 737NG+.

Albaugh's comments on the upgraded jetliner came on Tuesday at an internal company webcast at the company's Renton, Washington facility. The NG+, while lacking specifics, would incrementally improve the 737 family without the significant investment of a new powerplant, say those familiar with his comments.

The strategic chief of the company's commercial unit believes that the improvement in direct operating cost yielded for a re-engined A320 would be limited to just 3-4%, bringing it in line with today's 737. Boeing's marketing of the 737 has maintained that the twin jet holds an overall advantage over its European competitor. With this logic, the sources add, Albaugh contends a 737NG+ would sell well against a re-engined A320, establishing a bridge to the all-new Boeing narrowbody in the 2020s.

When approached for comment, Boeing declined to address Albaugh's remarks on the 737NG+ directly, saying only the evaluation of potential aircraft improvements - including a new engine - are ongoing.

Airbus, as well as engine makers, contend the improvement yielded with new engines would be in the 13-14% range, after factoring in the 1-2% lost on airframe modifications, far beyond the number touted by Albaugh. Additionally, it is not clear what assumptions were supporting his claim, nor what portion of any potential improvement was eaten up by the $7 to $8 million price premium the new engine option would bring.

Though for Boeing, re-engining has fallen out of favor, with CFO James Bell saying recently:

And we have looked at the re-engining, and we will continue to study it, but right now it looks like the engine could get to 10% to 15% more efficient, but it is not flow-through efficiency. When you add the additional weight associated with the change in the design of the airplane and you add the cost, it looks more like a single-digit improvement, which we don't believe is something that our customers are interested in, in going through a re-engine and having a mixed fleet for just that minimal improvement in performance.

But I can tell you right now, our customers have not shown a real interest in a re-engine airplane.

Pratt & Whitney CEO David Hess said today at the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington, DC that it was by no means a forgone conclusion that both Boeing and Airbus would take the same path on re-engining.

"It's conceivable they both could go different ways," he said.

With agreements already inked between CFM and Pratt & Whitney establishing the technical foundations of re-engining the A320 family, industry sources say that all signs point to a nearing finalization of the Airbus engineering study, launching the NEO (new engine option) program

Vers un 737NG+ ?
Boeing fait savoir qu'à son avis un A320NEO reviendra finalement seulement au niveau du 737NG en terme de coût d'opération et pense pouvoir se satisfaire d'un 737NG+ avec des améliorations sur la cellule mais de remotorisation

Gros écart d'appréciation sur les gains entre :
- Boeing : single digit improvement sur le kéro, et simple rattrapage pour les coûts d'opération
- Airbus

A voir l'un parle d'extension du champ d'action vers le domaine du 757 et l'autre de coûts d'opération

Bonne journée

Bonjour !

Une très bonne synthése de Enest Arvaï, du 9-septembre, derrière un article de J.Ostrower, écrit dans Insight !

Un article centré sur Ryanair, mais plus intéressant, à travers les comparaisons des offres !

Il y a qq différences entre les ecos générées par les moteurs NG !
Que ce soit pour les,futurs mono-couloirs, ou à travers les re-motorisations éventuelles !

Noter :
1/ L'efficacité d'une cellule adaptée au moteur ??? Bombardier, Comac, MS21, Avions qui doivent ou devront 12-15% au moteur, plus 4-6 % grâce à l'airframe (Pour Le C-Séries du moins)

2/ Retirer les 1-3 points qui pourront se perdre pour adapter un moteur NG sur une cellule existante!
Ajouter les qq points de tweaking Aero, à venir chez A et B pour les A320 et B737 !

3/ Bien, Boeing va zapper un vrai nouveau moteur pour le 737 .... dixit J. Albaught
(Peut être, mais moi, j'attends quand même une propal "LeapX" à Diamètre de fan "Réduit" un jour )
Donc Boeing se contentera, d'une amélioration substantielle du CFM56, et de qq arrangements Aero, c'est bien ... on verra !

Ce qui est le plus notable sont les incroyables acrobaties d'Albraught, Bell, de Boeing, plus les "largués " de service, chez RR et Goodrich et leurs divers "XX CL" qui joignent les rangs de cette fanfare d'arracheurs de dents !

Tout le monde se dépêche de confondre et de manipuler les chiffres, entre les écos de consommation, et les écos sur le coût opérationnel, un ratio, qui va du simple au double !
Et tout le monde y va de sa musique, prenant journalistes et autres analystes boursiers pour des élèves rentrant tout juste au collège !

On continue donc allégrement le footage de gueule médiatique avec le plus grand sérieux sur le sujet, et même les "Soit disant" pros peuvent se raccrocher à ces branches, pour "Manipuler" c'est limite comique !

D'autre part on entend MO'L chez Ryanair aiguiser ses coteaux, au fond de sa cuisine, dés que l'on parle de remise ... !

Il est heureux que des commentateurs Aero, soient capable de re-mettre un peu d'ordre, de crédibilité et de sérieux, de temps à autres, toucher terre fait du bien !

------------- L'Article Insight à lire !----------------

http://airinsight.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/the-737ng-and-ryanair/

Industry speculation remains rampant as to how Boeing will respond to the forthcoming Airbus NEO and CSeries. The pendulum has swung from a re-engining of the 737NG to an all new airplane to counter the new, high-technology Bombardier CSeries, and additional competition from the Irkut MS-21 and Comac C919. The CSeries and MS-21 use new technology PW 1000G (GTF) engines, the C919 uses the Leap-X-C1 engine, and the Airbus NEO is expected to offer a choice of both.Boeing has been slow to respond, and Jon Ostrower has broken news about another alternative, the 737NG+, with only minor tweaks to the existing product to achieve 4-5% improvements.Boeing has begun an unusual campaign of aggressively attacking its competitors and their products, a new twist for the company. Last week it suggested that Bombardier would have similar problems that Boeing had with the 787 with no basis for those assertions. This week Jim Albaugh claimed that the Airbus NEO will provide only a 3-4% improvement in operating costs – which doesn’t seem to add-up.The PW GTF and Leap-X promise up to 16% fuel burn improvements, which will translate to 10-12% on wing. Sharkets will add another 3.5%, and with fuel at 50% of operating costs for most carriers, this would result in an 8% improvement before factoring in engine maintenance cost reductions and lower environmental fees. How does Boeing come up with a number so out of line with the rest of the industry? Why would Airbus spend $1 billion plus to come up with a 3-4% savings, which wouldn’t make sense? Something doesn’t add up in the numbers from Seattle.The 737NG+ would be “bridge airplane” to a replacement design that provides additional tweaks to the existing model to optimize performance without the need for a re-engining. It will be apparently be offered as an interim solution while Boeing continues to evaluate its longer-term competitive offering. Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, in an internal webcast Tuesday, said continued incremental improvements are being considered pending a new airplane design.Boeing’s CFO recently stated that the operating cost improvement from a re-engining program will be in the single digits, and not enough for airlines to justify the capital expense for such a program. We concur, and believe a re-engining of the 737 with the Leap-X may not be economically justifiable, given the double digit improvements expected from the competition by mid-decade.An all-new model would require significant investment, and is unlikely to be considered until the two current development programs, the 787 and 747-8, each with significant delays, are sorted out and enter service. Signs are promising that the light at the end of the tunnel is getting much brighter at a rapid rate, and that in early 2011 the 787 will emerge into passenger service. But we can’t imagine the Boeing Board of Directors giving a go ahead until the 787 and 747-8 programs enter airline service.With the profitable 777 under threat from the A350XWB, Airbus now seems to be in the driver’s seat forcing Boeing to react and choose which airplane to upgrade first, rather than Boeing forcing the issue at Airbus, when the 787 forced a total clean-sheet for the A350. Program delays, first with the A380 and now with the 787, have changed who is ahead in the perpetual game of leap-frog, and from out of the blue, Bombardier has entered with a high-technology competitor that has will have the best economics among narrow-body competitors, with a 20% better fuel burn and 15% better operating economics than the 737-700.In the interim, Boeing is stepping up its production volume for the 737NG and Ryanair, an all-Boeing customer, is once again talking of a 300+ aircraft order. Adding another 300 aircraft to the 737NG backlog would buy the company additional time to wait for technologies to evolve and prove themselves before having to commit to an all new aircraft. And if the tweaks for a 737NG+ are not too expensive, this could extend the program a bit longer, providing Boeing much needed cash that is flying out the door with the 787 and 747-8 delays.Ryanair and Boeing have been playing a publicized game of cat and mouse, with Ryanair, an all Boeing operator, expressing an interest in new airplanes, but not at the prices being offered by Boeing. And with only a 3-5% benefit, the NG+ will fall well short of Bombardier (15%) and the Airbus NEO (8-9%) operating cost improvements.That, in itself, will likely force Boeing to price the 737NG+ at a discount to its competition, the CSeries or A320NEO. Having long ago fully amortized the costs of the 737NG, Boeing is at the stage it can discount pricing to build backlog and buy time. The timing now may be right for Boeing to offer that “very low price” to Ryanair – enabling it to continue the 737NG while it prepares a longer-term competitive response.Will Ryanair become the launch customer for an improved 737NG+, with the Sky Interior, additional improvements to the CFM-56-7, and more tweaks that will provide a 3%-5% improvement in economics? Will Michael O’Leary finally have the leverage to obtain a great deal from Boeing to launch the NG+?Stay tuned, as interesting developments are under way in Renton and Dublin.

JPRS

Bonjour à tous,

Dans cette partie de poker menteur, Ryanair et Southwest, deux des plus gros clients du B737 (dites moi si je me trompe, je n'ai pas vérifié !), se déclarent plus qu'intéressées par une remotorisation du B737. C'est un peu en contradiction avec les dernières déclarations de Boeing. Mais cela peut facilement se comprendre. Ces compagnies ont besoin, de part leurs expansions, d'un grand nombre d'appareils de ce segment dans les années proches, pas dans 10-15 ans. D'après Ryanair, une baisse de 12-14 % de consommation engendrerait une baisse de 10-12 % du prix au client. Si Boeing se lançait dans un appareil entièrement nouveau, Ryanair émet clairement des doutes sur la date annoncée, pour l'instant, 2019-2020 par Boeing. Elle rappelle que le B787 n'est vraiment pas une réussite à ce niveau et que 2025 semble une date plus réaliste !
Quand une compagnie explique à un constructeur qu'il ne faut pas prendre les enfants du bon dieu pour des canards sauvages... Un brin risible .
En tout cas, Airbus réveille-toi, il y a peut-être des marchés à prendre.
Pour ma part, je pense qu'entre l'attitude très attentiste d'Airbus ces derniers temps et les positions plus qu'optimistes prises par Boeing ces dernières années, il doit bien y avoir un juste équilibre.

Ryanair Wants New Engines on Boeing 737s to Cut Fuel Costs

Ryanair Holdings Plc and Southwest Airlines Co., two of the biggest operators of Boeing Co. 737 single-aisle jets, are pushing the manufacturer for new engines to help cut fuel costs if an all-new model remains years away.

Fuel accounts for almost 40 percent of the airline’s expenses, and a manufacturer that could deliver a plane with 12 percent to 14 percent higher fuel efficiency would let Dublin-based Ryanair cut its costs per passenger by 10 percent to 12 percent, Chief Financial Officer Howard Millar said in a telephone interview.

“It’s a very significant number that you can’t ignore,” Millar said yesterday. “We’re obviously very interested” in the concept of new engines.

Boeing and Airbus SAS are weighing the merits of an upgrade for their best-selling planes as they’ve pushed back plans to develop new ones until as late as 2025, saying technology isn’t ready. Both companies aim to decide by year-end whether to offer new engines on existing models by the middle of this decade to help customers reduce fuel consumption in the meantime.

Boeing, which initially targeted 2015 for a replacement to the 737, has said it would prefer to focus on a new jet because customers don’t see a business case for the interim-engine step. Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney has said customers would wait for a new plane if it’s possible by early next decade, a timeline that the Chicago-based company is assessing this year.

‘New Economics’

“We certainly recognize the need for new economics,” Mike Van de Ven, Southwest’s chief operating officer, said today. “We are indifferent to whether that’s a new airplane or a re- engined airplane. One thing is for sure, waiting until 2025 to make a change is not an option.”

Ryanair’s Millar said his preference would be an all-new single-aisle aircraft that could offer even greater savings than one with a new engine. However, delays on recent aircraft programs such as Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner and Airbus’s A380 show that manufacturers tend to struggle to maintain their proposed introduction schedules for new jets, he said.

“Boeing’s talking about maybe building a new plane for 2020, but what is that date realistically?” Millar said. “It’s probably a bit further out. The ability of any manufacturer to deliver anything on time has to be questioned these days.”

Boeing’s decision may slide into next year as the company continues to study the market and technology, its commercial president, Jim Albaugh, said in a Sept. 27 interview. Airbus has also pushed back its verdict by several months.

Airbus Meeting

Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders met with the Toulouse, France-based company’s executive committee this week, and the managers decided to delay an announcement, said two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan hasn’t been made public.

While Airbus has been more open to the concept of new engines, the company has cautioned that embarking on the project may cause a shortage of engineers on other programs, such as the A380 superjumbo that’s only lately been stabilized, and the A350 wide-body jet that Airbus wants to bring to the market by 2013.

Boeing faces similar concerns, as its engineers finish work on the 787 Dreamliner, now almost three years behind schedule, and 747-8 jumbo jet and begin revamping the 777 to intensify competition with the A350.

Ryanair and Dallas-based Southwest operate with exclusively Boeing fleets. The Irish discount carrier has 250 737-800s and plans to increase its fleet to 299 by March 2013. Southwest, the world’s largest low-cost airline, has 544 737s, with 116 on order.

Albaugh said in July that Southwest’s CEO will be “very involved” in Boeing’s single-aisle decision and “whatever we do, it’s going to be something that Gary Kelly likes.”

More Complex

Fitting new engines on the Boeing model is more complex than on the Airbus, because the wings sit closer to the ground, requiring changes to parts including landing gear. The cost of an all-new jet is about $10 billion. New engines would cost no more than 1.5 billion euros ($2.11 billion) and be ready for service around 2015, Airbus estimates.

While new engines promise to cut specific fuel consumption by about 15 percent, the savings on direct costs to airlines would translate into just half that amount as fuel is only part of the cost in operating planes. Another compromise is a likely cut to payload or range, because the new engines are heavier.

The power plants on offer are made by Pratt & Whitney and CFM International, a joint venture between General Electric Co. and France’s Safran. The 737 now operates on only CFM engines, while the Airbus A320 has two engine options.

“It’s really a decision for the manufacturers,” Millar said. “It’s still evolving as to what they’ll do. Boeing has talked about it, Airbus seems closer to doing it, but obviously we’re very interested in what’s going on in that space.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14/ryanair-cfo-pushes-for-new-engines-on-boeing-737s-to-reduce-fuel-expenses.html

Amicalement

Oui et merci Julienaline, ça a du passer sur le fil Ryanair de mémoire ...

Par contre si vous avez qq chose sur SouthWest !!
Qui pour l'instant viennent de passer 3 mois de négociations, avec leur PN pour faire rentrer les 737-800 ...

Il est certain que Airbus, en pôle pour les re-motorisations, commet une énorme bourde !
Surtout après 9 mois de teasing ! Et son chef des ventes JL , se retrouve comme un vrai C.. après cet épisode !
Pour moi il ne restera pas si le NEO est abandonné !

Ou un coup de poker menteur de Airbus, qui sait !

Mais après une campagne de 9 mois, pour le NEO, le cacher maintenant sous le tapis, ne sera pas productif ... du tout !
Les frustrés iront ailleurs et les attentistes attendront ... Russes, Chinois, Canadiens, ou Boeing !
Ne pas oublier que le A340-5-6 est passé à la trappe pour 6-7 % de frais d'exploitation de plus que le 777 !
Je vois venir la cata grosse comme une maison !
Et à part les Chinois qui ont pratiquement signé, pour alimenter la chaîne A320 jusqu'à 2016 ...
On va compter les cdes de A320 à partir de maintenant, vs le 737 ! Déjà 50% de déficit depuis le début de l'année !
Ce qui a permis l'envol d'Airbus, le A320, pourrait bien être la future cata pour Airbus !
Et notre ami aux rangers, T.E. , l'aura bien cherchée celle là !

Juste noté que Broughton, comme Filton, recrutent pas mal en ce moment pour les dévlpts Sharklets, Ailes, Trains, côté engineering, il y a des places à prendre !
Et c'est sur eux que retomberait l'effort principal pour l'aile du NEO !
Un bon signe s'ils se renforcent, un mauvais si ils essayent de boucher les trous pour rattraper les retards criants !
--------------
Un rappel au passage pour le MS21 de wikip/en!
-------------
It is claimed that the MS-21 would be 10-15% more efficient than Airbus and Boeing aircraft in the same class and it will have a 15% structural weight efficiency advantage, 20% lower operating costs, and 15% lower fuel consumption than the Airbus A320^[4] with an initial target price of 35 Million US$.^[11]
-------------
J'ose juste espérer que ce n'est pas un prix catalogue ... avec remise possible... et que ce n'est pas avec des GTF ... mais avec les moteurs Russes ... sinon ... dés que qq'un (En Italie??) va leur créer un réseau, et P&W va aider, normal !
Bon, pour les 15 % sur la structure, et côté poids, on a le droit de rêver, c'est à mon avis sous les 10% , menfin ...
Sinon il y a du souci à se faire, pour ceux qui négligent de remplir le carnet de cdes !

JPRS

Oups ! un doublon !

Vu, j'avais pas vu !

Beochien.

Malheureusement, je n'ai rien trouvé sur Southwest.

Amicalement

Pour les russes, le SSJ va donner le tempo et redonner peut être la crédibilité à l'industrie russe

Bonjour !

Alors qui entube qui ?? suivant IAG Group !!
Chaque mois qui passe est à faveur de Boeing ... c'est comme ça !

------------ L'article de IAG, pas d'auteur -----------

http://www.iag-inc.com/2010/10/18/what-is-boeing-really-up-to/

What is Boeing really up to?

By IAG | October 18th, 2010 | Posted in Aviation News | No Comments

By all appearances, Boeing has decided against a re-engined 737. The reasons are published all over.

However even as this is apparently settled, there are two voices Boeing pays special attention to. Ryanair and Southwest. So how about this news?

Southwest joined the debate into the re-engining of the 737, with COO Mike Van de Ven commenting: “We certainly recognize the need for new economics. We are indifferent to whether that’s a new airplane or a re- engined airplane. One thing is for sure, waiting until 2025 to make a change is not an option”.

Ryanair CFO Howard Millar similarly stated Europe’s largest LCC is "very interested" in a re-engined 737. Ryanair and Southwest both operate Boeing fleets with Ryanair having 250 737-800s in service with plans to increase its fleet to 299 by March 2013 while Southwest has 544 737s in service with 116 on order.


In July, Boeing commented that Southwest would be “very involved” in Boeing’s single-aisle decision commenting: “Whatever we do, it’s going to be something that Gary Kelly likes.”

Is the re-engine denial at Boeing part of a disinformation campaign to throw off Airbus' NEO? The longer Boeing can delay a NEO decision the better.


JPRS

Ouaip
On peut difficilement imaginer que chez l'un et l'autre il n'y ait pas une équipe d'une douzaine de gars qui bossent en permanence sur l'amélioration d'un modèle existant... et donc les remotorisations...
Boeing a besoin d'acheter un peu de temps, parce que le LeapX n'est pas dispo dans l'immédiat... et à un stade plus amont que le GTF... qu'Airbus a déjà pu testé en vol.
La question pour Airbus est aussi probablement ou mettre le curseur dans la remotorisation... les moteurs seulement ? ou bien n'est pas l'occaze d'aller plus loin (allégement des trains, dispositifde taxying électrique...), histoire de rester le plus contact des C919 et MS21 (si ceux tiennent leurs promesses...).
Idem pour Boeing
L'A380 est quasi sorti d'affaire et en plus il semble encore devoir se vendre (et il s'est vendu cette année...). Reste les variantes, mais sans timing précis.
L'A400M a t'on des nouvelles récemment ?
L'A350 : ce programme est il plus compliqué à mener que l'A380 ? qui était presque à l'heure avant qu'on découvre que les fils ne se touchent pas.
L'intox n'est elle pas partout ?

Merci Poncho !
Beaucoup de technos nouvelles pour le A350!
Et je sens que côté poids, c'est loin d'être gagné !
Pour le A400M ... ce n'est pas parce qu'on n'en parle plus, qu'ils ont re-gagné les 6 ou 8 tonnes ... toujours pas d'annonce de poids ... et ils veulent déjà l'exporter en Inde ... pffff !

JPRS

Enfin, l'A400M est en vol...
l'A380 aussi
Seul l'A350 est en cours de développement

Les autres projets sont

- A320 sharklets
- A330 238T

les A332F et MRTT sont achevés... (sauf si l'USAF veut des derniers...)
Plus de développement sur les A340, à part peut être des conversions fret (qui peuvent aussi concerner l'A320 et l'A330)

Je me trompe ou il y a seulement 2 gros programmes en cours ?
Dont 1 normalement bien avancé...

Le premier A400M de série est prévu pour être lancé cette fin d'année, donc plus de gros boulot à prévoir sur la cellule ensuite... gros boulot d'intégration par contre

http://www.aeroweb-fr.net/actualites/2010/07/farnborough-2010-avancement-du-programme-dessai-de-la400m

Ah et j'oublie
l'A350 a trois versions, mais l'A350-800 a tellement été simplifié depuis

Juste pour bien noter les divers rideau de fumée...

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/19/348635/no-deadline-for-737-re-engining.html

Boeing says it is not holding itself to a deadline for deciding whether to re-engine its 737 narrowbody.
"We are going to take our time," says marketing vice-president Randy Tinseth. "We are not tied to any timeline - we are tied to making the right decision." The airframer had indicated that it would confirm its single-aisle refreshment strategy by year end.
Tinseth says that customer reactions to potential re-engining have been mixed. "This is an incredibly important decision for us," he adds. "We can't get it wrong."

Tout le monde a son temps

Mouais, Poncho, cela glisse du presque tout négatif... vers le de plus en plus "Mixed" chez Boeing !
Le glissement se note, depuis le début Octobre, le Mktg Boeing en tête, bien sûr, les vrais contacts avec les clients sont là ! JL ne dirait pas le contraire !
Les Financiers et l'engineering qui freinent des 4 fers, évidemment !
Pas mal d'intox depuis le début !

Et si Boeing lançait un remotorisation, au ras des paquerettes, avant Airbus ... pour fixer, et sortir du PB le premier !
Par ce que, Ryanair, et Southwest, un petit 10% de mieux, ils n'ont rien contre, eux !
Ça a pu avancer discrètement avec GE/CFMI , sans trop laisser filtrer vers Snecma ! L'avantage d'une seule motorisation joue en faveur de la discrétion ... et CFMI n'a pas développé un nouveau moteur (Le LeapX) pour rien, ou juste les Chinois, c'est le point le plus certain !
Ils le mettront sous l'aile des MC, leur leapX, même en 2nd monte s'il le faut, et en changeant le pylône et en renforçant l'aile s'il le faut aussi !
Mais je crois que les poids ne vont pas beaucoup augmenter, le temps de terminer la cellule, pardon, la Nacelle CFRP et le fan plastoc, plus qq aubes de compresseur en Titane/Al pour 2015-6 !
Et ... pour le 737, un BPR vers les 8X, devrait suffire pour assurer les 10 points, avec le LeapX, qui gagne plus sur la T° de chaudière que le GTF de P&W !


Au fait ?
Qui aurait l'air d'un vrai C.. à l'annonce d'une re-motorisation du Boeing 737, assortie d'une cde de lancement de 500 A/c ??

JPRS

Bonjour,

J'ai suivi de très loin la com récente sur les remotorisations ou non remotorisations, et je suis un peu frappé de sentir un manque de stratégie. Ce qui m'inquiète est d'imagine ce qui va se passer si, reprise économique aidant, nous nous retrouvions dans une situation énergétique tendue dans les deux ans à venir ? Avec un baril de retour au $150, que se passerait il ?

Je comprends bien les questions de disponibilité de financement et de ressources humaines, mais cela n'annule pas le risque que l'équilibre avec les nouveaux arrivants (C-series, Comac, Irkut) ne change brutalement... et comme eux auront progressé d'ici là, si les nouveaux moteurs tiennent leurs promesses, j'imagine que le voeux de A et B d'empêcher l'apparition d'un troisième larron risque de devenir vain en cas de tension énergétique brutale (prévisible quand on suit un peu attentivement l'actualité dans le domaine pétrolier).

Bonjour à tous

Un point sur les améliorations apportées au 737
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/226223.asp

While Boeing officials continue to say the company is more likely to replace its 737 than outfit it with new, more efficient engines, the company last week built a 737 with a series of upgrades intended to boost fuel efficiency by 2 percent.

That would mean new 737s would be 7 percent more efficient than the first Next-Generation 737s, 737 chief project engineer John Hamilton said at the company's Renton, Wash., plant on Tuesday.

The upgrades include an improved CFM56-7BE engine, and redesigned wheel fairings, exhaust duct doors, wing surfaces and anti-collision lights that reduce drag.

"You're not going to get the big bang with any one of these changes," Hamilton said. "They're all going to add up."

And, while 2 percent may not sound like a lot, that adds up to a savings of about $120,000 per year for one airplane, with a net present value of $1 million over 20 years, he said.

Boeing completed a Continental Airlines 737-800 with the upgrades last week and plans to start ground testing next month, with flight testing from December to April. The company plans to phase the improvements into production from mid 2011 through early 2012.

And engineers are looking into other changes, such as changing the tail size, incorporating carbon fiber-reinforced plastics and using new materials to cut weight on the floorboards for what Boeing is calling a 737NG Plus, Hamilton said. "We think we can get something more out of this (plane). We haven't been able to really pin down a number yet."

These are just the kind of changes that customers want, rather than clamoring for whole new engines, which add cost and complication, he said. "You're not getting a strong response saying go re-engine. They like the incremental improvements."



Airbus executives have been hinting for much of the year that the company was likely to move ahead with a re-engined A320, called A320 New Engine Option, although recent reports indicate the company may be hesitating.

"We know we could get the same fuel burn as what the Airbus NEO could get," Hamilton said. "But when you look at the spares impact and you look at the operational impact, it doesn't always pay back."

Boeing hasn't set a timeline for incorporating more improvements into the 737, Hamilton said. "If Airbus decides to do their NEO, we're probably going to see how the market responds to that. We don't feel like we need to rush out with anything right away."

Asked about statements by executives at key 737 operators such as Ryanair that seem supportive of re-engining, Hamilton said: "If you listen to them carefully, what they're saying is they want fuel burn improvement."

Asked about Airbus' apparent cooling to re-engining, Hamilton said: "I think they're out talking to the same customers we are and they're getting a similar response, a lukewarm response."

A big reason Boeing and Airbus are looking at re-engining is that upstart planes such as the Canadian Bombardier CSeries and Chinese COMAC 919 are trying to eat into their single-aisle turf.

The CSeries may well not make its planned 2013 entry into service, Hamilton said. "Some of the lessons we've learned from the 787, they've still got in front of them, so their EIS is maybe a little questionable," he sad. "There are some customers out there that are listening to Bombardier, but they haven't really landed any big customer yet."

Republic Airways, which has ordered the CSeries, is "smart enoguh that they're probably going to have some caveats in those contracts," he said.

The COMAC 919 and Russian United Airplane Corp. MS-21 are unlikely to be strong competitors but will set their companies up to build competitive airplanes in the future, Hamilton said.

Jamie Jewell, director of strategic communications at CFM, said a survey the company conducted of customers last year confirmed airlines are concerned about much more then fuel efficiency.

In fact, fuel efficiency finished fifth on a list of priorities, while reliability was No. 1, she said. "That engine has got to be there, has got to be ready to go, or the business model doesn't work."

She noted that CFM's 737 engines have a 99.98 dispatch reliability.

Discussing eventual new narrow-bodies, Hamilton said Boeing continues to look at larger planes.

"Definately the sweet spot in the market is the (737)-800 today," he said. The 737-800 seats 162 in a typical two-class configuration.

Hamilton expressed some skepticism about open-rotor engines, saying: "I'm not sure I want to get on an airplane with a big fan spinning next to me."

He didn't dismiss the idea of a twin-aisle narrow-body, saying: "When you look at some timetables of moving people on and off an airplane, there's actually some benefits there."

Asked about the timing of a new single-aisle jet, Jewell said: "When Boeing says it's ready to go, CFM will be ready to go with them."

She was more positive about the open-rotor engine, saying it could cut fuel use by 25 percent or more from current engines, and issues such as noise could be solved.

"It has to be designed in conj we an airframer. ... We still think its probably 2025 to 2030 before you realize that," she said. "Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? The jury's still out."

Les évolutions (moteur et aéro) seront testés le mois prochain pour une livraison en avril 2011

Peau de banane à Bombardier : Boeing explique qu'ils seront en retard

Peau de banane pour le Comac C919 et l'Irkut MS21

Officiellement Boeing est donc sur de lui

Bien , Merci Poncho !

Ca ressemble un peu à la méthode Coué ! Ou un peu à de l'intox qq part !
Bien, gagner, 2, voir 3 % sur le B737, qui s'en plaindra !
De plus, Airbus est sur son "Plan" 3-4% pour 2012, Sharklets, etc, pour les A320 séries, et on attend juste que CFM, mette à jour son CFM56, pour Airbus aussi, soit 1,6% à attendre (Hou Hou IAE ? )
Mais il paraît qu'avec l'enthousiasme de début d'année pour le NEO, ben chez Airbus, ils auraient "oublié" de le demander à CFMI !

Sauf que ...dans les basses capacités, entre poids, profil de l'avion, et SFC, les C Séries vont leur "Planter" 15% ou plus à A et B, sur les consos, quand ils sortiront, en ... 2013 ?? on verra ... mais je ne crois pas que le C-Séries prenne plus qu'un an de retard ! Ce n'est pas un 787 non plus !

D'autre part, Les Chinois et les Russes, aiguisent les couteaux, avec leurs 15 % d'écos de conso, eux aussi pour des avions de la taille des 737-800, le cœur de cible actuel, et cela pour, disons vers 2015- 2016 avec des avions déjà "Partiellement" allégés Vs les A320/B737 !
Peut être que le COMAC, attendra 1 An de plus, pour être doté de la toute dernière version, du LeapX (Certification très possible vers 2016 du moteur Alu-Titane-CMC ), la version intermédiaire sera certifiée dés 2014, soit, 2-3 % dans la vue, pour un an ou deux, pour le marché Chinois, c'est tout !
En attendant, l'intégration du couple Moteur-Nacelle, sera bien présente sur le COMAC , petit avantage supplémentaire, et d'entrée celui là !

De son côté P&W sera à l'heure pour le MS21 (Peut être en avance même, VS Irkut !!), avec ses 15-16%, et ses possibilités d'évolution sous le coude !

Mais surtout ces avions russes et Chinois, seront vendus dans les 35-45 Millions de $ pièce, avec une majorité d'équipements "Occidentaux" à bord ! Pour moi, il y a du souci à se faire !

C'est pour cela que je râle ... devant l'inertie au progrès que présentent actuellement A et B !
Ils abandonnent le terrain, pour quasi 10 ans, aux Russes et aux Chinois, et un petit bout vers le bas aux Canadiens de Bombardier, en plus !

Cela ne pardonnera pas !

C'est exactement le temps qu'il à fallu à Airbus pour déloger le monopole du B737 !
Ils devraient s'en souvenir, chez A et B !

JPRS

Bonjour !

Le VP des 737 chez Boeing, Beverly Wyse, se veut rassurant, un peu la méthode Coué ... !
Mais n'exclut pas la remotorisation ...
Et une NG pour 2020 !
Sur le fond, Boeing est plus convaincu de la re-motorisation du A320, que le propre Tomas Enders de Airbus ! Marrant !

--------------- L'article de Aviationweek----------------

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?topicName=zhuhai_2010&id=news/awx/2010/11/18/awx_11_18_2010_p0-270846.xml&headline=Boeing%20Shrugs%20Off%20737%20Challenges%20In%20China


By Staff
ZHUHAI

Boeing says that no matter what competitors like Comac and Airbus do in the coming years it will take at least 50% of China’s single-aisle airliner market — which Boeing predicts will total 3,000 aircraft worth $300 billion over the next two decades.

There are 475 Boeing 737s flying in China today and the potential for more than 300 further orders.

Looking to the Chinese market, Beverly Wyse, Boeing VP & GM 737 Program, says the 737 will maintain a lead in fuel efficiency and aircraft reliability that will keep it ahead of the pack. “The 737 already has the highest dispatch reliability in its class at 99.8% and that’s against our established, long-term and very successful competitor,” says Wyse.

“The Chinese passenger will get more and more discriminating, so reliability matters – and at the same time airlines won’t be spending so much on maintenance.” “We have a 737 performance improvement package coming next year that will deliver a 2% improvement in fuel burn and we are looking at additional improvements over the next decade, one of which could be a new engine.”

Boeing feels it has the measure of the Comac C919, which John Hamilton, 737 chief project engineer, asserts “is still a paper airplane.”

“With new engine technology, and maybe a re-engining, we can easily exceed the capabilities of the C919, with a more sizeable improvement (Boeing’s 737 replacement) coming down the line in 2020.”

JPRS