General Aviation Thread

[Sandhi Yudha]

Absolutely agree, Boeing truly clustered with the 737 MAX, a bridge (way too) far! That being said, both Airbus and Boeing had huge pressures with their widebody and military projects resulting in a less than idea response to the C-Series( ( now A220). Fortunately for the duopoly, Bombardier screwed up in not making their design larger and along with horrible management they weren’t really a threat but still managed to freak the duopoly out. The A321LR and XLR family will eat Boeing’s lunch for 10-20 years, they have no fiscal resources to counter IMO.

Boeing will keep trying to do it with the 737 MAX.

The Return to Service of the MAX
Update 3 Aug 2020
The FAA said it is proposing an AD requiring four key Boeing 737 MAX design changes.

They are:
- Update FCC software
- Revise MDS software to generate AOA DISAGREE alerts
- Revise certain flight-crew operating procedures and
- Change the routing of some wiring bundles.

The announcement is significant but there are still other major steps, including finalizing pilot-training procedures, that must be completed before the 737 MAX can resume flights. The public has 45 days to comment on the changes and it is still unclear if flights will resume before the end of 2020.

The FAA said in a separate 96-page report released on Monday that it “has preliminarily determined that Boeing’s proposed changes to the 737 MAX design, flightcrew procedures and maintenance procedures effectively mitigate the airplane-related safety issues” in the two fatal crashes. The report is available here: https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachments/737-MAX-RTS-Preliminary-Summary-v-1.pdf

Even if FAA definitive gives the green light, end this year or begin next year, it will take time for the DGCAs and airlines worldwide to process the modifications and certifications.

And even then, at the moment the requirement for airliners is at a historically low level.

 

[vonnoobie]

Boeing is really waisting time on MAX 10. Less range for just 10 extra seats over the 9 (or 11 in 2 class config). They have gone cheap on it by not enlarging wings, increasing engine power or let alone adding in more fuel tanks.

That said even a restart on the 757 wouldn't do them any good. Last one built was 16 years ago, it will need a major update to get the economics on par with A321XLR at which point you are looking at years of work. For a stand alone aircraft that would need a list price of $140 million each and an actual sale price around half of that (airlines generally get 50% discount) just not worth Boeing investing in it. They either need to enlarge wings and fuel tanks on MAX 10 or don't bother.

 

[swerve]

If Boeing are going to reopen the B757 line, then that will be the first decent decision that they have made in a while. It will be costly though.

I think developing the 787 was a good decision. Probably the last one. But production has been grossly mismanaged.

One of my wife's uncles was supposed to be a 787 pilot for ANA. He was on ANA's website for a while in front of a 787, during development - head of ANA's 787 flight team? Something like that. But the delay meant that by the time it entered company service he was too close to retirement from flying. IIRC he got to fly one during company acceptance before becoming desk-bound, but I'm not sure. Completely retired now.

 

[Ananda]

That said even a restart on the 757 wouldn't do them any good. Last one built was 16 years ago, it will need a major update to get the economics on par with A321XLR at which point you are looking at years of work.

If they restart 757 line it will not be 757 as it is now. It's more like MAX compared to 737 NG at least. The question is the time frame that they're going to have. A321LR/XLR is also another development from A320. 757 come from an era that's in more or less similar generation with A320.

Thus developing new Airliners based on 757 should be more appropriate compared continues development of 737.
However they are already stuck with 737 development, which they have to take at least a decade to recoup the Investment cost.

Question now is how to handle A321Neo/LR/XLR for the middle of the market, that Boeing does not have answer on their stable. In fact they don't have answer for A220 now, since their deal with Embrear falling out. E series actually Boeing hope for answering A220.

The talk on modifications of 767 to answers the need for middle of the market need, in my opinion is not really appropriate.
Talking to some industry players, they believe what the middle of the market need is large single aisle and not small double aisles airliner.

 

[John Fedup]

While having no love for bombardier how exactly did they screw up by not making the design larger? They where targeting a particular market segment in the 100-150 seat range with future room to grow or shrink the aircraft. Airbus has not changed the aircraft design, they have brought in their market power to lower costs from suppliers but overall bombardier designed and built a solid aircraft to fill a position that Boeing and Airbus only gave marginal attention. With a market of give or take 6,000 100-150 seat aircraft over 20 years it was a smart move by bombardier compared to making it larger and trying to compete directly with the 737 and A320. Can fault bombardier for many things but the business case and final product was on point.

The Bombardier market strategy 100-150 seats was always going to produce an aggressive response from the duopoly so starting off in the 150-200 range would have had a bigger market opportunity with the same risk. The CS-300 has outsold the CS-100 by a factor of 5. Hindsight is 20/20 but I do wonder how a CS-500 would have fared had oil prices not collapsed and if Bombardier had started the program earlier (P&W getting the GTF on time as well). The duopoly may have been forced into clean sheet designs which would arrive at the same time as COVID. There is also the USG’s response WRT tariffs. Would the government pressure the FAA to ease up on the MAX ban if a CS-500 started to take significant market share away from Boeing? All water under the bridge now.

 

[John Fedup]

Opening new line whether it's for completely new design or upgrade on existing design actually will not differ much. Both will be very costly.
However the advantage on opening new line based on improvement of existing design, will be more on time schedule.

Boeing facing both costs and time table to face Airbus A321 Neo/LR/XLR if they don't want to lose the market momentum. This COVID situation in my opinion can also be seen as blessing in disguise for Boeing. The market momentum on new procurement will be halt or reduce for few years. It should give bit time reprieve for Boeing to find something for 757 alternative.

The business model on city to city routes seems going to challenge much predicament of Mega Hub business model. I don't think city to city business model will completely change Mega Hub business model, but it will dampened the growth of Mega Hub.
There're the needs for long range single aisle for city to city thin routes business model.

6000km-8000+km or 4000-6000 miles is the range that Airbus A321 LR/XLR offering to take offer 757 market. That market in my opinion will be more open in the future between secondary cities throughout North America and Europe and even Asia Pacific.

Imagine using A330 Neo or 787 between say Adelaide to Chiang Mai or Surabaya to Bengalore. There will be no enough market for that. Using MAX8 or 320 Neo will be bit overstreatch. However using A321 LR/XLR can be provided for the size of market saying for twice or thrice a week schedules.

So, talking to some Travel agencies clients on my bank, they're also agree on the potential secondary cities routes. The Airlines seems agree also on that potential, and Boeing with Max 10 simply do not have products that can compete on all factors with A321 LR/XLR. They need 757 replacement and not overgrown and overstreatch 737.

Question now, will Boeing will be able to react fast ?

Add:
Talking on single aisles market, will be interesting to see how C919 and MC-21 acceptance with big market in North America, Europe, and As-Pac. Those two are new design and also being designed to take both China and Russia market from 737 and 320.

My personal opinion, MC-21 based on specs and since it's build using more composite then C919 will potentially more attractive between the two for non Russian users. However China do have more money to pump to give incentives to Airlines.

Yes, I agree COVID may give Boeing a window for their proposed NMA by reducing demand at the moment for A321XLR thus preserving the market for them. The question is do they have resources with all their current issues?

 

[John Fedup]

It looks to me as if Bombardier was aiming for a niche where A320 & B737 variants were sub-optimal shrunken versions of the standard aircraft, & standard A320s & B737s were a bit too big & expensive to operate. It thought there was an opportunity to grab that niche from under the noses of the big two.

And Airbus agreed, so when Boeing attacked Bombardier (presumably because it also agreed) & threatened to block it from the US market via the US courts & a Boeing-friendly US legislature, Airbus came to the rescue. The A220 provides a nice new design at the bottom end of a range which the A321LR/XLR are at the top of. I think it may also free up Airbus to replace the A320 with something slightly larger.

The reaction of Boeing suggests that the A220 scared it.

Yes, the A220 was and is a threat to Boeing and the Airbus acquisition is an even bigger threat. Add in the A321LR and XLR along with the MAX horror show, Airbus has to be feeling pretty good about their prospects. A long term COVID problem may mean the narrow body market will be more important than it already is.

 

[vonnoobie]

The Bombardier market strategy 100-150 seats was always going to produce an aggressive response from the duopoly so starting off in the 150-200 range would have had a bigger market opportunity with the same risk. The CS-300 has outsold the CS-100 by a factor of 5. Hindsight is 20/20 but I do wonder how a CS-500 would have fared had oil prices not collapsed and if Bombardier had started the program earlier (P&W getting the GTF on time as well). The duopoly may have been forced into clean sheet designs which would arrive at the same time as COVID. There is also the USG’s response WRT tariffs. Would the government pressure the FAA to ease up on the MAX ban if a CS-500 started to take significant market share away from Boeing? All water under the bridge now.

And that would have been poor business leadership if that had been the case. Boeing and Airbus are both firmly entrenched with the 737 and A320 with to the closest aircraft in category from Russia and China only getting as far as they have because of their respective governments. If Boeing and Airbus weren't investing into it then sure bombardier could have made a business case for it but that wasn't the case. Boeing and Airbus were investing into that segment. No business worth their salt will go into competition with two global powers for market that is their bread and butter. Bombardier was smart to invest into the 100 to 150 seat range because with the range of the aircraft it gives more airport options then the 737/A320. Their was nothing wrong with the business case, what they failed at was expanding in too many different things taking on too much debt.

 

[vonnoobie]

If they restart 757 line it will not be 757 as it is now. It's more like MAX compared to 737 NG at least. The question is the time frame that they're going to have. A321LR/XLR is also another development from A320. 757 come from an era that's in more or less similar generation with A320.

Thus developing new Airliners based on 757 should be more appropriate compared continues development of 737.
However they are already stuck with 737 development, which they have to take at least a decade to recoup the Investment cost.

Question now is how to handle A321Neo/LR/XLR for the middle of the market, that Boeing does not have answer on their stable. In fact they don't have answer for A220 now, since their deal with Embrear falling out. E series actually Boeing hope for answering A220.

The talk on modifications of 767 to answers the need for middle of the market need, in my opinion is not really appropriate.
Talking to some industry players, they believe what the middle of the market need is large single aisle and not small double aisles airliner.

Still comes down to economics. How much to update the 757? $1 billion? $2 billion? $3 billion? How many years will it take? 1, 2, 3, 4 or more? How many aircraft will they be able to sell? Maybe a few hundred? How much to restart the line? If is an aircraft that will have to be updated so much you will literally have only a bare fuselage and have to change everything else. Unless you can make use of existing production and common components say from the 787 or 737 lines maybe the 767 line then the finances just don't stack up. They will be spending billions and wasting years to maybe get a product that can compete by which time the A321lr/XLR will be firmly entrenched.

 

[John Fedup]

And that would have been poor business leadership if that had been the case. Boeing and Airbus are both firmly entrenched with the 737 and A320 with to the closest aircraft in category from Russia and China only getting as far as they have because of their respective governments. If Boeing and Airbus weren't investing into it then sure bombardier could have made a business case for it but that wasn't the case. Boeing and Airbus were investing into that segment. No business worth their salt will go into competition with two global powers for market that is their bread and butter. Bombardier was smart to invest into the 100 to 150 seat range because with the range of the aircraft it gives more airport options then the 737/A320. Their was nothing wrong with the business case, what they failed at was expanding in too many different things taking on too much debt.

I question Boeing’s investment in their bread and butter market. If oil prices had remained high or increased further, their revamped 737 was not a good investment, the design was simply too tired. Because of difficulties with the 787 roll out, Boeing took the cheap route as did Airbus due to their A400M and A350-900 issues. The MAX debacle was the end result. The A320 was a better candidate for upgrading. That being said, a CS-500 would still have been a viable threat to the A320neo and a 737 killer had fuel prices not collapsed.

 

[John Fedup]

Still comes down to economics. How much to update the 757? $1 billion? $2 billion? $3 billion? How many years will it take? 1, 2, 3, 4 or more? How many aircraft will they be able to sell? Maybe a few hundred? How much to restart the line? If is an aircraft that will have to be updated so much you will literally have only a bare fuselage and have to change everything else. Unless you can make use of existing production and common components say from the 787 or 737 lines maybe the 767 line then the finances just don't stack up. They will be spending billions and wasting years to maybe get a product that can compete by which time the A321lr/XLR will be firmly entrenched.

I agree, a clean sheet makes more sense. As Ananda mentioned previously, the COVID crisis is a possible reprieve for Boeing as airlines won’t make significant purchases of A321 LR and XLR until the crisis shows signs of ending but given Boeing’s cash bleed and Bombardier style management of late, the NMA is unlikely.

 

[Ananda]

How much to update the 757? $1 billion? $2 billion? $3 billion? How many years will it take? 1, 2, 3, 4 or more? How many aircraft will they be able to sell? Maybe a few hundred? How much to restart the line? If is an aircraft that will have to be updated so much you will literally have only a bare fuselage and have to change everything else. Unless you can make use of existing production and common components say from the 787 or 737 lines maybe the 767 line then the finances just don't stack up.

Whatever Boeing going to choose, it will cost them billions to catch up with Airbus in the middle of the market.

Boeing from several media post by them or from Industry Analyst comments in media seems have several choice for Middle of market:

1. Going with MAX 10. This Boeing initial strategy, however seems the market doesn't think so, with MAX10 order far Bellow A321Neo/LR/XLR as some Airlines begin to replace 757.

2. Build NMA as new design from scratch. This been talk for several years, but problem with MAX and the cost that come out has put this behind. This NMA/797 probably can be game changer for Boeing, but it will be the most time consuming. Many analyst even Boeing it self agree if they choose this, they must let this decade to Airbus, as it can only be ready to the market by end of decade.

3. Development on their existing design. This will fasten the time table by four years at least.

Seems this that the Analysts even from Boeing thinking on. The design they are talking are:
1. Reopen 757 line and modified it for more Economic,
2. Build 787-7, the so called regional dreamliners which once being talked by ANA for Japan regional markets.
3. Modified 767, reengined and modified Airframes for more Economics.

Those are choices that seems they think off, and whatever they are choosing it will cost them billions. Reopening production line or using existing line but with modified design will cost more or less the same. You will need new Jigs being developed, training on your people, and modifications on your tools for example on whatever choice you take.

Question will again back on how they are going to answer middle of the market. Are they going to see this segment will be significant enough?or just let Airbus take it with A321 Neo/LR/XLR.

This segment used to handle by 757. Boeing close 757 since they see this segment mostly on North America and Some Transatlantic routes. However as A321 Neo orders shown, this segment is developing to other regions. The business model of city to city relative thinner routes is increasing.

The way I see it, using 757 and now being replace by A321, shown this middle of market wants big single aisle with longer range and not double aisle airliner. Again something that Boeing lack at this moment as their current answer with Max10 seems less attractive.

 

[vonnoobie]

I question Boeing’s investment in their bread and butter market. If oil prices had remained high or increased further, their revamped 737 was not a good investment, the design was simply too tired. Because of difficulties with the 787 roll out, Boeing took the cheap route as did Airbus due to their A400M and A350-900 issues. The MAX debacle was the end result. The A320 was a better candidate for upgrading. That being said, a CS-500 would still have been a viable threat to the A320neo and a 737 killer had fuel prices not collapsed.

Don't get me wrong a CS-500 would have been a serious threat to Boeing and Airbus had bombardier developed it however it would also require more money behind it then what bombardier spent not just in the R&D but also keeping it afloat from the very likely strong competition from Boeing and Airbus. They didn't have the finances for such a risky proposition so they went with the niche market just below what they had. One that could have had them selling a dozen aircraft a month and generating hundreds of millions in profit once up and running with links worked out. From a purely business standpoint bombardier produced the best product they could with cash available and competition considered.

 

[vonnoobie]

When all said and done Boeing doesn't have the cash to spare, between MAX grounding and Covid 19 they need to play it safe rather then trying to risk it all for one particular market segment. They also need to scrap the MAX 10 because all they have done is exchange range for more seats. Few airlines will want to buy the lowest range MAX aircraft that will cost the most and requires them to fill more seats then say a MAX 8 or 9.

On an Airbus vs Boeing business standpoint Airbus wins. In first 6 months of 2020 Airbus delivered 196 aircraft, Boeing did 60. While the pandemic has hurt everyone Airbus has less debt and better cash flow giving them more options. Boeing has no options now other then to seriously cut spending. Their quickest and cheapest option to take on the LR/XLR would be to put in a centre fuel tank like Airbus did. failing that then give it a miss cause they just can't afford it. They need to improve margins on MAX and 787, and improve time takes to get money from customers as it has doubled in last 4/5 years to over 60 days.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

When all said and done Boeing doesn't have the cash to spare, between MAX grounding and Covid 19 they need to play it safe rather then trying to risk it all for one particular market segment. They also need to scrap the MAX 10 because all they have done is exchange range for more seats. Few airlines will want to buy the lowest range MAX aircraft that will cost the most and requires them to fill more seats then say a MAX 8 or 9.

On an Airbus vs Boeing business standpoint Airbus wins. In first 6 months of 2020 Airbus delivered 196 aircraft, Boeing did 60. While the pandemic has hurt everyone Airbus has less debt and better cash flow giving them more options. Boeing has no options now other then to seriously cut spending. Their quickest and cheapest option to take on the LR/XLR would be to put in a centre fuel tank like Airbus did. failing that then give it a miss cause they just can't afford it. They need to improve margins on MAX and 787, and improve time takes to get money from customers as it has doubled in last 4/5 years to over 60 days.

Im sorry, but all 737NGs and MAXes are already equipped with a center fuel tank.

 

[Takao]

Im sorry, but all 737NGs and MAXes are already equipped with a center fuel tank.

In fact... from Cutaway Thursday: Boeing 737-800, number 83

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

In fact... from Cutaway Thursday: Boeing 737-800, number 83
View attachment 47561

Exactly, the center tank is standard installed in all the 737NGs and MAXes.
Normally you can only put 7700 kg of fuel in main tank 1 and 2 combined, and 12.800-12.900 kg of fuel in the center tank.
So the 737 without centertank is unattractive to use. With only the main tanks a flight of Singapore-Jakarta will be already impossible!

 

[John Fedup]

I made my first flight last week since COVID started back in early March. It was a Toronto to Saskatoon direct flight, a little over 3 hours in a regional jet. No food/beverage service accept for water handed out upon boarding. Masks worn for the entire flight as well as in both terminals. I estimate the plane was 60% occupied.

I wonder what occupancy levels are on widebody jets these days? Boeing’s worst nightmare has to be airlines giving up on wide bodies should COVID depress passenger volumes making the A321XLR the best option. Will passengers be willing to pay for increased social distancing in widebody jets? For a 5 hour plus flight, I would have to say yes based on my recent experience. The question is how much? If it is too much then no flight, WebEx or Zoom.

 

[Ananda]

Wow..you already taking flight. I'm still avoiding flying. My company told us, any one who take a flight, will have to take 14 days self quarantine after flight using their own annual leave quota or if you don't have it anymore then you have to take that 14 days as unpaid leave.

This become standard for many companies in Indonesia, thus most people doesn't take flight unless it's on company business.

wonder what occupancy levels are on widebody jets these days?

I recently read that Singapore Airlines that has all wide body fleet can only filled around 40-60% capacity on each flight. At the meantime they only use 25% of their fleet. This I read in early June, perhaps conditions already more improve. I put SQ as example since it's one of most favorite airlines globally. Still I heard that most Asia Pacific airlines only can get around 30%-50% capacity on each flight. While in the same time only 20-40% of their fleet being used for passanger flight. Some of them now compensate passanger reduction with taking more cargo business.

The problem with wide bodies (double aisle) airliners is they need more people to fill that many Airlines better used their Narrow body (single aisles) for operation. With higher operating cost, unless it's flight of more than 6 hrs, it's preferable under present situation to used single aisle airliner.

 

[John Fedup]

I wanted to avoid the flight but I distribute products in Canada that normally have service support from the US which isn’t possible at the moment. My US colleague who would normally perform the work actually drove from New Jersey to Missouri to perform service work, almost as far as my trip. Confirmation, to me at least, things are not well down south.

Any guess as to what price an airline would need to charge for a seat with reasonable social distancing in a widebody, twice, triple? Would cargo separation between seats be a viable way to keep passenger seat prices lower?