Boeing wants earlier EIS for 737MAX

Boeing yesterday announced a 2017 entry-into-service date for the 737 MAX, perhaps as much as two years after the advertised October 2015 EIS for the Airbus A320neo, but officials have challenged the development team to accelerate this time line.

We earlier reported that Boeing wanted an EIS of 2016/17, but in the press conference Tuesday, Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes talked only of 2017. After the formal event, Nicole Piasecki, VP of Business Development and Strategic Integration, told a small group of reporters that Boeing wants to advance that date.

“Jim wants to under-promise and over-deliver, so he is challenging the team to bring the airplane to market as soon as possible,” she said. “Given our recent track record, we’re being very conservative—not conservative, we’re being very prudent, I should say—and disciplined to make sure that whatever we talk to our customers about, we actually have a plan to deliver on. I think you’ll see improvements on the 2017, but again our team is very disciplined and we’re going to make sure we have a plan before we make a commitment.”

18 Comments on “Boeing wants earlier EIS for 737MAX

  1. Wouldn’t it be funny if the B-737MAX makes it into airline service before the A-320NEO?

  2. Would it not be funny that Boeing actually met its commitment date? Nice to move the date up, but the airlines would be happier if MAX is on time and met the performance commitments. For Boeing, with upcoming programs, would be good for the company to meet the MAX timeline.

    • Do you have any proof that Boeing will not meet its commitment date, cannot move the date up to an earlier time, or won’t meet its performance gurantees?

  3. As small as the changes to both airframes are, that would mean that both engines for the A320neo (GTF and LEAP-1A) must fail but the LEAP-1B not…unlikely IMO.

    • Actually, I expect the GTF, LEAP-1A and 1B engines to have no failures in their developement. The differences between the MAX and NEO in their developement will settle on the same age old problem, getting the weight down to the promised target weights. Boeing and Airbus have, historicly, had problems controlling weight for new, or new versions of their airplanes. But, both have eventually solved the weight problems.

      • Not true for the A330-200F (The General Market Freighter) which came out over half a ton (1100lb to be precise) “too light” with respect to the target MWE.

  4. Does this mean that Boeing will continually harass CFM to get their engine out!?
    I would like to see how well that plays with them, as well as CFM’s other customers!

    • You can bet on it. This is always the case for any supplier with the potential to tent-pole the EIS timeline of a program. It goes without saying, Airbus will be heaping the pressure on Pratt and CFMI as well… Schedule, weight, spec performance, etc, etc. OEM’s make huge commitments to their customers and don’t sit idly by if they perceive a supplier is putting those commitments at risk.

  5. Well they should have got their act together much earlier (rather than tell everybody that customers do not want a re-engined a/c), then they would not be in a panic trying to advance the date.

    “Jim wants to under-promise and over-deliver”
    Yep, set the bar low then everybody will be happy, lesson learnt from the 787…

  6. If boeing cannot bring the EIS in a quick and timely fashion,this being a modest upgrade,market share will fall and so will confidence in all boeing products.Hopefully the 777ng will start to take form quelling orders for the airbus a350xwb.Most carriers flying the triple 7 love them and with some upgrades,the aircraft will continue to be the best selling wide body.

  7. Looking back at nearly half a century of 737 history has some interesting results:

    – The original 737-100 and -200 were about two years from go-ahead to first flight, (1965-67) then another year to EIS in 1968. Both used variants of the existing P&WA JT8D, previously used on 727’s and DC-9’s. There were only thirty 737-100’s; the early -200’s were replaced by the much-improved -200 Advanced models in 1971. That model was in production until August 1988

    – so-called “Classic” 737-300. -400 and -500 were about three to four years from go-ahead to EIS, starting with the 1981 go-ahead for the -300 with a December 1984 EIS. All three used the -3B version of the the existing CFM-56. (prior use to re-engine KC-135’s and series-60 DC-8’s). The last Classic were delivered in 2000..

    – The NG had similar flow times: The 737-600,-700,-800,-900 and -900ER started in Nov 1994. 737-700 first flight early 1997, EIS early 1998, followed by the 800 the -600 (no longer in production) the -900 then the -900ER. All used -7B versions of the existing CFM-56

    Some 737 MAX questions to ponder even though they can’t be answered for some time:

    – Compare the 737 history to the five or six year flow time to MAX’s EIS. Why is that? Could it be that redesigning airplanes is comparatively easy but major engine changes are much more difficult?
    – Somewhere in Boeing’s back rooms is anyone looking at phasing MAX’s aero improvements into the 737-700, -800 and -900 (737 MIN??) before 2017?
    – The pictures show winglets but could MAX instead get raked wingtips like the 777-300ER, the 747-8 and the 787?
    – Could the passenger windows be slightly enlarged to match the 777 and 747-8 or greatly enlarged to something like the 787? How about using electronic window shades like the 787?
    – Anyone care to guess how long the NG’s will be produced after MAX’s EIS?
    – If there is only a two or three year overlap does that enhance Renton’s future [MAX’s will soon replace NG’s so why build a new factory and train a new work force elsewhere?] or is Renton doomed [shut Renton down by the end of this decade and MAXimize Charleston]

  8. The biggest obstical in the way for Airbus or Boeing meeting their planned FIS is the engine OEMs.

  9. I think Boeing, at the latest, will introduce the MAX together with the NEO or even earlier. Assuming of course the MAX LEAP can be available as needed.

    What, reengines taking more than 5 years from 2 technologically sound airframers?

    Give it 2014 if the engines are ready.

    MAX LEAP – sounds good

  10. Pingback: Boeing 737 MAX to help recover sales momentum | Aspire Aviation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.