Airbus v Boeing: another round of what the customers tell us

With the recent spat upping the media war between Airbus and Boeing over whose airplanes offer better economics, we’ve been once more asking customers what their analyses conclude.

Nothing has changed from our earlier conversations.

As recent media and advertising wars relate, Boeing claims the 737-8 MAX is 8% better on a per-seat basis than the A320neo. Airbus claims its aircraft is 3.3% better than the MAX-8. The differences come in the assumptions of fuel burn, with Airbus claiming the neo will save more fuel than the MAX. Boeing claims the MAX, being lighter, will match the fuel savings and with 12 more seats, this is how Boeing comes up with the 8% figure.

Boeing also claims the 737’s maintenance costs are 24%-27% better than the A320, a figure which drives Airbus officials right up the wall as ludicrous. (We’ve written several times why we dismiss the validity of the Boeing claim as relying on old data on the one hand and data that can be manipulated on the other.)

In the last 10 days we have had conversations once more with customers and potential customers who have analyzed data from Airbus and Boeing and reached their own conclusions. These are additional customers to those we’ve talked with previously, thus adding to the list and data points.

The conclusions are the same:

  • The A320neo and the 737-8 MAX are about equal in economics, with Boeing retaining a slight edge on a per-seat basis, but nothing like the 8% it claims. Boeing’s maintenance claims are laughed off. Commercial terms therefore become the deciding factor.
  • The A321neo has the advantage over the 737-9 MAX, in part for the same reason the 8 MAX has the advantage: the neo has more seats than the MAX.
  • The A321neo is a closer replacement for the Boeing 757 than the 9 MAX, although neither is a true replacement.

81 Comments on “Airbus v Boeing: another round of what the customers tell us

  1. How many put only 162 seats on the 737-800? 180+ seems very popular in LCC EU anyway. 1 class cabin, survivable but just for 4 hour flights. I guess the numbers with 180+ seats are quite good? Norwegian puts 186 seats on theirs.

  2. I agree with you on the EU LCC as Air Berlin, Ryanair, etc. place >180 seats on their B738, but from what I’ve so far seen, many don’t. AS, QF, AA do not put anywhere near that number.

    “Mixed bag” I say.

    Fleet commonality, availability, financing, etc. are probably the more important factors as to why a carrier will pick either the B73X or A32X.

  3. I thought the 737-800 had and 18% ownership premium over the A320. Is that because it is 18% more expensive to build, or is there 18% more profit for Boeing and the leasing comanies?

    The 737-800 has 8% more seats than an A320, just like an A380 has 30% more seats than a 747-8. Cutting either of those numbers in half is starting to bend the truth.

  4. Just wondering, does the 737 still have a longer cycle life than the A320? it may not matter that much as the life of an airliner seems to be dropping. perhaps due to the constant upgrading and refining of the airframe and engines. I have read where some A320 series aircraft were scrapped that were not too old. I guess the days of keeping an aircraft flying for 35 to 40 years, such as the DC-9 are over. talking with an A&P mechanic a few years ago who said the DC-9 was built like a tank, but then fuel was twenty cents per gallon.
    I still like the MD-80’s and the 3 and 2 seating layout.

  5. Until recently the service live of the A320 was 60.000 hours. It has now been extended to 120.000 after further testing. It will probably extended to 180.000 later on. I wonder if any narrowbody aircraft has ever reached 180.000 hrs.
    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/paris-air-show/2011-06-19/paris-2011-long-live-a320

    I think the 2 additional seatrows are an advantage for the 737-800/8, for new / dual operators. Airbus has a real (7m/row) capacity gab inbetween the A320 and A321. The 737-800 and -900 both are in that gab.

    IMO the efficiency differences between a 69 and 78 inch fan on the same engine will give the A320 lower trip costs, noise levels. Leaving the promising PW GTF out of the equation.

    About the OEWs of the A320 and 737-800, everybody claims the 737-800 is lighter, I see contradicting numbers. Mostly the difference seems minor. If the MAX modification is indeed significant heavier then the NEO modification, the -8 MAX seems heavier then the A320 NEO.

    From an airline perspective I wonder about airlines looking to replace old A320s, if they want to grow capacity e.g. 10%, which seems the trend, the A321 is far larger, expensive boost in capacity and costs. Seeing the A319 NEO secured just 28 of the 1500 NEOs sold sofar, I wonder if Airbus can’t better invest in a 200 seat A320 variant. Jetblue, Easyjet and Ryanair asked for it.

    http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/AirbusA320NEOPlusConcept.jpg

  6. The A320neo and the 737-8 MAX are about equal in economics, with Boeing retaining a slight edge on a per-seat basis, but nothing like the 8% it claims. Boeing’s maintenance claims are laughed off. Commercial terms therefore become the deciding factor.

    Which one has more range? Is longer range a factor for greater potential revenue?

    • With each airplane having auxiliary tanks, Airbus’ adverted range is greater than the MAX. Boeing’s comparisons include aux tanks for the MAX but not the equivalent for the neo.

      • VV’s question was about the A320 / 737-8, neither of which are typically equipped with aux tanks except in business jet configurations.

        The 737-900ER and A321 are the only models which are likely to add aux tanks in a passenger configuration. The majority of A321s in service have at least 1 aux tank, with many having two. Without aux tanks, the A321 is quite range limited. This is not the case for the 737-900ER. THY is the only 737-900ER operator flying with aux tanks.

        • At the Farnborough Air Show, Joe Ozimak showed ranges for 737 MAX v A320neo family and footnoted aux tanks for 737 but none for A320 family. Airbus ranges for neo as advertised in its website are substantially longer than what Boeing shows.

  7. Can you guys address the field performance questions on the B737-8,9 MAX. From what I understand the two larger MAX will require over 11,000 ft. for take-off at MTOW. I am in particular interested in the Icelandair purchase of the B737-8,9 MAX and what implications the long runway needed will have for the airline if it intends to use it on the North-Atlantic. Presumably they would need MTOW to fly a 5-6 hour flight to North America and back. What kind of weight restrictions would they need for a 10,000 ft. runway.

    • takeoff field length … that is an interesting question. Unfortunately Boeing has not given any indication about the thrust of the LEAP-1B.

      And we still do not know what exactly the MAX will or will not be.
      Are they going to slightly modify the main gear?

      I am afraid we will have to wait until next year before we know a little bit more.

  8. If I am not mistaken, the 787-8 also targets a part of the 757 replacement market. I guess many 787 will fly over the North Atlantic too.

  9. leehamnet :
    Customers tell us thrust is still a TBD.

    Isn’t it interesting to have an aircraft with a TBD TOGA thrust?

    As long as the firm configuration is not achieved, everything we say abut the 737 MAX is speculation. I find Boeing’s tactics is incredibly clever because the lack of information about MAX leaves Airbus in the dark. Should Airbus remain with the current definition of neo or should they proceed with a more aggressive plan? Unfortunately, I have the feeling Airbus is now stuck with neo as it is, unless if they accept to voluntarily delay the program by two years.

      • Keesje, we completely disagree on the A330neo but with this one, you maybe on to something… we’ll see. Love the pictures, keep them coming! 🙂

      • The 322 would be the smartest thing they could possible do right now. It would buy a lot of 757/767/A332 replacement customers. To think that a 787 will be a good 757 replacement is being drunk IMO.

        It would require a 777-X sort of update for Airbus, new CFRP wing, engines and maybe materials, Al-Li skin? Make it debus about when MAX debutes.

      • A new CFRP wing requires an all new production infrastructure set-up. Even for a single aisle aircraft such an undertaking would IMO cost $3-4 billion, at the minimum. Empty weight is not as critical as for that of a long range widebody.

        A cost/benefit analysis would in all likelihood recommend that a faster, better and cheaper alternative would be to use as much as possible of the existing production infrastructure. IMO, a good option could be a one frame chordwise wing insert à la the A340-600 and a trailing edge extension à la the A350-1000, and extension of the wing span to 40m with optional 2.5m folding wingtips. Likewise, a cost/benefit analysis would likely not opt too change the current basic fuselage structure by using more expensive aluminium lithium alloys.

    • VV, what on God’s Earth are you talking about?? ‘Accept’ delaying the programme for what reason? I would have expected this sort of nonsense to come straight from Fleetbuzzeditorial.
      neo schedule is driven by the engine availability, nothing more. The frame will be ready. For the MAX, CFM had to launch a new engine, this explains the delay.

      “I find Boeing’s tactics is incredibly clever”
      Really? Piss about for 9 months telling everybody that a re engine programme is no good as customers don’t want it, then launch a re engine after nearly losing their key customer and realising that they cannot industrialise the new aircraft anyway… Clever.

      “MAX leaves Airbus in the dark”
      Don’t make the mistake, thinking Airbus has no idea what MAX is about.
      Boeing may say in the press that they have no idea what A350-1000 can do, but I am fully confident they know exactly what the aircraft is capable of.

    • “Airbus in the dark”
      Remember the report Airbus made on the 787 long before anything was public. It turned out to be werry correct. Oh yes Airbus knows as well as I assume Boeing also knows.

  10. Guys,

    Once upon a time, the break even point of an aircraft program like the 737 or the A320 was at around 400-500 units, to be compared to 1,500+ orders for neo and 960+ orders for MAX.

    What if the 737 MAX as it is (not) defined today is only a place-holder for a more ambitious program? It could explain the long development time between 2011 and 2017.

    • Your observable strategy of placing FUD requires to retain some link to reality to make it work.
      you’ve forgotten about that detail here. This is more of the ROFLMAO variety 😉

    • “What if the 737 MAX as it is (not) defined today is only a place-holder for a more ambitious program?”
      You mean something as clever as they did with the Sonic Cruiser, except that this time they actually managed to sell the aircraft?
      Imagine you bought a table, brought it home, opened the box and it is something completely different. Will not shop in IKEA again…

  11. I think the 737-900/-9 is take-off angle restricted because of the combination of short MLG and long aft fuselage. That makes the aircraft either need significant higher take-off speed or / more runway. Getting more thrust out of the MAX’ smaller LEAPX engines will likely lead to more noise, higher presssure/ temperatures / maintenance costs.
    http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/487275-b737-900er-take-off-performance.html

    VV: “do they take some space?”

    Yes obviously at both aircraft. The A320s have more cargo volume though, they can take pallets/containers.

  12. EAA :
    Can you guys address the field performance questions on the B737-8,9 MAX. From what I understand the two larger MAX will require over 11,000 ft. for take-off at MTOW. I am in particular interested in the Icelandair purchase of the B737-8,9 MAX and what implications the long runway needed will have for the airline if it intends to use it on the North-Atlantic. Presumably they would need MTOW to fly a 5-6 hour flight to North America and back. What kind of weight restrictions would they need for a 10,000 ft. runway.

    Boeing has publicly claimed that the -9 MAX will have similar field performance as the B737-900ER. They have yet to proof that. Heavier as the -9 is, it will require either more thrust or significant wing modifications (rotation angle on take-off is another issue as keesje mentioned) to achieve this. Interestingly, the CFMIs website, lists 3 aircraft for the Leap 1a/b/c, the A320neo´s, B737 MAX and the C919. The B737 Leap1b is the smallest engine for these three, by a margin of 2-4000 lbs thrust. A 10.000 ft runway is probably ok for low temperatures at s.l. But bring on the high summer temperatures in the USA and the -9 will run into problems unless significant changes are made.

  13. Scott,

    It is “Ozimek”. You misunderstood the presentation. Boeing never shows ranges for the 737-700 / -7 / A319 / neo or -800 / -8 ! A320 / neo with aux tanks. For the -900ER / -9 and A321 / neo, ranges are shown for configurations both with and without tanks, often dependent on if the airplanes are shown configured for international or domestic operations. Whatever the case, the tank config is always noted at the bottom of the chart and the -9 and A321 are usually shown with the same number of tanks.

    As for Airbus’ claimed ranges; ask JetBlue how that’s working out for them US transcon in the winter. It was the shortfall of claimed range in JetBlue’ operation which launched Sharklet program.

    • He.
      if professionals misunderstand a presentation it tends to be designed to be misunderstood.
      ( and later allows an easy retreat : “oh, you all misunderstood”. 😉

      • If you recall, Uwe, Scott decided to not go to Farnborough this year. Had he gone, he would not have been confused, as the configuration and mission rules were at the bottom of the Boeing slides. Further proof that watching YouTube videos is a poor substitute for being at a press briefing in person.

        • I’ve seen “mission rules” on plenty of Boeing slides, BTW. Ditto Airbus.

          I have also specifically asked in presentations by Boeing if comparisons between the 737-800 and A320 include A320 PIPs (no), sharklets (not at first) and whether MAX v neo is CFM to CFM (yes) or CFM to GTF (no). On the last, the answer was Boeing didn’t have enough “visibility” on the GTF. In fact, I know Boeing very closely analyzed the GTF for the MAX and had a great deal of knowledge of the GTF capabilities and fuel burn.

  14. I think the A319/20/21 series have more range then the 737/8/9 with the same payload.

  15. Thanks for the link Scott. In the range comparison Joe showed, both the 737-9 and A321neo were equipped with 1 aux tank. It’s reasonable for you to go to Airbus to get their view of things, but you made a mistake going to Airbus to get clarification on the configuration Boeing used in the presentation.

    Regardless, what you are seeing is the huge range difference between what Airbus is claiming the A321neo can do with one aux tank and what Boeing believes it can do. I’ve already pointed out Airbus’ well documented track record of overstating A320 range, even in tailored presentations to airlines. Now, Airbus is trying to market the A321 as a direct 757 replacement, so I’m not sure why you would expect more precision or better integrity now.

    Time will prove this one out and only one company can be right. However, I’ll just point out Leahy’s comment from last week as food for thought on the precision of Airbus’ claims:

    John Leahy :
    I will claim an extra couple of percent better for mine and they should be claiming a couple of percent better for theirs.

    Regarding who has a range advantage…

    keesje :
    I think the A319/20/21 series have more range then the 737/8/9 with the same payload.

    …like everything else in this business, the real answer is “it depends”.

    The MTOW line and Fuel Volume Limit on the A319neo and 737-7 have very different shapes. Who has the range advantage depends on how much payload you are carrying. For heavy loads, the A319 tends to have the advantage. For lighter loads, the 737-700 will fly further. This range difference can be significant between the 737-700 and A319 (close to 500nm). The 5,000 lb MTOW bump the 737-7 is getting pretty much erases that gap by letting more fuel be loaded at heavy payloads.

    The 737-8 payload/range curve, like the 737-800 completely envelopes the A320neo. The 737-8 will fly further at any payload, from empty, all the way up to max structural payload.

    The 737-9 and A321neo have yet again a unique relationship. With no aux tanks, or with one aux tank the 737-9 will typically fly further at a given payload. However, depending on the interior config and the customer spec OEW, the 737-9 can run out of MTOW and become unable to take advantage of the 2nd aux tank. When this happens, the A321 (with less MTOW constraint) is often able to take advantage of the 2nd aux tank to gain range on the 737-9.

    I know these “nuanced” explanations don’t do much for making bold claims of who has an absolute advantage, but this is the reality of how these aircraft relate to each other in terms of payload-range performance.

    • Have there been a singel 737-7 sale? It seems its range is not that attractive to customers? It seems rather the capacity of the 737-9 is what airlines like?

      • 737-7 and A319 are fading away. following the 737-6 and A318.. The general trend is to buy bigger.
        Over the last 8 years NB deliveries have moved from
        parity between the -7 and -8 resp. A319 and A320 to
        massive dominance of the -8 and A320 and distinct rise
        for the largest models. ( -9 / A321 , the “average NB” from Airbus has gained 15 seats ( 1class assumed ).

    • Boeing has been significantly overstating their case going back at least to the A310/B767.
      It is a bit rich to complain when the competition follows suit and the home PR departments is very busy keeping ahead in “fantastic numbers”.
      I’d like to see the uproar if Leahy ever wrote a p*s*y article like we see posted under Randy Tinseth’s name.
      Boeing retraces the path Microsoft took. We see the same shift of focus towards intermediary market participants (here: leasers, financing) for Boeing we saw in the IT market.
      Same techniques as well: FUD, SuperDuper products for ages just around the corner
      all the while changing shape but staying a mirage and sophist explanations to the public on what they should see. ( while the Tztar is nude and stays that way)

  16. “I’ve already pointed out Airbus’ well documented track record of overstating A320 range, even in tailored presentations to airlines. Now, Airbus is trying to market the A321 as a direct 757 replacement, so I’m not sure why you would expect more precision or better integrity now.”

    I thi k we don’t have to go into the integrity questions around Boeing and Airbus. During the last few weeks it has been analyzed on several places on the web and I guess most have a clear picture now.

    Re 737-9 and A321, I think the real world differences are significant.

  17. With 24t payload the 757-200 has a range of around 4000 NM
    With 24t payload the 737-900ER has a range of around 2100 NM
    With 24t payload the A321 has a range of around 2700 NM

    http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/products_757_200.php
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/737ng_payload.pdf
    http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/range%20payload/f3a7d034.png

    In the Farnborough clip Joe claims the 737-900ER will have a 485 NM better range then the A321. Joe, how does it work?

    • If I’ve done my math and drawing right:
      Below 14t payload.
      With 2 aux tanks the A321 is fuel limited >2800nm while the -900ER is at the turning point to being fuel limited >3600nm . If you add auxtanks for the A321 it consistently will cary 2t more at longer ranges than the -900ER

  18. Can somebody please compare the Maximum Fuel Capacity of the 737NG and A320 without aux tank as well as the total wing area?

    Since there is not significant change so far in the wingbox structure between the older version and the reengined one, then the above numbers will remain for MAX and neo.

    • #type unit native 1aux 2aux peraux
      A320 L 23,859 26,759 29,659 2900/2900
      A320 kg 18,729 21,005 23,282 2277/2900

      A321 L 23,700 26,692 29,684 2992/2992
      A321 kg 18,604 20,953 23,301 2349/2348

      737-9* L 26,025 27,974 29,666 1949/1649
      737-9* kg 20,894 22,459 23,817 1565/1358

  19. I’d like to add a different angle to the NEO vs MAX discussion:
    What if the GTF turns out to deliver 3, 4, or maybe 5% better SFC than the LEAP-1B? What if the LEAP-1B falls behind schedule by 6 or 12 months? What level of maturity can be expected in the light of GEnx precedence?

  20. V V :
    Uwe,
    Do you think an aux tank installation costs something?

    TANSTAAFL, sure 😉
    Though if part of the ordering process that is up to your bargaining power.
    Those included auxtanks may be the markup Boeing says it is asking for/getting.

    • You’ll probably get them for free if you walz with John or offer to do a jig.
      A reel might get you an extra free tank voucher 😉

  21. How about Airbus v. Airbus and Boeing v. Boeing, excluding purchase or lease.
    A321 gets about 12% better costs than the A320?
    737-900ER gets 2% better costs than the 737-800?

  22. V V :
    In reality at that time, the break even point was well below 400-500 units.

    Whatever. Where do the numbers for the NEO and MAX come from?

  23. Andreas :

    V V :
    In reality at that time, the break even point was well below 400-500 units.

    Whatever. Where do the numbers for the NEO and MAX come from?

    Who was talking about neo and MAX? I was only saying that the orders of neo is more than 1,500 units and the orders for MAX is already at more than 960 units. Meaning that in reality they could have done a more ambitious derivative if you compare to the full blown development of the original A320 or 737.

    With such a huge order backlog, the break even point for a more ambitous modification would have been reached an exceede by far. It means that MAX or neo could have been anything.

    This confirms once again that neo launch was too premature when the concept was not matured enough.

    Now the question is always what MAX will or will not be.

    • I think the MAX 8/9 will be as described and perform as advertised or better. The A321 might be more interesting to speculate on. A350-1000 style wing enhancements, A340-600 style wing plugs, maybe a fuselage stretch of a couple of rows? Since it has got 8 doors, more floor area would exploit that built in capacity strength.

  24. Uwe :
    You’ll probably get them for free if you walz with John or offer to do a jig.
    A reel might get you an extra free tank voucher

    Do you think extra tanks will add some plumbing and wiring (pumps, probes and so on)?
    Do these extra system need inspection and maintenance?

    • That is moot. Both range/payload charts leverage the same number of auxtanks.
      ( datum is for A321 strongly fuel limited with 2 aux tanks and the -900ER just at the
      turning point for 2 aux tanks. 13t payload over ~3200nm versus ~3700nm.
      Adding a third aux tank would equalize range.
      Now tell me who would want to fly around a nearly empty plane?

      Now look at the max payload end:
      A321: 24.5t payload over 2200nm -> 19.6t fuel: .37t fuel per t payload and 1000nm
      -900ER: 23t payload over 1700nm -> 17.4t fuel: .45t fuel per t payload and 1000nm
      ( data taken from the resp. vendor docs and a simplistic approach: fuel: MTOW-MZFW )

      • Uwe,

        Can you please state again the maximum fuel capacity of each aircraft without the fuel tanks and also the wing area? Thanks.

  25. Vero Venia :

    Uwe :
    You’ll probably get them for free if you walz with John or offer to do a jig.
    A reel might get you an extra free tank voucher

    Do you think extra tanks will add some plumbing and wiring (pumps, probes and so on)?
    Do these extra system need inspection and maintenance?

    No?

  26. keesje :

    Vero Venia :

    Uwe :
    You’ll probably get them for free if you walz with John or offer to do a jig.
    A reel might get you an extra free tank voucher

    Do you think extra tanks will add some plumbing and wiring (pumps, probes and so on)?
    Do these extra system need inspection and maintenance?

    No?

    Once again wish full thinking. Just to put a bit of perspective on this non-sense, Any Keesje-Liner in regards to his MTOW’s and fuselage lengths (from his recent posts) would require 4-7lbf more thrust! (being extremely generous, since it has the same restraints as the 737 as far as airport categories for maximum wingspan.).

    I know, I keep bringing this up… But where is this new engine coming from?

    The only engines in that range are PW2037… and RR’ RB211 version of the same. Hardly the the most fuel efficient engines on the market! Anyone seen a engine RFI for the Keesje Liner? I might have missed it………………

  27. V V :
    Uwe,
    Can you please state again the maximum fuel capacity of each aircraft without the fuel tanks and also the wing area? Thanks.

    Your mouse has a scroll wheel ;-?

    • Hello everybody
      Airbus
      +400 Kg per ACT I think for airbus (without plumbing ?) what is the weight of the plumbing ? is it a standard equipment or optionnal ?
      Boeing
      +1080 Kg for the first Aux Tank (datas for 737-900ER) +150 kg for the second (1950 l per aux tank)

      • Boeing acaps says 1949 L for the first aux tank, 1649 L for the second. ( see further up. so the second one is smaller or not fully useable )

  28. “Anyone seen a engine RFI for the Keesje Liner?”

    Airlines won’t publish RFI’s, there are so many and they would make there intentions public.
    Airlines like Easyjet, Jetblue and Ryanair asked for a A320 stretch, US Air asks for more range (rumour: Airbus is beefing up the A321 NEO). Then common sense would indicate airlines like AF wouldn’t mind adding a few rows replacing their A320’s, but 6-7 rows is a lot..

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-airways-doubts-a320neo-for-international-757-replacement-369801/
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ryanair-199-seat-aircraft-would-hit-capacity-sweet-spot-350946/

    Airbus is under no pressure however, having secured more the 3000 A320 series in their backlog.

    If one only believes when one sees officially in this business, you’re always 1-2 yrs behind..

    • @ Keesje,

      “Airlines won’t publish RFI’s, there are so many and they would make there intentions public.”

      Who cares what airlines “publish”. Airlines can request the World… They will get what they Pay for. What we *ARE* talking about is requests from The Aircraft manufacturers to the Engine manufacturers about *Building* and *Funding* new engine development and paying for it (In some form)!

      In your ” 40,000 lbs, 81 inch fan.” example above. I’ll guarantee you there is *NO*, test schedule, milestone markers or EIS for said engine (and not a single employee working on that engine).

      Pratt said the GTF could be scaled up to 100K, but until someone (Boeing/Airbus etc.) requests it. It is just talk, nothing more… Take the A350 for example, RR has an exclusive on the A351, And Airbus has said they would like another engine choice for the other models. GE said NO, but you haven’t seen Airbus actively pressing Pratt for a GTF version? You wanna know why? Or would you to draw your own conclusions..

  29. The old 757 beats the snot out of the 2 competitors, above 3000nm there is no competition. All hail the queen! 🙂 4100nm is quite the range!

  30. A lot of speculation here about aux tanks. I have been working comparison of A vs B offerings now for months. Regarding ACTs (Additional Center Tank) the following holds true:
    The 737-9 MAX with a two class seating has no use for any ACT. If full of pax and bags, it runs out of MTOW before any fuel could be put into an ACT.
    The A321neo is only able to use 1 ACT with a full pax/bags load before it runs out of MTOW.

    Bottom line, the A321 with one ACT will fly a 1200lbs (550kg) more payload maybe a 50- 100nm farther than the B737-9 according to current information from the respective OEM. And that distance is somewhere around 2800-2900nm ESAD tops. Speculating how far these things can fly with a lesser payload is a useless excercise.

  31. Marine Trent MT30 ( 36MW ) is said to have 80% parts comonality to the Trent 700.

    Full Power SFC (207g/kWh) does not match comparable 2stroke diesel engines (~152g/kWh) and their performance under reduced power is abysmall. In contrast power specific weight is unmatched.
    ( reason why you see various combinations of diesel / gasturbine propulsion in (mostly navy) ships ). Initial use of gasturbines in shipping : 3rd gen container carriers ) was killed by the first oilcrisis.

  32. keesje :
    Observer, key parts of the GTF are dimensioned to enable the engine to grow to 40.000 lbs upon request. Do you have a problem with that? The MS-21-400ER will need more thrust then the A321. If you are refusing to look ahead, a 236 seat A321 will no doubt come as a total surprise. Did you see the RFI? http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_10_2012_p0-526558.xml

    “If you are refusing to look ahead, a 236 seat A321 will no doubt come as a total surprise. Did you see the RFI?”

    Your new 236 seat Keesje-Liner *Doesn’t* need an RFI. As it is the same A321/Engine as today.

    Quoting from AW:

    “Seats also would have to be placed in a 28-in. pitch configuration throughout the cabin. No fuselage stretch or other modifications, such as additional emergency exits, would be needed.

    Airbus says it has “no firm plans” to raise A321 capacity further.”

    Do enjoy your 28-in. pitch though. Sounds wonderful! 😉

  33. keesje :
    The 757 is a great performer and has its unique niche. Great machine, unless you are a passenger in the back or have to pay the fuel/ maintenance costs..
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19KMLpc5Uu8?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent%5D

    Yeah if B had given it the TLC of the 737 where would it be today? People love to point out that its uneconomical, well maybe because its from farking 1982 with very few upgrades since then. With the same amonunt of upgrades as the 737 has seen it would be a serious contender in the NB market above 3000nm ranges. Even giving the 787-8 a thrashing in the lower part of its market.

    [Edited out.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.