Airbus A320 vs. Boeing 737
November 25th, 2009
Airbus A320 Aims To Bridge Gap With 737
No 737/CFM56-7BE Technology For A320
One of the key news items at the Dubai Air Show was that of Airbus announcing that “sharklets” or winglets would be available on the A320 family from late 2012.
It marks a major step for the A320 family, having already tested previous winglet designs in two test phases before settling on the sharklet to improve fuel burn and increase operational efficiency. A breadwinner for Airbus, the A320 family has an installed base of circa 4000 jets in operation with over 2400* in the backlog yet to be delivered. The growth opportunities are clear as day for all to see.
“Offered as a forward-fit option, Sharklets are expected to result in at least 3.5 percent reduced fuelburn over longer sectors, corresponding to an annual CO2 reduction of around 700 tonnes per aircraft. The A320 will be the first model fitted with Sharklets, which will be delivered around the end of 2012, to be followed by the other A320 Family models from 2013,“ says Airbus.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Likewise, Boeing had around 2100** unfilled 737 orders and has had the winglet on that family since the turn of the decade. Boeing states that the 737 winglets can reduce fuel burn by up to 4% on missions over 1000nm.
As with many (if not all) air shows, the emphasis is on marketing. Given that the Dubai Air Show 2009 was in itself a much quieter event in all realms of business activity, the marketing teams at Airbus and Boeing certainly had great opportunities to pitch their products.
The interesting point about the new A320 winglet is that Airbus will not be able to be retrofit these to the existing fleet, given that the wingbox and outer wing require additional weight and strengthening to fit the new feature.
Image courtesy of Airbus
Trade studies are underway to see if it can be worked, but at present is an optional feature for newly ordered A320 variants. Previous winglet designs proved too heavy and didn’t provide enough calculable fuel burn benefits to warrant investment.
Crucially, the winglets on the 737 are available to retrofit on existing 737 Classics too, itself another sizeable global fleet and will certainly mean that longevity in the A320 world fleet will be disadvantaged.
The gap between the fuel burn dynamics on the A320 and 737 families will likely widen by 2011 with the introduction of the CFM56-7BE engine (formally known as the Evolution) which aims to deliver up to 2% fuel consumption improvement (with aerodynamic changes). CFM is also using the CFM56-7BE platform to target further efficiencies with PIP upgrades with a view to attaining a 2% or more cut in fuel burn from the engine alone, however it has no plans to offer the same on the A320 engines as of yet.
“Continuous innovation is a mantra for the Next-Generation 737 program. Whether we’re improving our tools and processes or our airplanes for our airlines, operators and owners, we continually strive to take it to the next level. We categorize innovation in three areas, improving performance, comfort and navigation.
We began this process just a few years after we introduced the Next-Generation 737 family with innovations such as blended winglets, Head-up display, GPS landing system and the Electronic Flight Bag, CFM’s Tech Insertion and carbon brakes — to name a few — and we’re continuing well into the future. This year, we introduced the 737 Boeing Sky Interior for delivery in late 2010 and a package of airframe and engine performance improvements to reduce fuel consumption by two percent by 2011,” says Boeing spokeswoman Vicki Ray.
Of course there’s an argument to be made that sole source operators of each family in low cost airlines, as well as mixed family operators like Turkish Airlines, for example, see a huge benefit to the both the A320 and 737 families - mission specific requirements mean that there’s very little to separate the two families.
In his briefing last week, Boeing’s VP Marketing, Randy Tinseth remarked about the A320 winglet by asking “why has it taken Airbus so long [to develop these winglets]?”
He has a salient point - one that, in part refers back to the decision Boeing undertook the decision to redesign the 737 wing for the Next Generation family in late 1993 that allowed for growth, increased operating weights and aerodynamic design enhancements, such as winglets.
Image courtesy of Aviation Partners Boeing
To date, the A320 has not had the benefit of an updated wing and has been part of the reason why, until the Dubai announcement, Airbus had difficulty in closing the business case and viability of the application on the A320 family.
With Airbus equally hesitant about committing to the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine, the new winglets will certainly close the gap on the 737 family in terms of fuel burn and performance. The GTF has yet to demonstrate tangible benefits that Pratt & Whitney claim that can be achieved and after the difficulties faced with the PW6000 on the A318, Airbus is prudently not rushing to re-engine its best-selling airplane just yet.
Recent musings of Airbus wanting engine maker IAE to also step into the foray points to the company not being happy to run with a sole powerplant on its narrowbody family, although by the same token, this method hasn’t stifled 737 sales.
But with the two key models, the A320 and 737-800 with the biggest backlogs, Airbus has yet to make a move to addressing the engine performance improvements that the 737 will soon enjoy. With the 737-800 topping the investor’s poll at Air Finance Journal since 2003 as well as being able to fly faster with better operating costs and lower fuel burn, the A320 will have to make more of a splash between now and whenever its successor arrives if it aims to bridge the gap.
The sharklets are a step in the right direction, but one that was overdue and bizarrely isolates existing operators.
*As at October 31, 2009 based on information at Airbus.com
**As at October 2009 based on information at Boeing.com
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A318, Airbus A319, Airbus A320, Airbus A321, Boeing, Boeing 737-700, Boeing 737-800, Boeing 737-900ER, Boeing 737NG, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, EADS, John Leahy, Randy Tinseth
59 Comments Add your own
1. don shuper | November 25th, 2009 at 18:55
Interesting - Boeings version of the winglet story, while factual re dates and efficiencies, leaves out a lot of the real background. Part revisionist history
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_03_1.html
The reason winglets first appeared on the BBJ was simple. It served to visualy identify the private version of the 737 when compared to the commercial versions at that time ( 2001 )
Eventually, the winglets became the salvation of a few BA executives who managed to garbage up the then new wing for the 737, spending bucu millions for near zip improvement. Those executives tried very hard to use the MDC ‘ wedge’ to get an improvement, and failed. The wedge was A DC-10/11 ‘ improvement ‘ on a poorly designed wing to try to get it to meet range/payload guarantees. While it helped, it was not enough, so MDC/Boeing had to pay for several empty seats on those models flights that were used at near max range.
There are some other, not so obvious benefits for the aeropartners winglets as compared to the NACA/NASA versions used by Airbus besides weight to performance issues.
By controlling/REDUCING the trailing vorticies which can cause turbulence, especially during approach/landing, following aircraft *** COULD *** could have less separation, increasing airport thruput.
Especially with large aircraft.
Someday, someone, probably from the Aeropartners staff may decide to write up the whole story, including the internal battles within Boeing.
2. Aurora | November 25th, 2009 at 19:29
So if the A320 wing requires reinforcement during manufacture, how much weight will that add? How will this additional weight impact the projected fuel savings from the winglets?
Presumably future A320 sharklet customers will get a written guarantee, based on full passenger loads?
Pity about the inability to retrofit. Will that impact (adversely) the resale value of those aircraft?
3. Edd | November 25th, 2009 at 19:39
Boeing is the company that is playing catchup, Airbus, and the A320 have had ‘wingtip fences’ (A type of winglet) from the 22nd A320.
It also means that the improvement from adding winglets to the A320 (3.5%) is not as great as on the 737 (4-7% (depending who you believe)),which had no wingtip devices.
4. Mike M | November 25th, 2009 at 20:36
>>>Boeing is the company that is playing catchup
And you base this on?
Just because the A320 had wing tip fences does not mean it was better.
When Boeing did the 737NG, the new wing allowed for growth. Airbus instead spent money on the A340 family and the A380. Stunning sellers they’ve turned out to be!
The newer 737 wing allowed the introduction of further fuel saving through the winglets. The A320 wing is almost 30 years old, the 737NG is just over 10 years old.
Doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out which aerofoil is more efficient, especially when the 737 has much greater range and payload than comparable A319/320/321’s.
(FYI, I didnt include the 736 or 318 as they’re both poor airplanes and I dont have data on them).
5. Edd | November 25th, 2009 at 21:08
>>>Boeing is the company that is playing catchup
And you base this on?
The fact that Airbus had wingtip devices fitted to their aircraft long before the 737….. Did at any point I say it was ‘better’? Don’t misquote me!
>>>Airbus instead spent money on the A340 family and the A380. Stunning sellers they’ve turned out to be
You kindly left out the fact that the A340 ‘family’ includes the A330, which has sold well over 1,000….so yes, quite a good seller!
And isn’t the A320 outselling the 737 at the moment?
>>the 737 has MUCH GREATER range and payload than comparable A319/320/321’s (capitalization my own)
Not quite;
737-900 (215 passengers), range fully loaded: 2,700nm
A321 (220Passengers), range fully loaded: 3,000nm
737-800 (189 passengers), range fully loaded 3,060nm
A320-200 (180 passengers), range fully loaded 3,200nm
6. Paulo M | November 25th, 2009 at 21:34
This is a fascinating topic. Well, first of all, the 737 NG is by far the better looking one. As the Boeing print ad says - “It doesn’t break the Laws of physics, but it does bend them rather beautifully.” Boeing certainly has done amazing work on the 737.
Back to business, here’s a really nice Boeing Aero Magazine link explaining the blended winglets on the 737s models - retrofit on 737NGs, 737 Classics and fitting to new build 737NGs, great findings on weight and aerodynamic effects. Airbus might find this interesting.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_17/winglets.pdf
7. Aurora | November 25th, 2009 at 22:11
No one wants to touch the subject of the impact on the existing A320 fleet? What will happen to the resale value if they can’t retrofit the winglets?
8. B380 | November 25th, 2009 at 23:05
As usual, ‘Airbus is playing catch up… blah, blah, blah’. The only descent thing in this ‘article’ is a picture of the 737 with a nice wing flex in 1g flight. Love that.
Completely agree with Paulo M, it is a very interesting topic. However the one about the 737RS and the A30X is even more so!
Well, let’s start from the beginning. Why was NG conceived in the first place? Yep, the 737 series at the time was simply uncompetitive and during the new development, Boeing had to be persuaded to put the winglets on by Aviation Partners CEO Joe Clark.
Other elements of the article:
‘Previous winglet designs proved too heavy’
No. The loads transferred into the wing were higher than what the structure was capable of handling.
‘Airbus will not be able to be retrofit these to the existing fleet’
Airbus clearly said that they are working on a solution to put the AP winglets onto the existing aircraft.
http://www..flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2009/11/breaking-airbus-selects-wingle.html
‘The gap between the fuel burn dynamics on the A320 and 737 families will likely widen by 2011′
Do you think Airbus will stand idly by? They said that they are working with CFM on improvements.
‘Airbus has yet to make a move to addressing the engine performance improvements’
Incorrect. This link illustrates well the improvements sought by Airbus, including on the engine side.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/aw051809p3.xml
‘Previous winglet designs proved too heavy and didn’t provide enough calculable fuel burn benefits to warrant investment.’
No, again. What Airbus came across was the limitation of the structure. The aircraft grew in capability from the original EIS aircraft, where the MTOW went from 66T to 78T. Putting winglets, with the necessary reinforcements, on the aircraft completely cancelled the fuel burn advantage. So what you ended up with is having a cool looking A320 at no extra cost or benefit!
So this Airbus announcement has to be viewed as an improvement *package*, where winglets are part of it. They are doing weight saving studies, aerodynamic improvements, EFCS improvement, winglets and, yes, a new engine. There will be a new engine on the A32X.
2. Aurora | November 25th, 2009 at 19:29
‘how much weight will that add?’
200kg, which will be taken out during the weight saving exercise. They are aiming fro weight neutral solution.
6. Paulo M | November 25th, 2009 at 21:34
‘Airbus might find this interesting.’
With the experience they had of testing all sorts of different winglets, they have plenty of their own knowledge.
9. Edd | November 25th, 2009 at 23:40
“What will happen to the resale value if they can’t retrofit the winglets?”
I guess that depends on many things, such as the price of fuel,
Would be interesting to compare just how many 737 ‘classic’ (non winglet) aircraft get retrofitted.
Other major point…what routes are the aircraft flying?
From what I understand, you only gain on routes 1.5-3hrs or longer (depending on the aircraft, price of fuel etc), eg, JAL do not fit winglets to their 744’s for domestic routes as the weight penalty was too much.
Interestingly, when South African Airlines ordered winglet-equipped Boeing 737-800s, they stated that the ‘winglets allow the 737 to outperform the rival Airbus A320 on long flights’. (i.e the wingtip fenced A320 had better performance than the 737NG without winglets), will this revert with Wingletted A320’s?
10. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | November 25th, 2009 at 23:51
B380, if you’re going to quote me, do it wholly or not at all. Your selective citation is disingenuous.
I clearly wrote below, which you conveniently omitted:
Where was this implied, tacitly or otherwise?
Yes, Airbus is talking with CFM about engine improvements, but the changes marked for the CFM 56-7BE are not being earmarked for the A320 at present.
Er, no, not really.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/12/17/320252/pictures-a320-begins-flight-tests-with-aviation-partners-winglets.html
And yes, I agree with you that the 737 Classic was indeed inferior to the A320 family, hence the Next Generation 737 was launched.
This is not the case today, however.
11. Edd | November 26th, 2009 at 00:04
I would question the author of this articles use of some of their references, one, “investor’s poll at Air Finance Journal since 2003 as well as being able to ‘fly faster’ with better operating”
is from GOL (link below), claims a “12% faster cruise than its nearest rival”…., which, based on Boeings own ‘typical cruise’ figures, would make it cruise faster than their stated ‘max speed’
http://www.voegol.com.br/int/Gol/AboutUs/Paginas/Fleet.aspx
P.S. The reinforcement is not so much about the weight of the winglet, but the bending moment created by the winglets from the vortices.
12. Mike M | November 26th, 2009 at 01:41
>>>Edd
The data I have stored from Airbus and Boeing is as follows and is based on typical 2-class seating:
737-700 : 126pax @ 3380nm/6255km
A319 : 126pax @ 3050nm/5660km
737-800 : 162pax @ 3065nm/5675km
A320 : 150pax @ 2805nm/5195km
737-900ER : 180pax @ 2795nm/5175km
A321 : 183pax @ 2280nm/4225km
All the figures are from Airbus and Boeing based on typical mission rules on a two class seating arrangement(s). The reason why the 737-900ER features is because the standard 737-900 is no longer in production or on sale. As I said previously, I dont have figures for the A318 or 737-600.
You will probably be aware, Airbus kicked up a stink over the 737 grandfather rights issue during certification and thats why the A320 carries less passengers in a dual-layout than the 737-800.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1995/07/05/21773/boeing-wins-first-round-of-jaa-certification-row-over-new.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1995/08/30/21332/airbus-chief-attacks-jaa-on-grandfather-rights.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/07/09/10558/boeing-seating-proposal-for-new-737-satisfies-jaa.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/05/14/2932/boeing-hopes-for-737-seating-agreement.html
By the way, the A330 and A340 may have been developed together etc, but they have two separate families and have separate orders. An A330 order is not an A340 order, or vice versa.
So on their own the A340 family, along with the A380 have been not-so-stellar-sellers.
13. robert | November 26th, 2009 at 02:03
Both siides say thier narrow body is more efficient. Is there an un-biased report out there somewhere which could verify who really has the more effiecient airplane?
I know tha a320’s main selling points when it first emerged was it’s modern design, wider cabin, fly by wire and better efficiency than the classic 737. The NG 737 claims to have re-gainedt he efficiency title. In regards to the CFM engines that both airbus and boeing use cant these improvements be introduced accross the product line for GE’s narrow body engines. Afterall aren’t the airbus CFM’s just slightly differnt than the ones boeing uses? I.E. the same family of engines??
14. James | November 26th, 2009 at 06:08
Is it safe to assume A320’s are sold on price and 737’s on performance?
Why else would Air New Zealand be dumb enough to take more A320’s when the French have not yet explained why the A320 crashed almost a year ago off the coast in France??
Granted, the A320 was the bigger incumbent at the airline, but the whole “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine” philosophy employed by Europe cant last forever.
15. B380 | November 26th, 2009 at 07:31
10. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | November 25th, 2009 at 23:51
I clearly wrote below, which you conveniently omitted:
“Trade studies are underway to see if it can be worked, but at present is an optional feature for newly ordered A320 variants.”
You are clearly referring to the Airbus shaklet, but Airbus is working with AP to retrofit the existing fleet. So it looks like there will be two different winglets in service.
‘Where was this implied, tacitly or otherwise?
Yes, Airbus is talking with CFM about engine improvements, but the changes marked for the CFM 56-7BE are not being earmarked for the A320 at present.’
You implied this by the fact that you didn’t seem to mention that they are talking at all! As Airbus said, not all but some of the technology will be transferable.
Add to that IAE V2500 SelectOne programme and further improvements, which apparently is not important to mention.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/18/328465/iae-studies-further-v2500-upgrades.html
‘Er, no, not really.’
What I said is exactly the same.
‘Airbus could not find sufficient improvement to offset the weight increase caused by the strengthening required’ due to the limitations of the structure. Now Airbus moved away from the mentality of just slapping the winglets on and (after years of dithering) went for an improvement package, which winglets are part of.
16. engineer | November 26th, 2009 at 08:00
James you are right on the money there. 50% discount is what AIRNZ got, and a rather large undisclosed amount of money from airbus to fix corrosion on the rear spar which has now fizzed around the countersunk fasteners in the wing involving 4000 hours on average per plane!
17. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | November 26th, 2009 at 08:16
B380
Not according to John Leahy’s press briefing. Unless you have something contrary to that?
The have been talking for months, its widely known. Not mentioning does not mean it was ignored. That was your assumption, not mine
…except that there is a difference. What you said was, in post number 8:
According to the link I gave, it was to do with the fact the weight increase was not being offset by performance gains. There is no limitation with the wing per se, just that the strengthening required and added weight meant it wasn’t worth adding winglets (at that time). If there was a physical limitation to adding winglets, no amount of strengthening, with or without weight being added would have made winglets possible hence why they were never introduced until the Dubai Air Show.
18. Vero Venia | November 26th, 2009 at 08:20
Several posts in my blog are related to the short range market, some others are on the long range market. Of course those posts are only my very personal opinion but I think there is some truth in there.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/not-so-strategic-part-1/
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/not-so-strategic-part-2/
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/not-so-strategic-part-3/
Usually, a short range aircraft’s mission capability is not very crucial compared to long range aircraft. Per seat fuel burn difference of two or three percent between two competing short-range products is not dramatic either.
In my humble opinion, other aspects of a short range aircraft, like the reliability and maintainability, are important points. Some airlines put pricing high in the list (or financing arrangement).
I’m not saying that you need to disregard fuel efficiency or range capability when you’re choosing a short range aircraft. But in general those aspects are not a show-stopper.
It is important for the manufacturers to improve their products constantly. Both Boeing and Airbus do this on the A320 and the 737. But these improvements must not distract you from the fact that both aircraft families (737NG and A320) entered into service in the late 80’s or early 90’s. They’re both very old.
As I mentioned in the “Not So Strategic (part 1)”, putting only a new engine on the A320 will require more negotiation skill than engineering skill. It is almost sure that CFM will improve its engines for the 737. There is not any doubt on it. I’m talking about an engine beyond the CFM56-7BE. Boeing will be delighted to accept a much better CFM engines for its 737.
Now, the situation is a little bit tricky for the A320. If CFM proposes to implement the same level of improvement on its A320 engines as the one on the 737, IAE has to do something. Airbus can’t let two engines types on its A320 that have a big difference in efficiency. That’s a very funny situation where a possible improvement is blocked by the worse engine type. It’s a leveling by the worse.
In other words, if CFM improves its A320 engines, IAE must offer the same improvement. But is IAE prepared to do that knowing that it is a consortium and that PW is part the consortium?
If Airbus introduces a new and much better P&W engines on its A320, they will face a very interesting contractual and legal battle against both CFM and IAE.
Interesting, isn’t it?
19. edo | November 26th, 2009 at 08:36
#16
Wow ! That’s crazy! 50% off?!?! That corrosion issue doesn’t sound too good either.
Actually, both are quite serious and it would be nice to see a link.
20. Voluntary Simplicity &laq&hellip | November 26th, 2009 at 09:30
[...] 25, 2009 at 8:52 am (opinion) Tags: aviation, long range, opinion (Note: brown characters like this is a clickable [...]
21. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 26th, 2009 at 09:38
8. B380 | November 25th, 2009 at 23:05
With the experience they had testing all sorts of different winglets, they have plenty of their own knowledge.
Yes Boss, sorry. There was a European Union / Europian Commission research drive on winglets (as in raked wingtips, which first appeared commercially on the Boeing 767-400 - or non-planar wingtips) some time around 1999-2001 of which Airbus/EADS was the main (or only) benefactor. I’ll provide a link and names later today - I can’t find anything on my phone right now.
Just so I’m not only implicating the EU research / subsidy; NASA, at Langely, conducted winglet research with Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed in 1979-1980.
22. Edd | November 26th, 2009 at 10:06
Mike,
The figures for Airbus for their product seem different to those quoted by yourself
http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/a320/a319/specifications/
You state typical two class layout for the A319 of 126, Airbus state 120, you state range as 3050nm, Airbus state 3,700nm (with max passengers, which is 156ppl!). The A318 performance can quite easily be found on their website!
Well, simply put, the A330 outsold its Boeing Competitor, the 767, and the A380 is outselling its Boeing Competitor, the 748
23. Leelaw | November 26th, 2009 at 12:31
How does the “Sharklet” compare with the “A320 Enhanced” Mr. Leahy was touting back in 2006?
See: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/06/20/207273/pictures-airbus-aims-to-thwart-boeings-narrowbody-plans-with-upgraded-a320.html
24. Buster | November 26th, 2009 at 12:44
16. Vero Venia | November 26th, 2009 at 08:20
If Airbus introduces a new and much better P&W engines on its A320, they will face a very interesting contractual and legal battle against both CFM and IAE.
Which is why Leahy said Airbus was only interested in a GTF for the A320 if it came through IAE.
25. Buster | November 26th, 2009 at 12:46
17. edo | November 26th, 2009 at 08:36
Actually, both are quite serious and it would be nice to see a link.
I’m not holding my breath for that!
26. James | November 26th, 2009 at 14:47
Engineer (16)
Thanks for the insight. Just as is widely suspected when it comes to selling A320’s.
27. Vero Venia | November 26th, 2009 at 14:47
24. Buster | November 26th, 2009 at 12:44
Yep, that’s what I wrote in “Not So Strategic (part 1)” back in September. Taking the GTF directly from P&W is not an easy game.
http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/not-so-strategic-part-1/
28. engineer | November 26th, 2009 at 19:24
Edo,
Here is a link that leads to the site which shall tell you about the 50% discount at list price.
http://www.nzx.com/home/3033420/Air-NZ-clinched-half-price-Airbus-deal
The information on corrosion is what I read in the internal magazine that was made available to me briefly by someone who works there.
29. Buster | November 26th, 2009 at 20:11
28. engineer | November 26th, 2009 at 19:24
Here is a link that leads to the site which shall tell you about the 50% discount at list price.
More correctly, it’s a link to a news story reporting that an analyst is speculating that Air New Zeland MAY have got a 50% discount.
Wouldn’t stand up in a court of law, but here it’s more than enough to declare Airbus guilty.
30. Paulo M | November 26th, 2009 at 20:20
21. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 26th, 2009 at 09:38
Here’s the link for European Union winglet research. The site deals with European Union research into more efficient transportation of all modes within Europe.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/transport_modes/aeronautics_en.cfm
The company involved in design to manufacturing in the €80 million AWIATOR programme is GKN Aerospace Services - according to a local magazine (February 2004 - Sorry) here. Its work was to be tested on an Airbus A340.
This local magazine says that the research work was 50% funded by the European Union “as part of its work towards two significant targets: to address environment issues across Europe; and separately to increase European competitiveness in the aerospace sector.”
31. James | November 26th, 2009 at 20:39
Buster, the analysts are just speculating, but given the deals that Airbus has done in the past, such as with easyjet, its not completely out of the realm that a ballpark 50% was indeed agreed, or thereabouts.
It has nothing to do with Airbus being guilty on this or any other site. Thats just your opinion - just as editorials on this site has its opinion.
We’re all free to agree to disagree - thats the spirit of discussions
32. B380 | November 26th, 2009 at 21:42
17. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | November 26th, 2009 at 08:16
“Unless you have something contrary to that?”
I provided the link in my original post, from somebody who also claims to have been at the press conference.
“Not mentioning does not mean it was ignored.”
And mentioning it ensures that you present an unbiased and balanced article…
“There is no limitation with the wing per se”
There was limitation! Slapping a winglet on a wing, automatically increases your wing root bending moment by 3-4%, where the wingtip is not capable of transferring those loads into the wing. Hence the reinforcements and so on. Not being able to cancel the weight increase due to the strengthening, with a fuel burn improvement is a symptom of the wing structure limits.
33. don shuper | November 26th, 2009 at 23:30
Re the 50 percent discount- An analysis I MADE 8 YEARS ago http://home.att.net/~dshuper/CVDanalysisRDX.pdf go to page 5
shows that at that time ( data from year 2000 ) a typical A320 had an avg list price of $51 million ( page one shows where I got that data ( Airbus- actually via a phonecon to Airbus in france )
But a sales price then of $38 million- a typical discount of 24%. My point then as now is/was that even at that time, they were dependent on subsidies, sine labor and material costs were relative to U.S somewhat higher.
see http://home.att.net/~dshuper/CVDPOSIT.html
The L&PA Committee has made the following observations which lead to our belief that Airbus, through a variety of methods, is effectively selling their products below cost. Raw material, engines, avionics, landing gear, and similar parts cost the same for Boeing and Airbus. Assembly techniques, automation, certification, process controls, and computer-aided design techniques are essentially the same, and have no inherent cost differences. Additionally, labor costs are higher for EU countries, with differences from 15% higher in 1995 to about 5% in 1998. Finally, the EADS annual report shows that for the year 2000, Airbus’ share of EADS net consolidated profit was zero.
We then compared the published selling prices of Boeing and Airbus commercial airplanes from 1998 - 2000, omitting figures for the Boeing 747. For 1999, the average cost of all airplanes sold by Boeing was $59 million per plane, whereas the average cost for Airbus was $46.4 million per plane. We then compared two comparable models of aircraft, the A320 and the 737-800. Figures reflected an average 737-800 costing (conservatively) about 10% more than the A320.
Therefore, how can Airbus, with equal material and subassembly costs, higher labor costs and arguably lower productivity, and admittedly zero profits, still undercut Boeing prices by at least 10 percent? Our determination is that Airbus is selling most, if not all aircraft models into the U.S. at 10 25% below cost. Note: this does not include special lease, financial, or maintenance agreements, which even further harm our workers. . . .
see also http://home.att.net/~dshuper/ABOUTCVD.html and
http://home.att.net/~dshuper/CVDMOTION.html
So IF the 50 percent deal is factual, the ONLY way Airbus can offer that amount of discount is ample proof of subsidy ABOVE the Gatt92 allowables.
Its the ‘ we lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume ‘ method of maintaining the prime directive of the EADS/Airbus consortium - which is that Joe Biden “3 letter ” word - - - JOBS JOBS JOBS !
34. Ritter Kunibert | November 26th, 2009 at 23:40
Re 50% discounts…that’s what Stelios got for Easyjet’s A319s. Do you think Michael O’Leary accepted any less favourable discount for Ryanair’s 737-800s? Nah…
35. keesje | November 27th, 2009 at 00:43
“With Airbus equally hesitant about committing to the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine, the new winglets will certainly close the gap on the 737 family in terms of fuel burn and performance.”
That is your personal opinion. The A320 outsels & outproduces the 737, & new operators prefer it for some time now. That’s not an opinion.
It already has a nicer cabin, is quiter and has container / pallet capability, it recently got new interiors, now winglets, soon engines with higher BPR. Boeing has a situation & they know it.
36. Mike M | November 27th, 2009 at 01:37
>>>Re, GTF hesitant, “That is your personal opinion”
Well, its fact, because if the PW engine was as good as they claim, why hasnt Airbus selected it?
Its a piece of shit engine that will be skipped when Airbus and Boeing both go for the superior Leap-X engine for their replacement narrowbodies.
>>>The A320 outsels & outproduces the 737
…but makes less money.
>>>It already has a nicer cabin, is quiter and has container / pallet capability, it recently got new interiors, now winglets, soon engines with higher BPR.
The 737 will have a new 787 style interior, already has winglets and will have the CFM 56-7 Evo engine which the A32x will NOT.
Thats FACT, not opinion.
Airbus is in a situation and they know it - so do the 4000~ existing A32x’s in operation that will probably never get winglets because Airbus will not be able to retrofit them.
37. Aotearoa | November 27th, 2009 at 01:55
I was very surprised NZ went for more of the 320’s as my Air New Zealand contacts told me a similar story to “engineer” with quality a big issue. (the corrosion issue relating to mating two incompatible metals together, but one example).
When NZ topped up ther 733 fleet wit a couple of used examples from overseas, I thought then, that the writing was on the wall for the 320 at NZ.
To see them stump up with more 320s, in my mind, is totally related to the purchase price, especially bearing mind how the employees (not the bean counters mind) feel about the relative merits of each craft (including the larger Boeings as well) in service.
The lost aircraft back in France is another story completely.
38. FleetBuzz Editorial.com | November 27th, 2009 at 03:38
Nope. I have evidence to support the point made about fuel burn disparity between the A320 & 737 families based on data from a number major operators across a spectrum is missions, profiles, routings and seating configurations.
As it’s proprietary, I am unable to share. Sorry.
39. don shuper | November 27th, 2009 at 05:20
re NZ and airbus - it could also be that they are at the end of a very long delivery schedule for 737, and simply could not afford to wait about 3 years or so . .
at an estimated rate of about 1 per work day - or 20 /month ( have not looked up most current rate ) and about 1000 yet to be delivered, that means somewhere around 50 months before deliver of the first to NZ unless they bump someone or some cancellations ..
40. Aotearoa | November 27th, 2009 at 06:43
Don, wouldn’t that be the same with the ‘bus as they have at least the same level of backlog I think?
41. Vero Venia | November 27th, 2009 at 08:09
Check 737 backlog here:
http://tinyurl.com/Boeing-Backlog
42. Buster | November 27th, 2009 at 23:26
40. Aotearoa | November 27th, 2009 at 06:43
As at end October, the backlogs are:
A32X - 2,368
737 - 2,101
43. Aotearoa | November 28th, 2009 at 02:30
Thanks Buster for the update even though I do not support your comments in your earlier posts.
If it would take such a long time for NZ (or any other Airline for that matter) to aquire 73’s, then I can only duduce that Airbus produce 320s faster. That must be why the Airbii aren’t as good (wink)
44. don shuper | November 28th, 2009 at 05:58
re backlog - thank you for the data link
I believe the 737 rate is about one/day
If airbus rate is faster, then their time **MIGHT** be shorter. Does anyone have credible rate info for BA and Airbust ?
45. Vero Venia | November 28th, 2009 at 12:01
44. don shuper | November 28th, 2009 at 05:58
In 2007, Boeing declined to increase the 737 production rate despite the pressure to produce more at that time. In 2008 there was a 58 day production stoppage due to strike at Boeing.
The facts above are mention in the following blog entry
http://wp.me/piMZI-7c
46. Skywalker | November 28th, 2009 at 13:56
It’s Boeing that is playing catch-up. If Airbus had more capacity to produce A320-series Boeing would not sell many 737’s at all.
47. Aotearoa | November 29th, 2009 at 03:46
Do you actually believe that drivel Skywalker?
48. USAF Fan | November 29th, 2009 at 10:57
Skywalker, can you please explain how exactly Boeing is playing catch-up?
49. Dave_BC | November 29th, 2009 at 14:37
>> So IF the 50 percent deal is factual, the ONLY way Airbus can offer that amount of discount is ample proof of subsidy ABOVE the Gatt92 allowables.
<<
So Don, you have a short memory. Have you already forgotten that following O’Leary ‘raping’ of Boeing in 2002 (to get a below-cost deal for 737s — much lower that Airbus was prepared to go), when asked, Boeing said they ‘enjoyed’ it.
50. Dave_BC | November 29th, 2009 at 16:20
A few general comments:
I don’t think Airbus is playing catch-up at all. In fact, there is nothing that Boeing has done (as per Boeing’s quote in the article) that Airbus hadn’t done already.
Let’s see:
~ New interior? Done already. (Current production A320 family already come with updated cabin interior & bigger overhead bins, LED lighting, new passenger service unit, etc. for new build and now available for retrofit. (and let us also not forget that the Airbus cabin is WIDER – Boeing cannot do anything to improve the 737 in this regard);
~ Carbon brakes? Done already. A320 has had these “SepCarb” brakes for quite some time;
~ EFB options? Airbus already offers these (Class 2 etc.);
~ Engine improvements? CFM56 Tech-Insertion/ V2500 Select’ already delivered for A320 Family. Moreover, anything CFMI does to improve the CFM56-7 (Boeing) can (and is) easily done to CFM56-5 (Airbus). Note that the reverse is not necessarily the case, because of the smaller fan diameter constraint on the Boeing 737 application due to small nacelle ground clearance compared of the 737.
~ Precision navigation? A320 already flying with RNP-AR/0.3 precision – e.g. ANZ etc.,);
~ Head-Up Display? Thales already offers HUD for A320 family,.
Also to note that A320 operators will also benefit from: extended maintenance intervals; the one tonne extra takeoff weight; new upper belly-fairing drag reduction etc. etc. etc. . .
And I’d not even mentioned (up till now) the additional 3.5% efficiency improvement that the Sharklets will bring . . .
51. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 29th, 2009 at 19:50
What’s the level of competition - about a 47/53 percentage split? Just over 2.00 basis points to Airbus. From commentary, it appears that Boeing has a slight economy advantage coupled with a slight maintenance advantage. Airbus has a slight cost advantage. They’re both constantly improving their respective product, so the natural conclusion is the status quo remains.
That engine nacelle ground clearance limitation is only a limitation on the weak.
If Airbus gets the P&W GTF - and that’s an expensive option, it will open the door for Boeing’s engine partner to do its bit - you know, they’ll have a bit more margin to spend some cash. We’ll have to see how far this goes.
52. ikkeman | November 29th, 2009 at 21:10
51. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 29th, 2009 at 19:50
well, I completely agree with the rest of your post, but the engine nacelle thing is a fundamental thermal dynamics limitation on the 737 engine performance - of course it allows for a shorter and lighter landing gear…
as a favorite celebrity back home once said - every downside has an upside!
53. chaser | November 30th, 2009 at 00:16
I believe Airbus build about 6 more A32x per month than Boeing do the 73x.
Does anyone have any figures on the number of man hours each manufacturer employs to get a unit through the door?
It would be one way of getting a meaningful comparison.
54. Dave_BC | November 30th, 2009 at 10:29
The last line of the article >> The sharklets are a step in the right direction, but one that was overdue and bizarrely isolates existing operators.<<
They do not “isolate existing operators” any more than the 777-300ER isolated 777 classic operators, or indeed any more than 747-400 isolated 747-200 operators.
As for the suggestion on the above article that there will be no aerodynamic device retrofits for existing A320 family operators, I recommend a revisit of exactly what John Leahy said on that topic at the press conference in Dubai. (and he addressed that subject quite clearly:-
Q: Geoff Thomas Air Transport World:
Refitting of the A320 / A321 fleet, what plans have you got for putting fins on those?
A: John Leahy:
We’re looking at that right now. The Sharklet is not that easy to retrofit. It’s an all-new design built into a new-build airplane. We do understand that we’ll have quite a few [A320 Family] aircraft already out there by the time this aircraft enters service in about 2013 or so — probably in the neighborhood of about 5,000 [A320 Family] aircraft [in operation by then]. So we are looking at what can be done. We are talking to Aviation Partners – the same people who work with Boeing on an older design [i.e. APB’s “Blended Winglet”], but something that still could help. We are [also] looking internally at what we could do. But this Sharklet is optimized for a new-build airplane”.
55. Private | November 30th, 2009 at 15:39
Dave_BC
As an Airbus engineer (A380, not A320), the A320 will not be retrofitted with the new sharklet so yes, the author is correct in this article.
APB will work with Airbus to see if the sharklet can be adapted to fit older A320 jets as well as another “internal only” winglet for the older A320s.
But since this is designed for new-build A320s, do not hold out much expectation that this sharklet or any other such wing tip device will find a way on to the existing A320s in operation today.
Hope that helps.
56. Dave_BC | November 30th, 2009 at 16:40
To “Private”:
What you say doesn’t quite correspond to what Leahy is quoted as saying in Dubai (in my previous post above). What JL actually implies is that anything that Airbus might be in discussion with APB about would *** not *** have anything to do with Airbus’ own “Sharklets”, but rather, such discussions would explore whether APB’s own older “Blended Winglet” design could be applied for older A320 Family aircraft as a retrofit.
57. Private | November 30th, 2009 at 19:39
Dave_BC
Take a look at this:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_airshow.jsp?channel=busav&id=news/DBSHARK111509.xml&show=dubai2009
“Airbus is still working on a retrofit option for the A320 for winglets, but it will not be the sharklets, Leahy said. The aircraft maker is looking at its own design, but also talking to Aviation Partners, which may also be involved in building the sharklets.”
Airbus is not working with Aviation Partners for a blended solution (specifically) although it may well be that sort of concept or another design. The sharklets are also included in the design/discussions between the parties.
58. Aurora | November 30th, 2009 at 23:09
I submit that if Airbus is not successful in retrofitting the “sharklets” to older A320s, it will have an adverse impact on the resale value of those aircraft. I have read nothing in all these comments that leads me to believe otherwise. How would airbus deal with the buyers remorse from these customers? Offer them free “sharklets” on the next A320 purchase?
59. Dave_BC | December 1st, 2009 at 09:30
To “Private”, you wrote:
>> Airbus is not working with Aviation Partners for a blended solution (specifically) although it may well be that sort of concept or another design. The sharklets are also included in the design/discussions between the parties.<<
I don’t know about you, but I was standing just a few feet away from John Leahy with the other media present at the press conference, and I recorded exactly what was said there. An excerpt of that recording I have already reproduced above. Please read it again.
I am not sure quite whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. For what it’s worth, here is a summary of what we know:-
1. A320 Family Forward fit:-
~ solution: “Sharklets”
~ design owner: Airbus
~ manufacturer of the Sharklet – not decided yet (there are various providers e.g. including RUAG responsible for design/build of A350 curved winglet etc., and also for production of A320 & A380 wingtip ‘fences’).
Note that it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that API would be involved in manufacture of Airbus proprietary Sharklet! (Also note that Aviation Partners subcontracts-out physical production of its own Winglet product to FACC.)
http://www.facc.at/en/aktuelles/presse_detail.asp?id=59&titel=FACC_wins_order_from_Aviation_Partners_Boeing_for_the_manufacture_of_Blended_Winglets_for_Boeing_airplanes
2. A320 Family Retrofit:-
~ current stage: feasibility study
~ design solution: not decided;
~ what it WON’T be: “Sharklet”;
~ what it COULD be: (a) either an in-house Airbus design; or (b) an external design (e.g. API Blended Winglet);
~ who would implement the retrofits? Not decided yet
I trust this discussion is now closed.
Cheers.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed