1,000 A320neos, 737 replacement at Paris Air Show

Update, Jan. 28: Think again, Heidi, Airbus says. The company said no way. See this story.

Original Post:

Heidi Wood at Morgan Stanley predicts Airbus may have 1,000 orders by the Paris Air Show and that Boeing will have to respond earlier than its long-talked about 2019-2020 EIS of a new airplane to replace the 737. Here is what Wood says in her report, issued this morning the bold face is hers:

What’s new: Airbus could announce between 500-1,000 new NEO orders by Paris air show (June), which adds pressure for BA to come up with a new 737 replacement. We believe BA could announce a new narrowbody by Paris Air show; re-engining makes less sense, in our view. Crucially, management discussed a new plane by 2019+ however we believe these sizable Airbus’ new orders changes the game & could cause BA to accelerate plans. Our 2013-2014 model contemplates rising R&D vs. the Street, as we reason the new narrow has to occur by 2017/18 for BA to retain its most important customers.

If Wood is correct, watch Airbus crow (1) that this is the “fastest selling airplane ever” and (2) “I told you so” to every doubter.

42 Comments on “1,000 A320neos, 737 replacement at Paris Air Show

  1. Here’s hoping they make it…

    IF this is possible, how many will be converted 320 classic orders? If airbus simply converts all it’s 320 orders to the NEO they might get it, but I won’t be betting the house on that.

  2. “New” NEO Orders or simply converting their backlog?

    As soon as the NEO is available, who will want to order the Classic 320? Sure, their may be some deliveries of existing 320 classic orders, but there is no interest for any airline to order the classic AND Airbus will do everything it can to “convince” customers to switch.

    • The first four years of arranged deliveries won’t be touched by the NEO.
      ( take IndoGO as prime example )

      Additionally I don’t see much reason for Airbus to coerce customers to the
      upgrade. NEO is just another two customer selectable options that wont
      touch FAL management all that much. Keep in mind A330 and A340 share(d) a
      manufacturing line. Compare to Boeing having to completely take down the
      747 line to allow a new start with the 748.
      Airbus would be very unhappy to loose flexibility by setting up dedicated
      lines.

      • then again, updating an 1960’s design to include 787 tech is somewhat different to slapping a slightly different engine on a probably unmodified airframe (for that cost delta)

  3. 1000 ordered A-32X-NEOs by the Paris Air Show is not reasonable, as the airlines have learned not to take Airbus’s or Boeing’s initial promises on delivery or performance. The A-380 and B-787 programs saw to that.

    • Airlines may see your issue not tightly coupled to Airbus.
      The A380 seems to perform better than spec and the A330-200F
      is half a ton underweight.
      Airbus has hands on experience for at least the GTF.
      Now fitting a new engine probably requires less sophistication
      than streamlined lamp covers 😉

      so, my guess is most potential buyers think airbus capable enough
      to make a “buy now” attractive. ( and if things go pear shaped a fall
      back is available. )

      • No one, except Airbust has said the A-380 is performing better than promised. Just ask QF. The A-330F is no big deal with the cargo airlines, as only 65 have been ordered, and none in the past 12 months. The cargo airlines seem to want the B-777F and B-747-8F. They also have bought more B-747BCFs in the past 4 years than A-330Fs.

        Everyone seems to forget the first A-380 was nearly 3 years late on delivery, and it took another 6 months to deliver the second one.

        The airlines already know the A-320NEO only brings the series up to near par with the B-737NG. Have you noticed Airbus only compares the NEO operating costs to the A-320Classics, and not the B-737NG. Airbus has never said the A-320NEO is 15% more fuel efficent than the B-737NG, they have only said it is 15% more efficent. Ever wonder why?

        • Flight Global had a multipage article on user reception of the A380
          which diverged from your oppionion by quite a margin into the positive.

          Now Airbus seems to compare to neither the NG nor the Classic nor
          to a DC3 but to their own comparable product: the basic A320 buyable today.

          Certainly, Airbus lacks Boeings mastery of delays. I have to concede that.

    • Our brother KC omitted the 7478f/i from his list as another type failing to meet it’s original promised operational specification, but then I’m finding it hard to name one type in service that has done so in recent years.

  4. Pingback: Tweets that mention 1,000 A320neos, 737 replacement at Paris Air Show « Leeham News and Comment -- Topsy.com

  5. Uwe, what about the A-400?

    BTW, isn’t Flight Global just an EADS rag?

    • A400M?
      A different domain imho and the size of the smelling heap is still unknown.
      It could well be a lot smaller than some think/would like to have it.
      And:
      Nobody is holding the Ospreys 20++years “halting introduction into service”
      and nearly twice the budget of the A380 or any of the other endless but not
      costless mil projects against Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

      FG ~= EADS rag ?

      If you go by the premise that anyone not a fullsize and outspoken Boeinginista
      must be a paid by EADS shill ? Certainly.
      You will find that the majority of readers think differently.

  6. KC135TopBoom :
    Everyone seems to forget the first A-380 was nearly 3 years late on delivery

    Maybe they’re forgetting because it simply wasn’t so?
    I’m really curious where are you getting these (false) numbers?

    • All this comment has been deleted, under our rules for respecting posters. This personal attack is prohibited. Do it again, Bryan, and you are banned from this blog.

      –Editor.

  7. Lol, looks like Mr. KC135 gets a little [deleted] from Boeing.

    The A380 delivery was 19 months behind schedule if I recall correct.
    737NG equals A320neo, meaning that the NG is better than the A320 at the moment, Ok that’s why Airbus sells so many A320’s
    Airbus will build an all new A320 with Sharklets and the necessary modifications for the “neo” meaning that they only have to put the new engines under the wings and certify it (simply said :P)

    • Actually Starbucks, the A-380 had an original EIS in 2005, in Oct. 2007 the first one was finally delivered to SQ.

      The B-737 is the best selling airliner, ever. The B-737NG has outsold the A-320 since it was introduced in 1996, the EIS was in 1998. The B-737NG has had blended winglets since 2001 when TZ placed the first major order for them on their B-737-800. The A-320 was introduced in 1985, with an EIS of 1988. It will finally have blended winglets (a.k.a. Sharklets) in 2013.

      • but it had them little fences since teh beginning.

        come on, no one ever wins these “my manufacturer is more (better, faster, honest, sexy) then yours.

        Oh my, an 1995 tech update of an 1960’s design beats an 1985 tech solution.

        and it does seem (to me) that FG spends more reporting on EADS (and is generally more upbeat about it) than that other aerospace cornerstone, AW&ST.
        then again, it is a britisch magazine – what did you expect…

        A380 EIS at launch (what I can find) was early 2006
        http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ZCK/is_50_10/ai_68502840/

  8. KC135TopBoom :
    Actually Starbucks, the A-380 had an original EIS in 2005, in Oct. 2007 the first one was finally delivered to SQ.

    March 2006 was original EIS date

    KC135TopBoom :
    The B-737NG has outsold the A-320 since it was introduced in 1996, the EIS was in 1998.

    A320 family outsold 737NG (since 1996) for about 300 frames.

  9. The winglets of the B737NG are so popular because it has a different wing design. Simply put, the advantage of such devices on an A320 isn’t large enough to justify the changes (Airbus tested them in 2005, but couldn’t make the business case work).
    This whole issue is a bit tricky, but the B737 produces more drag for similar lift coefficients. In the end, when you put flight manuals next to each other, the A320 actually burns less fuel (in total).
    The B737NG advantage is partly caused by its ability to seat more people (189 versus 180).

    Please do not misread my post as a criticism of the B737NG. It’s a great design and probably on of the most successful Boeing programs ever. But the technical details are a bit different, while these are truly difficult to find out.

    The A320NEO has a significant growth in weight, so the winglets become more attractive. But I suspect that the A319 is basically dead.

    • wingtip devices are used to improve the L/D of an wing by reducing the wingtip vortex. However, they also add weight – thus for short ranges, the extra weight that needs to be lifted offsets the benefits of the improved aerodynamics.

      Also, the wingtips add force at the previously unloaded tip of n wing. The fact that the 737 can accommodate such huge fences shows the robustness (and generous stress margin) of the original design.

      I seem to remember one of the main reasons Airbus didn’t go ahead with the bigger winglets was the reduced life/ increased inspection requirement they imposed on the structure – thus offsetting any fuel savings by increased maintenance costs.

  10. We don’t 😉

    @ Mr. KC-135 please know your numbers before you post your criticism about Airbus programs

  11. I think Airbus made the right choice given the constraints:
    Money, resource, other priorities… An investment of E1billion and a production run of about 10 years will pay off well for them.

    Boeing… In March 2010, Jim Haas has presented a Product Update, where he said that for the 737RS specifically one thing needs to occur:
    – Technology breakthroughs required

    I doubt very much that a technology breakthrough had occurred in less than a year and if it hadn’t, Boeing risk launching a product which will be soundly beaten by Airbus with the A30X in 2025+. I hope they had thought this through. Interestingly, as far as the re-engine study is concerned the following points were maid:
    – Benefits in fuel efficiency, emissions, and community noise
    – Evaluating engine maturity
    – Understand airplane design changes
    – Understand customer requirements and value drivers

    I wonder what engine Boeing is going to use on their new platform… LEAP-X by any chance?

  12. dvus :

    KC135TopBoom :Actually Starbucks, the A-380 had an original EIS in 2005, in Oct. 2007 the first one was finally delivered to SQ.

    March 2006 was original EIS date

    KC135TopBoom :The B-737NG has outsold the A-320 since it was introduced in 1996, the EIS was in 1998.

    A320 family outsold 737NG (since 1996) for about 300 frames.

  13. Regarding the original statements from Heidi Wood:
    She’s leaving a pretty wide margin there – between 500 and 1000…
    500 I can believe, possibly even 700, including conversions of existing A320 orders to A320neo
    1000 I have a very hard time believing.
    I also have a very hard time believing that Boeing will launch a 737 replacement in June already. Not just because of the 787 troubles, but because they would put them in an unfavourable position. They would effectively commit to a new airframe that uses the same engines as A320neo with an EIS of 2019. And shortly thereafter, Airbus would launch an all-new airframe with an all-new set of engines, which would put a lot of pressure on the 737 successor, which would at that point still have a new airframe – but engines that were effectively developed over ten years ago (at that point in time).
    Unless of course Boeing tie the 737 successor directly to a certain (as yet unannounced) new engine. Which would of course open a whole new can of worms in terms of project risks. (Witness the 787 and the A400M).

      • Both manufacturers pulled off over 500 orders within half a year before. Multiple times. (Airbus in the 2nd half of 2005, 1st or 2nd half of 2006, 1st and 2nd half of 2007; Boeing 2nd half of 2005, 2nd half of 2006, 1st and 2nd hald of 2007)

        So yes: 500 orders within 6 months are possible, especially if you count conversions of existing orders.
        Whether we’ll see this number for the A320neo by end of June this year, we’ll have to see.
        My comment was referring to Miss Wood’s comments stating “500 to 1000” are expected. Based on the assumption that she has more inside knowledge than I do, I don’t think 500 is impossible. Extraordinary: yes. Impossible: no.

  14. I think we should have a reader vote to see if by majority opinion KC135TopBoom should be banned from this site.

    I enjoy reading the comment provided by Scott and his team, however the continued poorly worded, misspelt, non factual posts by KC135TopBoom are making me reconsider the value of the original commentary.

    By not doing something about it, the webmaster is endorsing the comments by default. If you do not ban him Scott, at least moderate all his posts to make sure what he is posting is actually factual.

    • I hereby vote against the reader’s right to vote anyone off the island… uh blog.

      If one is offended/ annoyed or otherwise inconvenienced by reading another’s opinion, the reader is at fault – just don’t read it.

      • is the 1k ikeman actually the same
        as the 2k ikkeman ?

        and has the K9 team been let of the leash ?

      • No, I am not him/her and he/she is not me. we are, in fact, not the same person whatever gender we are or prefer to be. I do not know who this person is that so blatantly honors me by imitation.

        We are in this case not just of different body, but of different mind as well, as my opinion does not align with that expressed in the original post by the second, single k, ikeman.

        As I believe this fine blog assigns the little picture based on the email address we all fill in to be allowed to glorify and enlighten our fellow man/woman with our very valuable opinions and rants, I believe the existential difference between me and the other is sufficiently clear to continue providing all and sundry with my nuggets of… well, let’s call it wisdom – just for fun.

  15. How can we not read it ?

    I come here to read Scotts’ commentary, which I find extremely valuable and well thought out. I also find the majority of the other contributors valuable.

    It is easy to see other sites like the Seattle PI where this style of posts has been going on for years, has detracted from value of their site. If we let it continue we know where it is going to take us, and that unfortunately would not be in the interests of the wider community.

    Not long ago Scott had to stop all comments and put a new policy in place because this style of user comments just got out of hand.

    • ikeman :
      How can we not read it ?

      The name and picture presented on the right of the post could be used by any interested party to identify the author of any post before assigning Grey mass to process the content.

      just an helpful? suggestion

  16. Okay Scott, got it

    “We neither endorse nor reject the Comments offered by our Readers. Comments are your opinions, which may be factually correct, incorrect or rationale or irrational. As long as you follow the guidelines above, you are free to post. ”

    Could you implement personal bypass feature then, so individual readers can skip posts made by selected contributors ? We could continue enjoying your site and bypass our personal level of noise ….

  17. All right, Everyone, if you have complaints about a particular poster such as those immediately above, email us directly and we will consider them. This sort of public bashing falls within our Not Allowed policy. Consider this the Official Warning.

  18. “The A-330F is no big deal with the cargo airlines, as only 65 have been ordered, and none in the past 12 months. The cargo airlines seem to want the B-777F and B-747-8F. ”

    False, 4 A330 were ordered in the last 12 months, and the total is 65.

    While the 777F has outsold the 330F, the score is 79 vs. 66 orders, and that does not really show who dominates the market place. Also remember that 330F orders have been converted to passenger, because of the need for additional lift caused by the 787 issue. Aercap had originally ordered 30, but changed to passenger version when they realised that lease rates would be more attractive if Boeing kept screwing up the 787. Boeing obliged them.

    The 748F and 747BCF order numbers are neither here nor there. Different market altogether.

  19. Торговое оборудование
    В этом разделе каталога торгового оборудования вашему вниманию представлены качественные тумбы из ДСП, сумочные, стойки под цветы, а также различные модели ресепшенов. С помощью предлагаемых нами товаров вы сможете оформить свою торговую точку так, что покупателям будет хотеться приходить туда снова и снова.Стоимость междугородней доставки рассчитывается транспортной компанией, и зависит от объема и веса груза. Более точную информацию Вы сможете найти на страницах транспортных кампаний:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.