Odds and Ends: More on the Ex-Im funding renewal; Boeing studies 757 replacement

Ex-Im: Republicans continue efforts to shut down the Export-Import Bank, a move that would hurt Boeing Commercial Airplanes sales most but which also would hurt other industries as well. Delta Air Lines is the driving force behind the effort to cut off Ex-Im funding. As we’ve previously indicated, rules agreed to last year by Europe and the US changed the pricing model of the Ex-Im guaranteed loans to be market rates, solving a major objection of Delta.

Ending Ex-Im Bank funding would be a dumb idea. It would hurt American business and furthermore, fees generated a net $2bn for the US Treasury in the last five years.

757 Replacement: Boeing is already studying a replacement for the 757 with a loosely targeted EIS date of 2025-2026. This is called the New Airplane Study.

Qatar Airways: U-Turn Al-Baker has U-Turned his way out of the Bombardier CSeries. Although he continues to profess to be interested in the airplane, the first 2 1/2 years of production has now been sold out. Bombardier has moved on to customers it can rely on.

BCI Leasing: Principals of an obscure lessor were found guilty of fraud. This story explains. Here is the press release from the US Attorney’s Office.

WestJet: ATR and Bombardier are waiting for WestJet to make its decision between the ATR-72 and Q400 for the airline’s entry into turbo-prop markets. The Q400 is thought to have the advantage for the longer-range operational requirements. The order could be for up to 40 aircraft. If Bombardier wins, this would follow a recent order for up to 20 Q400s from Eurolot. After a dismal year last year in which BBD sold only seven Q400s (against a net of 119 ATR turbo-props), BBD appears headed for a very good year.

27 Comments on “Odds and Ends: More on the Ex-Im funding renewal; Boeing studies 757 replacement

  1. From the linked Aviationweek article:

    Although Qatar Airways is against ETS, “we will comply with the rules of other countries,” Al Baker said. “We will protest, but only within a legal framework.”

    As this follow a previous heated discussion on this site on this very subject, I’d like to say that this is exactly the stance I would expect serious, grown-up people to take. Rather than the childish attitudes on display elsewhere. (Which is in fact what I wrote a few weeks ago.)
    Now Al Baker – with all his reputation for throwing tantrums – is the first person in the “No” camp in a while to exhibit this much more rational and civilised attitude. I’m surprised, in a positive sense.

    • It was the European who introduced the ETS unilaterally that are childish in the first place.

      Al Baker from the small country of Qatar obviously does not have the muscle to fight against the ETS. He is simply realistic, but not necessarily mature.

      It’s ridiculous to imply anyone else against the ETS childish.

  2. Scott, any idea if the 757 replacement New Airplane Study is tied in with the NSA 737 replacement or a completely independent new program?

  3. 20 Q-400s is nice. That’s about half a year to a year’s worth of production. Westjet is a big competition. All the players know they have the opportunity to really sock it to BBD. Competition will be fierce. BBD is desperate, they need to sell Qs and CRJs to keep the lights on until the CSeries shows up, and it will be late. They have for several years, failed to pay attention to “running the daily business” in favor of concentrating on CSeries… bad mistake.

  4. Horizon has gone to just the Q-400 with 48 in service and just 1 on order. I think that speaks pretty well that they are comfortable with the plane.

    • That has more to do with fleet rationalization around an existing model. not like they did a competition between ATR and Q400s when they made this move.

  5. B757 Replacement.
    Why did the B757 go out of business? Simple, it was way less economical to operate than the A321/B737-900. The few additional sets didn’t count enough.
    If Boeing thinks to do a B757 replacement, it needs to grow into the 200-280 seats segment (in single or dual class with small business segment), which is currently not served. The design should be a twin aisle, also for turnaround reasons. A very interesting segment, but also very risky. No airline has currently an aircraft in this segment.
    The issue: one set of operators would use this aircraft for shorter ranges (<2000nm), another set would ask for up to 4500nm range. Getting it right for both is difficult, could require two different wings. That is expensive in recurring and non-rec cost. And sales might be limited.

    • The 757 sold over 1,000 airplanes but has been out of production since 2004. A pity that Boeing could not have held on until today, with the tooling, production line and supply chains still intact. Then perhaps there could have been a 757X like the 777X: -200 and -300 fuselages, new CRFP wing, 787 flight deck, A321NEO-derived engines with [lots of ground clearance for a big fan, geared or not, and a Sky interior. Too bad so sad.

    • A former Boeing salesman told me 757 went out of production because the airplane was more or less hand-built and cost more to build than the price to sell.

      • A lame excuse. The real reason is because Stonecipher wanted it gone. He wanted all of Renton gone, and the 757 was just the first step.

  6. Q400 vs ATR72.
    Although I like the Q400 as design, the airplane combines the disadvantages of a jet with the disadvantages of a prop. Others may say it is vice versa. The ATR is the optimum when it comes to simplicity and fuel burn.

      • Speed doesn’t matter much on a 350 NM trip. BBD bet on “jet speed” but that comes with higher op costs, actually pretty significantly higher. Plus BBD is a bear to deal with.

        Short range is what these planes do. You aren’t flying much past 500 nm on these buggers. The vast majority of trips are under 350 nm, so range isn’t an issue.

      • No dispute, the Q400 is faster. I recently analyzed the distances flown by either design. The Q400 flies on average 50nm longer legs (ATR72: 190 average, Q400: 240ish). Data basis is 2007, so a bit oldish.

  7. I think Boeing has been considering an aircraft in this segment for some time. Incorrectly people seem to think at this as just a 757 replacement. The market is significant larger, replacing 767-200s, A300, A310, Tu154 all operating in this segment. Potentially also replacing A321 / A330 / 767-300 used because nothing smaller is available. My estimation is for 2500 in the next 20 yrs. Transcon, leisure, high density city pairs, intra Asia..

    Looking at above 220 seats, twin aisles become necessary, considering 753 turn times. 2-2-2 is inefficient compared to 3-3, so 2-3-2 seams the most feasible configuration.

    Yrs ago I drew Greenliner and Greenliner II concepts 2-1-2 first and 2-2-2 economy. 2-2-2 F and 2-3-2 economy seems more efficient. A narrowed/optimized 767 fuselage. Possibly flattened.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=38723

    As Schorsch says, for short haul there also an emerging requirement for high efficient mass transport up to 3 hours. That’s were 90% of flights is anyway. Last yr I did an ECR-20, open rotors & 7 abreast standing cabin. (seats for the old/ kids/ disabled in the back), for Ryanair like operations 😉 Henry Lam made graphics.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/ECR20_1keesjeconcepthenrylamgraphics.jpg

    Not sure if Boeing will pursue this 😉 this route

    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/445308-ecr-20-200-seater-optimized-flights-700-nm.html

    • Just a small nitpick, on your ECR-20 concept aircraft it looks as if you’re confusing counter-rotating propellers with contra-rotating propellers. The latter share a common axes (e.g Tupolev TU-95), whereas the former you’ll find on twin and multi-engine propeller-driven aircraft where the propellers spin in directions opposite to one another (e.g. A400M).

      As for possible cross-sections for a 752, 753, 762, A312, A306 and Tu-154 replacement, the minimum diameter required for carrying two LD-3 containers side by side is apparently 5.1 m. That diameter allows for a 2-3-2 seating configuration in economy class.

      Link (figure 4):

      The Sonic Cruiser – A Concept Analysis

      http://www.dlr.de/as/Portaldata/5/Resources/dokumente/abteilungen/abt_ke/vorentwurf/hepperle-sonic-cruiser-paper.pdf

      • Interesting wing on the sonic cruiser with the high sweep inner wing. I don’t think we’ll see a blended wing body too soon, but I wonder if there will be more blending of the wing to the body to generate more lift. Possibly chines like on the SR71 blended into the wing. If airliners fly at a degree or two nose up attitude, they are already using the fuselage for lift. Exploiting this seems like a possible advance similar to the blended winglet.

      • hepperle-sonic-cruiser-paper.pdf

        A gem and an interesting read.
        The Dreamliner retained the “how to reduce flighttime” path and not much else.

  8. New Airplane Study, probably looking at a new CFRP wing with a 140′ span. At two lengths of around 160′ and 175′ what’s the best width for the optimum structural proportion? Maybe 14+ feet, the final frontier, 2-2-2 and 1-2-1 business/first.

  9. A 2-2-2 configuration is less efficient than a 2-3-2 configuration. The container size should be limited to the A320 type (LD3-46). Boeing considered a circular 4.75m fuselage for the B7J7. The cross section is attractive, offers a dense 7-abreast or a more comfortable 6-abreast.

  10. from what I heart the Atr 72-600 is a big improvement over the -500.

    very smooth, silent and comfortable

    new props, cockpit and cabin

    thats why it beat the Q400 last yr

  11. “Ending Ex-Im Bank funding would be a dumb idea. It would hurt American business and furthermore, fees generated a net $2bn for the US Treasury in the last five years.”

    It seems to me some people have no problem making a U-turn on aerospace subsidies if the money streams in the right direction.

    😉

  12. Pingback: 757, 737-900ER/9 MAX, A321 replacement should be the next new airplane | Leeham News and Comment

  13. Pingback: The deeper, longer term implications of IAM’s Boeing contract vote January 3 | Leeham News and Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.