Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- The Boeing 767 Cross Section, Part 1 November 24, 2022
- Movie Review: Devotion November 21, 2022
- China will accelerate development of its commercial aerospace sector November 21, 2022
- Bjorn’s Corner: Sustainable Air Transport. Part 46. eVTOL comparison with helicopter November 18, 2022
- The economics of a 787-9 and A330-900 at eight or nine abreast November 16, 2022
Zhuhai Airshow: China’s aircraft industry is gaining speed
The 10th Chinese airshow at Zhuhai opened today. It was a day with fewer announcements than expected from the usual suspects (Airbus, Boeing…) but the Chinese industry did not disappoint. China is now showing more and more of its coming might as a player on the aeronautics arena.
The most prominent displays at this show were on the military side, where China has two stealth aircraft projects flying (the large Chengdu canard J-20 and the smaller Shenyang J-31) while their canard Chengdu J-10 was flying the display circuits overhead (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Chinas latest fighter developments; the J-31 and J-20 stealth fighters and the canard J-10. Source: China internet.
All aircraft are of latest structural and aerodynamic design if not in engines and systems. This is a big difference to previous shows where the Russian Sukhoi and MIG aircraft and their local copies did the flying display until 2008. Since then everything has changed and now China and USA are the only countries in the world with two different stealth designs flying. USA has one in operation (F-22) and one close to (F-35) whereas China still has many years to go until they have their new aircraft operational. But it is significant that the old aeronautical behemoths Europe and Russia have none respective one (PAK-50) stealth fighter in flight test.
Boeing considers single, twin aisle, co-development 757/767 style for next new airplane
Subscription required.
Now open to all Readers.
Introduction
Boeing is looking at a number of scenarios for its New Airplane Study (NAS) that would replace the 757 and 737, have ranges from 4,000nm-5,000nm, and carry as few passengers as 130 or as many as 240.
To cover this broad range of demands could require reverting back to the 1980s when Boeing simultaneously developed two airplanes serving very different missions, the 757 and 767, that shared cockpits and some other common elements.
Boeing faces some hard decisions in the coming years, as Airbus outflanks Boeing in the single-aisle sector with the A320neo family and its latest offering, the A321neoLR. Our analysis and sales figures show the 737 MAX falling further and further behind in market share as MAX 9 lags vis-à-vis the A321neo.
We spoke with Kourosh Hadi, director of product development at Boeing, during a break at a conference last week organized by the British American Business Council-Pacific Northwest, and covered this and a number of other topics.
Summary
- Boeing is studying a New Light Twin (NLT) and New Single Aisle (NSA) to replace the 757 and 737 airplanes.
- The tipping point between an efficient NSA and the NLT is around the passenger size of the 757-200.
- Boeing is evaluating materials, including metals and composites, for the NAS and the manufacturing process, which will also be a determining factor in the materials for the new airplane.
- Engine advances for the 777X’s GE9X are beyond the GEnx and CFM LEAP of today and could help drive the next new small engine technology.
- Although having a miniscule portion of the 100-150 seat market, Boeing today plans to continue participation in at least the 130 or 150 seat sector even as airplane size moves up every year.
Part 3: Boeing 757 replacement: 757 and Airbus A321neoLR versus clean sheet designs.
Subscription required.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Part 3 of 3
Introduction
In Part 2 of our three-part 757 Replacement analysis, we took a close look at Airbus’ new 97 tonne take-off weight A321neo, revealed in a world exclusive by Leeham News and Comment October 21. We analyzed the A321neoLR’s capabilities and limitations when compared to Boeing 757-200W and we saw that it could do the international flights that the 757-200 does with about 25% better efficiency. In this final Part 3, we will now compare the 757 and A321neoLR against what can be Boeing’s reaction, a clean sheet New Single Aisle, NSA, or New Light Twin Aisle, (NLT). First the conclusions from Part 2:
- When using the United Airlines-configured 757-200W international as benchmark, we came within seven seats of the 757 capacity for an A321neoLR. It covered the same range and had trip fuel costs that were 25% lower.
- The per seat fuel costs gave a 22% higher efficiency, which was within 2% of Airbus own figures.
- 737 MAX9 is not suitable for stretch to an international version, not because the wing is not good enough but because the MAX9 cannot bring the wing to an angle at take-off where it can work efficiently; the landing gear is too short.
Summary
For Part 3 we can summarize:
- A New Single Aisle (NSA) or New Light Twin (NLT) which would enter the market in 2025 would be sized at around 200 passengers with subsequent variants covering the 175-225 seat market, all numbers with OEM standard two-class seating. Figure 1 shows the fuselage cross sections we have used in our modelling of NSA and NLT to cover this market segment.
Figure 1. Fuselage cross sections of our models of NSA and NLT. Source: Leeham Co.
- In order to cover the market segment of the 737, A320 and 757 it would have a range in excess of 4,100nm. We will use 4100nm for our modeling to maximize the comparative efficiency information.
- Its efficiency would be higher than an A321neoLR, primarily due to better engines and a more modern wing.
- The New Light Twin (NLT) wins on comfort and ground turn-around time but pays with a larger fuselage cross section due to the extra aisle. This causes more drag and structural weight, net effect is a reduction in efficiency of around 2.5%.
CASM Paradigm: Lower Seat Mile Cost or Higher Yield; Evaluating the GOL competition
Subscription Required
Introduction
As Brazil’s budget airline GOL reportedly evaluates whether to acquire 20 Boeing 737-7s or Embraer E-195 E2s, the principal of the “CASM Paradigm” is a concept worth examining.
This head-to-head evaluation of the E-195 E2 and the 737-7 MAX is a rarity. Typically the head-to-head involves the Bombardier CS300 and the Airbus A319neo. All three have the same seating capacities. The E-195 E2 has slightly fewer passengers than the 737-7 with similar seat pitch.
The competition is also what might be seen as a contrary competition. Airframers agree: the airline industry is upgauging. Capacity discipline, long elusive until after the global financial collapse of 2008, has been driving load factors higher. But lowering unit costs, or the Cost per Available Seat Miles (CASM) has long been the principal measure by which airlines, OEMs and aerospace analysts measure efficiency.
Although Trip Costs of aircraft operating over a route is important, the trend toward upgauging at all levels clearly is the driving force.
Figure 1. It’s an age-old debate: the cost per available seat mile (CASM) vs trip cost. CASM typically wins, and the airline industry is migrating toward larger aircraft. Embraer, not surprisingly, thinks this has gone too far. Graphic: Embraer, reprinted with permission. Click on image to enlarge.
Embraer takes a different view, arguing that trip costs and a smaller airplane should trump the CASM obsession. A smaller airplane will mean higher yields, EMB says. A larger airplane provides lower trip costs but drives yield lower.
We visited Embraer’s headquarters earlier this month and received a full briefing on what EMB calls the CASM Paradigm. In our report today, we detail the presentation and discuss other considerations beside CASM vs Trip Costs that drive the size of the aircraft acquired.
Summary
- The CASM Paradigm becomes a vicious, circular cycle, driving airlines to larger aircraft but lower yields.
- Extra seats on larger aircraft mean lower unit costs but at the cost of profits.
- Scope Clauses remain an issue in the US.
- Connecting traffic, pay scales also are issues.
- We analyze the operating costs of the E-195 E2 vs the 737-7.
- We discuss the GOL competition.
Part 2: Boeing 757: Airbus A321neoLR as a replacement on long and thin routes
Subscription required.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Part 2 of 3
Introduction
In Part 2 of our three-part 757 Replacement analysis, we take a close look at Airbus’ new 97 tonnes take off weight A321neo, revealed by Leeham News and Comment October 21. We call the 97t airplane the A321neoLR (Long Range); Airbus has yet to name the aircraft, which it began showing to airlines last week.
We analyze the A321neoLR’s capabilities and limitations when compared to the aircraft it intends to replace, the Boeing 757-200W. We have chosen to do so using a real airline configuration as opposed to an OEM’s typical seating layout. By comparing the 757-200W and the A321neoLR over the route structure that United Airlines is using the 757 today, we can better see the characteristics of the A321neoLR and what operational consequences the differences between the types would mean for the airlines. Before we start, a short recap of Part 1 about the 757 and its replacement candidates. Here is what we found:
- the seating capacity of the A321 is within 10 seats of the 757-200 in a standard configuration; the 737 MAX9 is trailing with about 20 fewer seats.
- the myth about the strong engines of the 757 is just that, a myth.
- the good field performance of the 757 is coming from its wing more than any advantage on the engine side
- the A321neo and 737 MAX9 were hindered in their capability to replace the 757 for long and thin international routes by characteristics that can be changed. For the A321neo, this may be accomplished with rather modest changes to Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) and tankage. For the 737 MAX9, more elaborate changes to the wing and engines are required, both hard to do.
Figure 1. Boeing 757-200 of British Airways which launched the 757 together with Eastern Airlines 1983. Source: Wikimedia.
Summary, Part 2
- We will now look in detail on the changes Airbus is doing on the A321neoLR, what each change brings and any restrictions that remain.
- We will also detail why we think it will be harder for Boeing to match the A321neoLR with a 737 MAX9 development.
- We detail prime, present 757W long-thin routes.
- We present 757W international, A321neoLR and 737 MAX9 “long range” configurations.
- We provide economic comparisons such as Payload-Range charts and Fuel consumption per trip and per seat diagrams.
In the final Part 3, will look at Boeing’s alternative to an A321neoLR, a clean sheet New Single Aisle (NSA) and a prospective Small Twin Aisle (STA) design and how much such an approach would surpass the A321neoLR on medium and long haul networks and when it could be available.
Part 1–Boeing 757: An analysis of facts and myths
Subscription required.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Part 1 of 3
Introduction
The Boeing 757 was developed in the late 1970s as a replacement for Boeing’s popular 727 mid-range single aisle aircraft. Starting from the smaller 727, it ultimately grew to 180 to 230 seat capacity and US transcontinental range. With initial orders from Eastern Airlines and British Airways, the aircraft nonetheless had poor sales through most of the 1980s, picking up with a surge of orders in 1988-1990 when major deals were announced from American, Delta and United airlines.
Figure 1. Boeing 757-200 of launch customer Eastern Airlines.
Following the 1991 Persian Gulf War and recession, orders plunged until the mid-decade with a respectable resurgence. After 9/11, sales dried up and Boeing terminated the program.
Summary
- The 757 program had slow sales in its first decade, robust sales for a few years then declining sales through most of the 1990s.
- Sales were respectable in the late 1990s but dried up after 9/11.
- Boeing efforts to boost sales with the 757-300 were a failure–only 55 were sold. 757F sales were a moderate success.
- The 757-200 had strong engines for its time (especially the Rolls Royce equipped models), we dissect if this is still true.
- With the 757 being the only narrow-body with trans-Atlantic range, what is missing from today’s Airbus A321 and Boeing 737 MAX9 to make the cut? What can be done with small changes will be answered in part 2.
- How will a future clean sheet NSA perform compared to these three? How much of a game-changer will a clean sheet design be if it enters service 2025? We look at the answers in part 3.
Boeing 737 MAX 8 as a long and thin aircraft and how it fares in general versus Airbus A320neo.
Subscription required.
By Bjorn Fehrm
Introduction
Over the last weeks we have looked at Boeing’s 757 replacement possibilities on its long and thin network niche, including a ground breaking launch interview for the A321neoLR with Airbus Head of Strategy and
Marketing, Kiran Rao. In the series we have seen that the A321neo has the potential to replace the 757-200 on long and thin international routes. Boeing’s equivalent single aisle entry, 737 MAX 9, has problems to extend its range over 3,600nm. It is too limited in the weight increase necessary to cover the longer range.
Many have asked how the less- restricted Boeing 737 MAX 8 would fare, suitably equipped with the necessary extra tanks. This is the subject of this week’s sequel on the theme long and thin. At the same time we look at Airbus entry in this segment, the A320neo, to see how it stacks up to the 737 MAX 8, both in their normal 1,000 to 2,000nm operation and then also in a long and thin scenario.
Let’s first summarize what we found so far in our four articles around the Boeing 757 and its alternatives:
Summary
Figure 1. Boeing 737 MAX 8 overlaid with Airbus A320neo. Source: Leeham Co.
Read more
4 Comments
Posted on November 9, 2014 by Bjorn Fehrm
Airbus, Airlines, Boeing, CFM, GE Aviation, Leeham Co., Leeham News and Comment, Pratt & Whitney, Premium, Rolls-Royce
737, 737 MAX, 737NG, A320, A320NEO, Airbus, Boeing, CFM, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce