Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
- SPEEA, Boeing at impasse over safety program, union says April 23, 2024
- Better transparency needed on Boeing’s 1Q earnings call April 22, 2024
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
Boeing aims for half of 100-150 seat sector with 737-7
Jan. 24, 2018, © Leeham Co.: Dublin, Ireland: Boeing sees the 100-150 market sector as 10%-15% of the 20-year single-aisle market demand, or about 3,000-4,500 aircraft.
This compares with the 6,000-7,200 forecast by Bombardier.
Other companies fall within the 4,000 range.
Boeing doesn’t specifically segment the sector in its Current Market Outlook the 20-year forecast for regional, mainline, twin-aisle and cargo aircraft. However, Robert Michael, senior manager of product marketing for Boeing, disclosed the figure at the 20th Annual Airfinance Journal Conference Monday.
Michael said he expects the 737-7 MAX to capture about half the demand.
Aggressive goal
Capturing half the 3,000-4,500 unit demand is an aggressive forecast for the 7 MAX.
Bombardier claims it will capture half the 100-150 sector. Embraer has strong entries in the sector in the form of the E190/195 E1 and E2.
Airbus is proving to be a non-competitor with the A319neo. There are fewer than 40 orders following the conversion of 19 to the larger A321neo by Frontier Airlines.
The 7 MAX to date has about 60 identified orders, but Southwest Airlines just deferred 23 of them to 2023-24, fueling questions whether it will up-gauge some or all of these to the larger 8 MAX.
Boeing filed a trade complaint with the US government in April 2017, charging the C Series was illegally subsidized and Bombardier engaged in price dumping in a sale of 75+50 CS100s to Delta Air Lines. The US Department of Commerce found for Boeing and announced tariffs of 292% on each aircraft. The US International Trade Commission is due to rule tomorrow whether Boeing was harmed by Bombardier. If ITC finds no harm was done, the complaint dies. If it agrees harm was done, an appeal by Bombardier is certain.
Bombardier intends to establish a US final assembly line in Mobile (AL) regardless of the ITC ruling, which it believes will classify those airplanes produced there a US product exempt from tariffs.
Michael touts the 7 MAX as a good hot-high and short-field performance airplane It also has the longest range of any MAX.
He said that many MAX orders haven’t identified model and many have the ability to switch models. As lead times to production narrows, Michael believes the 7 MAX will see new orders emerge.
MAX 9 and 10
Michael said sales of the MAX 10 were stronger than Boeing expected when the program was officially launched last year at the Paris Air Show. The company announced 361 orders and commitments (not all of which have been converted to firm orders yet).
Michael said the MAX 10 hasn’t cannibalized orders from the MAX 9, but this overstates the facts. United Airlines converted 100 MAX 9 orders to the MAX 10, reducing the estimated backlog of the MAX 9 by about 30%. About 114 MAX 10 orders were converted from the 8 MAX. The balance was incremental orders.
‘Michael said he expects the 737-7 MAX to capture about half the demand.’
ROFL
What is “ROFL”
Roll on the floor laughing
@dukeofurl:
And ROFL for good rational/logical reasons:
1. Max7 has been on sale in the mkt for over 6.5yrs.
2. Total backlog accumulated is 60 units meaning an avg sell rate of less than 10 per yr.
3. Boeing is predicting mkt demand for @ least 3,000 units across 20yrs in the 100-150 seat segment where Max7 lives. This mean an avg of 150 units should find buyers every yr.
4. Boeing is also predicting 50% mkt share in that segment meaning 75 units per yr should be Max7 in such scenario.
5. It’s a gross understatement to state climbing fm 10 to 75 units of sales per yr on avg is a nearly impossible task for any airplane sales team….especially for a largely mature product near the end of its product life cycle and has been for sale on the mkt for yrs.
Therefore, I don’t know what has Mr Robert Michael been smoking….
I can only think of 2 ways how Mr Michael can justify 50% share in an airplane mkt sized @ 150 units per yr:
a) He already assumed E2Jet is in the product brochure page on http://www.boeing.com
b) He’s got approval fm Boeing board to give Max7 away for free to any potential customers(Note: still not all will take it because there’s a thing known as life cycle cost AFTER U get it for free).
It can also be that +90% of 737-7MAX sales are as a biz jet and gouverment special mission Aircrafts with cargo space full of additional fuel tanks. Like P-8B’s, New Awacs, New J-STARS, special combi cargo with dirt track wheels to temporary airfields and a small cheap tanker function using its belly tanks, the rigid pipe can be installed underneath the fuselage aft the nose gear bay if the US goes for a SR-72 it will have special fuel not boiling off at +100 000′ and dedicated tankers carrying that fuel….
@Claes:
“It can also be that +90% of 737-7MAX sales are as a biz jet and gouverment special mission Aircrafts”
1. To match the projected sales in their worst case scenario, Boeing must sell an avg of 75 units of Max7 EVERY yr for the nex 20yrs.
2. In the airline/lessor segment, Boeing may be able to double current sell rate to manage 20 units per yr…..very difficult but it’s a goal that is a hell of a lot more realistic.
3. That still mean Boeing must shift 55units per yr to BBJ +special mission buyers for 20yrs.
4. Historically, BBJ mkt is tiny…accounted for may be 10 units per yr @ best in various forms of the 73G.
5. Historically, 737NG ordered for special mission(e.g. P8) accounted for well under 10 units per yr on avg.
6. Mr Michael must find additional demand for Max7 x35 every yr in order to meet his minimum target….demand that wasn’t there over the past 20yrs during the 737NG era.
Perhaps he can convince to buy more per yr(actually, a lot more) for the U.S. DoD than ever before PLUS(and this is way more difficult) Trump somehow can remain as POTUS for the nex 20yrs…..
With Airbus not focused on the a319, that figure is probably conservative.
The 319N’s biggest draw back is the size and weight of its engines.
The LEAP1A’s is >30% bigger and 200+kg’s heavier than the 1B’s.
Conservative? :-O
You think Boeing will sell more that even they claim?
Boeing has to make this claim to back up their absurd claims to the Department of Corruption (DOC) and International Trade Corruption (ITC) panels. Amazing the see-through lying that Boeing is willing to do.,
Exactly my thoughts. This statement is laying the foundation of future appeals based on ‘actual harm done’.
“Look, we were expecting to sell 1,500 – 2,000 MAX7, then along comes this illegally subsidised CSeries and now we’ve only sold 75!”
737-7 MAX Mk2 is a shrink MAX8 simplifying the manufacturing process.
But that imho also further reduced the viability in the lower capacity field. A319 and 737-7MAX sales numbers tell all.
Was Boeing able to impress Pippi Longstockings to work for their PR department?
That is some good stuff they are smoking over at Boeing. They should share. With things in the world being so bleak and rough sometimes, I’m sure all of us would enjoy being this dissociated from reality…
It must be a lot of ,Mexican gold been smoked in the office as that’s the best smoke for a trip into LaLa land I know that because I have smoked it myself
This is an unbelievably dirty game that Boeing is playing. There is simply no way they’ll realistically be able to capture even 10% of that market.
This statement is all about establishing false expectations so they can blame Bombardier for lost sales.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Correct; Select!
“I’ll take more Boeing Tall Tales for $1,000, Alex…”
I would like to say the use of dirty when in regards to corporations (or pass thoroughs ) does not reflect the reptiialin nature of many businesses.
When you start lying,you’re caught,the lies just get bigger and bigger
The method shown is:
To hide your lies You just lie always.
Even without direct cause.
And the 2018 Aerospace Manufacturer spokesperson Pinoccio Award goes to…
Robert Michael of Boeing, for his yarn at a conference before industry finance experts (said with a straight face, no less) about how an obsolete airplane, the 737-7 MAX, whose mid (last) century designs and engineering date back to the 707 and the dawn of the jet age, will sell like it’s 1999 all over again!!!
Definitely the best laugh I’ve had all week!!! 🤣 🤣 🤣
Was just wondering if it was the 1st of April?
….or is he eluding to a new 2-3 Boeing-Embaer single aisle!
Scott,are you absolutely certain he said 737 7 MAX?
With the ongoing dumping case they can’t retract the “737-7MAX is viable competition” statement.
That would turn the case into a collapsing cavitation bubble.
Highly erosive potential.
Interesting outlook. I do hope Boeing’s other forecasts are a little more realistic than expecting to sell some 2,000 737-7.
The 737-700 got some 17% of the total NG sales (just over 1,100). Now the MAX-7 is such a fantastic product, that they’ll double that sales number? The share of the 737-7 in the family would also have to double or get even a bigger share.
It’s even more so astonishing, as the competition sees an upward trend (from 19% to 1% for the A319CEO to NEO, and from 20% to 24% for the A321COE to NEO) where the bigger member of the A320 family gets more sales, Boeing expects the opposite, yet the 737-7 so far has only a 1% share of the MAX orders.
Who do they actually believe to fool?
US ITC
LOOOOOOLLLL! Oh wait, unless they buy and rename the Embraer E2 to 737-7. Then yeah, 50% of the market and 100% of the US market which will becomes a 100-150 seat monopoly, thanks to [Edited] the US Commerce Dept 😉
On the CSeries case Reuters report Bombardier seeking a reopening of the ITC record given that Embraer recently told Flight that the E2 range has been increased to 2900nm, which meant it was now meets the ranges that the ITC case is considering (under Boeing suggestion?). Apparently Embraer have now stated 2880nm. So, did Flight round up? Or did Embraer actually state specifically 2900nm in the interview? Or…
Hello Woody,
Regarding: “Embraer recently told Flight that the E2 range has been increased to 2900nm, which meant it was now meets the ranges that the ITC case is considering (under Boeing suggestion?).”
Wikipedia lists the following specifications for the E-190-E2 and E195-E2.
E-190-E2: Two class passenger capacity 97 (9J@36 in + 88Y@31 in), Range 2880 nm.
E195-E2: Two class passenger capacity 120 (12J@36 in + 108Y@31 in), Range 2600 nm.
If the above E-Jet specifications are correct, then the E-190-E2 is out of the scope that has so far been used in the C-Series dumping and CVD cases due to inadequate passenger capacity, even if its range is 2900 nm, and the E-195-E2 is out of scope due to inadequate range.
The scope in all stages of the case so far has specified a passenger capacity of 100 to 150 when 8 passenger seats are configured for 36 inch pitch and the remaining seats are configured for 32 inch pitch (vs. 31 inches in the above E-Jet specs that give a capacity of only 97 for the E190-E2). Below is a portion of the scope statement from the Federal Register scheduling notice for the final stage of the USITC case.
Scope of the Investigation
The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these
terms are defined below. ‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class
seating capacity’’ refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-
inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. ‘‘Pitch’’ is the distance between a point on one seat and
the same point on the seat in front of it. ‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity’’ does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below
100 or exceed 150.
A ‘‘minimum 2,900 nautical mile range’’
means:
(i) Able to transport between 100 and 150passengers and their luggage on routes equal to or longer than 2,900 nautical miles; or (ii) covered by a U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) type certificate or supplemental type certificate that also covers other aircraft with a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range.
another kind of gerrymandering 🙂
you’re right, that fact that it’s only missing 20nmi of range doesn’t matter. If it did, they’d change the scope to include that the manufacturer’s name has to start with Bom and end with bardier. Problem solved. Embraer is out, Bombardier is in. Next question.
The yoke of the hole story is that US airlines and pax will not be able to benefit from the CS aircraft while the rest of the world can
Is the US becoming an aeronautical concentration camp?
AP as a man of detail and the law where will an CS300″LGW” with lower MTOW, de-rated engines and range of <2900 fit into this crow nest mess?
You means a CS310 ?
Doesnt that remind you of another ‘downsized’ model
That was my initial thought too but unless this another managerial misunderstanding mess at Bombardier I guess that the interview (I haven’t seen/read it) must imply or refer to the E195 having 2900nm range now.
Hello Woody,
According to the FlightGlobal article at the link below, Bombardier’s request for re-opening the case was based on increased range for the E190-E2, which as I noted in my post above, does not fall within the scope that has been specified for all stages of the case so far, due to inadequate passenger capacity*. The following quote is from the link after the quote.
“According to Bombardier, however, an increase in range, reported by FlightGlobal on 19 January, makes clear that the E190-E2 fits within the aircraft segment being investigated by the ITC.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-asks-trade-panel-to-reopen-record-ahead-o-445140/
* The following is from my previous post in this thread.
“The scope in all stages of the case so far has specified a passenger capacity of 100 to 150 when 8 passenger seats are configured for 36 inch pitch and the remaining seats are configured for 32 inch pitch (vs. 31 inches in the above E-Jet specs that give a capacity of only 97 for the E190-E2).”
So if an CS100 is configured at 2-2 according to these specs it will also have a seat capacity of <100?
Boeing is clearly lining up the specs to fit the E-Jets.
Hello Anton,
According to the scope used so far in the case, passenger capacity is defined as the passenger capacity when 8 seats are installed at 36 inch pitch and the remaining seats are installed at 32 inch pitch, no matter what actual number of seats are installed or what actual seat pitch or pitches are used. Thus, a Cs-100 or 737-7 with less than 100 or more than 150 seats installed is still considered to be in scope as far as passenger capacity is concerned. The quote below is from the scope statement in the Federal Register scheduling notice for the final phase of the USITC case. In regards to your question, note in particular the final two sentences of the quote.
“The merchandise covered by this investigation is aircraft, regardless of seating configuration, that have a standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity and a minimum 2,900 nautical mile range, as these terms are defined below. ‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity’’ refers to the capacity to accommodate 100 to 150 passengers, when eight passenger seats are configured for a 36-inch pitch, and the remaining passenger seats are configured for a 32-inch pitch. ‘‘Pitch’’ is the distance between a point on one seat and the same point on the seat in front of it. ‘‘Standard 100- to 150-seat two-class seating capacity’’ does not delineate the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft or the actual seating configuration of a subject aircraft. Thus, the number of seats actually in a subject aircraft may be below 100 or exceed 150.
Thanks AP, we know whats it all about an Boeing has most covered.
What they however are overlooking is the bigger picture?
@AP_Robert
Is there no mention of seat width at all?
Because an E190 easily seats more than 100 passengers with 5 abreast in economy 14 inch seats 😀
Also I think Bombardier should start work on the CS090 and CS290 a series of planes with a maximum range of 2750 miles aimed at US costumers.
BBD/(AB) could potential start with a shorter range CS100. Will have to change fuel tanks that will reduce max capacity by 2-3T.
At the same time certify this model with an MTOW of <60T because next thing that will happen is MTOW definitions.
The 190E2 is 56T and 195E2 MTOW 61T.
Hello Julian,
Re: “Is there no mention of seat width at all?”
There is indeed no mention at all of seat width; however, it might be difficult to get away with basing stated seating capacity on a configuration that no customer had ever purchased. On 1-19-18, the close of record date for the case, the USITC staff entered specifications downloaded from the manufacturer’s websites for the E-Jets, C-Series, 737-NG series, 737-MAX Series, A319, A320 and A321 into the case record, and none of the seating configurations shown in Embraer’s E190 brochure (dual class 96 seats, single class 100 seats, and high density single class 114 seats) showed more than 4 seats in a row.
I hope that no LCC airline executives see your post raising the possibility of 5-Abreast seating in E-Jets.
While on seat widths and the 737-7.
In the early 70’s the local airline operated 727’s and 707’s in economy with an 2-3 layout.
Maybe there is a niche application for the 737-7 in a premium one class 5 abreast (real seats, not blanked out) layout with 34-36″ pitch, range should be North of 4000Nm?
It could also open-up some real short (and nasty) runways of smaller airports which are often located in very scenic parts of the world that often carries a premium price tag.
Dirty , dirty Boeing.
I had a good laugh reading this article.
There’re just too many fun facts to take it serious.
Read this:
“Airbus is proving to be a non-competitor with the A319neo. There are fewer than 40 orders ”
“The 7 MAX to date has about 60 identified orders, but Southwest Airlines just deferred 23 of them to 2023-24”
If i follow algebra, 60 – 23 = 37.
So Boeing is a non-competitor then?!
It’s time for A&B to understand market did go to 200PAX, and everything under 150 will be done by enhanced regional jets. Bomba and Embraer will make this market.
Think Boeing is playing a dirty game. Keep the CS out of the US, take over Embraer and offer E-(190)/195E2’s to airlines for more than the 737-7, at least in the US, then the MAX7 sells.
But it can backfire badly, AB can hit back quietly and hard with an (73″) or 75″ inch PW1X00G version/s of the (A319) and/or 320? The 737 is stuck with its 69″ fan engines.
A super efficient 25-28 KLb PW1X00G with 75″ inch fan (“much” lighter than the 1100G) for the (A319)/320 (and CS500) could cause havoc.
@Anton:
“A super efficient 25-28 KLb PW1X00G with 75″ inch fan (“much” lighter than the 1100G) for the (A319)/320 (and CS500) could cause havoc.”
Yes, it will. It’ll cause maintenance+parts commonality “havoc”/headaches for buyers which hv already invested in 320Neo and/or CSeries family with their existing PW1000G models.
Also, it sounds like U hv absolutely no idea re the diff structural interface in engine-to-airframe 320Neo(e.g. 319/320Neo) vs CSeries(e.g. a CS5) even if they both use PW1000G family.
On the other hand, take a look of how many diff PW1000G applications P&W is already managing simultaneously:
PW1100G=320Neo family
PW1200G=MRJ family
PW1400G=MC21 family
PW1500G=CSeries family
PW1700G=175E2
PW1900G=190/195E2
U seriously think P&W is not busy enough given so many supply chain/delayed delivery issues on its plate right now that U think they should develop+cert yet another new “PW1X00G” variant with a resized “75” fan” and therefore, fan case, nacelle, plumbings and may be compressors(lets hope no need to re-size turbines), etc. that can somehow magically be “much lighter” than a PW1100G?
Anyway, why not 74″ or 76″ inch fan? Why 75″ which will only be 2″ larger than a PW1500G but a lot of development $ to get those 2 inches? Just a random number off top of your head?
This is matchbox stuff but the 73″ max out at around 23Klb, the 81″ stands at the moment at 33Klb.
If you look at surface areas the 73″ give 5.5Lb/SQinch and the 81″ 6.4Lb/SQinch.
If you use the PW1100G thrust per square inch you will need an 75″ inch fan to max out at 28Klb, or if you use the average of the two (6) it will max out at 26Klb. Do the calc’s and tell me if I am wrong.
I think PWA with friends especially MTU with EU, goverment and German state supports are already at work on a slightly higher thrust PW1100G engine. You want to increase fan diameter one inch or two to pump more air but not increase nacelle o.d. hence a more slimline nacelle is needed and redesign/move move some accessories off the fan containment case. Increasing fan diameter just a bit on a fairly large fan increase blade swept area quite a bit boosting bypass ratio and SFC (it can quickly be ruined by a larger nacelle at the same mounting position), the original GE90 got stuck in the lauch engine PW4000 777 wing position that was not optimal, for the GE90-115B GE had Boeing position it perfectly.
Thanks, interesting. My point is that a slightly larger fanned PW1500G with thrust around 26Klb could have multiple applications. There is an agreement between BBD and PW that the 1500 is for exclusive use on the CS but this could change in the event of a finalized AB-CS deal?
The first and obvious is for an CS500.
A391NX, the current 319N not finding favor as the 320N I guess have better seat mile cost and not big differences in sector cost (oversized engines). An A319NX with a smaller and lighter engine could at least equal the 320N on seat mile cost and have significant better sector costs.
If such an engine has significant better SFC than the 1100G it could find its way to the wing of the lower MTOW A320N.
Application will be for airlines that want to maintain maximum fleet commonality and don’t want to introduce another type in its fleet. The other obvious reason for an A319NX is for use in the US with the CS circus that is going on there.
I don’t know what the situation at CFM/LEAP is but a 73″ fanned LEAPX with higher bypass ratio than the 1B and thrust around 26KlB could find application on an 319NX and LGW A320NX while the 1A being basically an HGW A320N and A321N engine.
They could actually be eager to develop an engine for an aircraft that could compete with the PW powered 195E2 and CS300?
Hello FLX,
You make some good points.
Below is a quote from a Puget Sound Business Journal article about the upcoming Paine Field service that I found interesting and which bought back memories of the years that I lived and worked about 80 miles north of SeaTac and 40 miles north of Paine Field. On frequent weekend trips to the San Francisco Bay Area where I had family, often my preference was to leave for SeaTac straight from work around 5 PM; however, if I did so I would hit the rush hour traffic through downtown Seattle and could not count on getting to SeaTac until about 8 PM, which meant that I could not book a flight leaving any earlier than about 9 PM, which would get me to San Francisco between 11 PM and Midnight. Driving the 80 miles to SeaTac took more time than flying 680 miles to San Francisco. If I was travelling any further than San Francisco or to an unfamiliar area, I would probably have to delay my departure until Saturday morning. It usually only took me about an hour to get to Everett, even in bad traffic, so I could have booked flights from Everett as early as about 7 PM.
Even if I was departing Saturday morning, an Everett flight would have cut the worst 40 miles, through downtown Seattle traffic, off of my drive to the airport.
“Seattle traffic has become so frustrating that Alaska’s passengers are seeking alternatives as they struggle to get to and from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Almost a quarter of Alaska Airlines customers have told the airline they would prefer departures from Paine Field in Everett over Sea-Tac Airport.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/25/alaska-airlines-paine-field-flyers-portland.html
Sounds like you need a good train service to the airport?
The above is a reply to a message from FLX further down in this thread, which somehow ended up here instead of where I was intending to put it.
Just had a look, the CS300 has an MTOW of 68T and the LGW A319N and MTOW of 65T.
So if push comes to shove the PW1500 could have enough thrust (23Klb) for a 2500-2800Nm range 319NX?
See the thrust range on engines for the 319CEO’s are 22-23.5Klb.
Hello Anton,
Reliable and convenient train service would have been nice, but what there was didn’t make it as far north as I lived, was infrequent, and subject to 48 hour service cancelations due to mudslides onto the tracks when it rained, which was often. The best train service stopped at the edge of the built up cites, and where I was living there were cattle grazing in the field across the street from my house, and in a field behind the hospital where I worked. I wondered a few times if I could have made better time to SeaTac on horseback than driving a car, but I wouldn’t have felt right about abandoning a horse at SeaTac for the weekend.
Sounds like a nightmare. You could catch the red-eye on Saturday morning but its always coming back on a Sunday afternoon that kills it.
Nothing beats country living, my advantage is although than living 280km from the international airport it never takes me more than 3 hours from door to check-in.
“I wondered a few times if I could have made better time to SeaTac on horseback.”
no rental stable there 😕 Motor cycle as an alternative?
…or you can get a Hondajet!
http://www.hondajet.com/
Don’t want to totally lose the plot here but read Delta is reviewing its comfort pet policies.
Maybe book your’e horse a flatbed and you have transport on the other side (I have some images in my head…….).
Hello Anton,
Overall, living in the countryside (by Seattle standards) was very peaceful, not a nightmare. Monday to Friday my commute to work was 10 minutes each direction with no traffic lights. I often came home for lunch. I only had to deal with the big city hassles two or three or times a month when I decided to go to the big city for some event or to fly somewhere not served by the very limited airline service from Bellingham, 24 miles and 30 minutes north from where I lived..
Hello Uwe,
Regarding: “Motor cycle as an alternative?”
I saw people making pretty good time splitting lanes as in the picture below, at least until they failed to anticipate a sudden lane change by a car; however, I wasn’t brave enough to give it a try.
https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/migration/lir/liry9a-b78772508z.120110328083942000g05u6146.2.jpg?w=620
Litigate: https://www.inverse.com/article/40503-gm-sued-for-self-driving-car-crash 🙂
Doesn’t want to get serious but if airports hubs are not fed from rail hubs that in their turn is spiked into from rail or bus/taxi/shuttle logistics could kill the flying boom?
See the passenger is a young blond lady, maybe the oak was in a rush home?
Hello Anton,
Re: “Doesn’t want to get serious but if airports hubs are not fed from rail hubs that in their turn is spiked into from rail or bus/taxi/shuttle logistics could kill the flying boom?”
In addition to Seattle, I have also lived in the San Francisco Bay area and the Los Angeles area. In both San Francisco and Los Angeles at the times I was there, I thought that the airport situation was less a mess than it was in Seattle, because the airline traffic was spread over several airports instead of being funneled mainly through one as it currently is in Seattle. Although international flights were concentrated at SFO in San Francisco and LAX in Los Angeles, for local and regional flights (like up and down the coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles or inland to Sacramento, Reno or Las Vegas) you could use the north, south, west or east airport, depending on whether you lived in the north, south or east part of the area, and probably avoid having to pass through the most congested part of downtown on the way to the airport.
San Francisco Bay Area had the following airports with good local service: San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and also, back when the original PSA was till flying, Concord. Not just regional jet flights to hubs, but also frequent mainline shuttle service to other large cities in California.
Los Angles had the following airports with good local service: Los Angeles, Burbank, Orange County, Long Beach, Ontario.
I saw the monopoly issue with CS out of the market and Boeing controlling both the ERJ and 737. But you make a great point: whether or not they acquire Embraer, they corner the market now. They told us from every rooftop this week how Embraer and Boeing is already in bed together. So a “wink wink we won this sale” and a “wink wink we lost this one to Embraer” there, and the 737-7Max could well start to sell again. Of course, airlines and the flying public looses. But there is still the A319Neo, it’s been flight tested and ready to ship from Alabama. So they can’t go very high. But taking the Cseries out of the market will increase the prices, might look like a 3-player game when it’s really a 2-player game now (Embraer+Boeing against A319Neo) and the price will roll back up to the A319Neo (well, just below the A319Neo price). There is, however, another force: foreign airlines in Canada and Mexico could start to siphon “connecting traffic” out of the US and into Canada/Mexico. Example: to Vancouver for Asia, to Toronto/MTL for Europe, etc. They can already do that but the CSeries will truly have transcon potential. All of the US would now be up for grabs. But that only hurts US airlines, the travelling public will benefit from that. And that last item (siphoning traffic) night not be a big variable in the equation. The ERJ seems to now be fully transcontinental. So maybe the USA doesn’t need to CSeries and the only true impact will be that prices will not go down because there won’t be this CSeries vs ERJ fight at the bottom. It will be ERJ going up to the 737-7M/A319Neo price. And both Embraer and Boeing stand to win from that.
But why should you offer an E195 for more then a B737max 7 just to get sales started if you bought Embraer?
Boeing does want to sell the E2 jets then, it will cost them 4bn+ to buy Embraer. Dom’t thing they’ll gonna do it for fun just to sell their inferior B737max7.
Just as the standard single aisles are getting bigger, so are the regionals.
So now those bigger regionals are being called ‘crossovers’
The E2-195 is definitely cross over territory with 132 seats @31″ and can even do 120 seats at 3 class ( according to EMB)
Depending on the price, you can see many airlines looking hard at this plane if they need multiple types of single aisles
This is so true.
CSeries and E2 are up into areas where B737-700 and A319 have been, also range wise.
CS100 (108-133pax) and E2- 190 (97-114) are where A318 (107-132) and B737-600 (108-123) were, range more or less 300nmi.
E2 a little smaller, little less range, but althougether this aircrafts are in the same market.
CS300 (130-160, 3300nmi) and E2-195 (120-145, 2600nmi) are a little different.
The E2 195 is still a regional airplane a little smaller then B737-7max and A319neo, while the CS 300 sits well where A319 and and B737-7 are.
With shift to A320neo and B737-8max about 189 and 200pax, the CS300 is the only real competitor for the 150pax mid range market, if you count out A319neo and B737-7max (because they lack orders).
So for a strategic fleet planing (AF-KLM will place a order soon for 150- 200 and 200something pax) you might tend to buy
Cs 100 and Cs300 for 100-150pax and max/neo for 190 and 240 pax.
Actually it seems to be apealing to have CS 100, 300, A320neo and A321neo, as the later one is the better airplane than the B737-9/10.
That’s imo why Boeing fears the CS – it could be loosing on both ends and that could be a great argument to favor also the A320 over B737-8.
Read about AF-KLM, Transavia, HOP, looking at fleet renewals. A CS100/300 mix in the <150 seat could be a good for many of their routes but the E2's mus be in the running, (or a surprizing "save the 319N" order due to fleet commonalties?).
For 150-200 seats the typical 320N/MAX8 toss-up (most likely a mix due to pilot certification, etc.?), 321NEO's a no-brainer.
Transavia is only using 737’s, will make sense as LCC to stay 737. KLM is only using 737’s as single aisles and Air France 320 family. Could be an interesting one.
No your math is screwed up. You would only subtract 23 if Southwest cancelled the 737-7 orders.
THe 737-7 has 50% more orders than the A319neo. That is a huge lead and so one can understand why Airbus felt compelled to enter a partnership with Bombardier.
I think delusional is the word that applies best.
The environment they live in is best company.
So this is probably a well adapted working strategy in scope of MAGA drivers.
IMHO MAGA is a cargo cult.
Well I would call it worse than that, but I can go along with it!
Personality cult might be the better term. Mussolini comes to mind.
no. wrong track.
“Cargo Cult” is a specific kind of expectation from like presentation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
Remember the USSR? Keep believing false “facts” and you will end up with a repeat. If I was American I would be dead scared of this trend in in all fascets of American life. Read Gorbachov, he must be seeing a lot he can recognize in the current state of the USA.
Well, I’m American, sleep soundly, and certainly don’t worry about “fascets”. Now, “facets”, that’s a different story! LOL
Bloo_dy telephone.
“Gorbachov” is he related to “Gorbachev”?
“Grammar nazi” does not become you all that well. Out of arguments?
And to enjoy the Irish People, this….http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-42807017
The 737-7 must have serious100-150 seats potential otherwise the Delta CS100 complaint falls apart.
I feel sorry for Robert Michael, sent out to tell a story that hurts his professional credibility.
I suspect Mr. Michael is a graduate of the Randy Tinsmith school of credibility.
That’s ok for Micheal re professional credibility….he’s probably got a golden parachute most likely in the form of Boeing stock options so further career development post-Boeing is probably much less relevant.
Slander much? LOL
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bombardier-asks-trade-panel-to-reopen-record-ahead-o-445140/
That goes along with the delay to the 26th.
Having engaged in the craft as it were when we wanted a specific mfg of equipment and wrote the specification such that only one mfg met that!
Maybe part of the process but is there really a difference between 2880 and 2900 realistically?
When Harley filed their complain it was not for machines in 200cc or 300 cc, it was 750 CC and over.
I do know it was amended at some point to 700 CC and over, I owned one that was 696 CC (can accurately guess it was to ensure no drift over due to tolerance shifts. )
Thanks for the link. Range of 2880 Nm, my German friends would have liked a decimal or two, that could make you land 99,9 metres short of the runway?
And more information on reject and BBD actions
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-boeing-international-trade-commission-duties-1.4501589
The decision has been made, this is just some window dressing going on.
Bombardier is trying a different tack, using NAFTA to get an appeal decided by a panel of US and Canadian trade experts.
“The Canadian government has filed requests for panel reviews under NAFTA to appeal U.S. decisions to impose duties on imports of the C Series and softwood lumber from Canada.
NAFTA’s Chapter 19 dispute resolution mechanism means Canada can get a panel made up of American and Canadian trade experts to decide if the duties follow U.S. trade law, rather than going through the U.S. court system.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bombardier-boeing-international-trade-commission-duties-1.4501589
I think the 737-7 main competition is a 737-8 flying 140 passengers and some empty seats. Same with the A320, if it is an economic toss up, more airlines will just buy an A321 and fly it with 160 passengers and some empty seats, rather than the smaller A320.
@Ted:
“the 737-7 main competition is a 737-8 flying 140 passengers and some empty seats. Same with the A320, if it is an economic toss up, more airlines will just buy an A321”
Agree and particularly true in an environment persistently showing the following mkt conditions in recent yrs:
1. Relatively high avg load factor yr round worldwide.
2. Low oil price.
Half the market he says?
Let the 737-MAX7 dumping begin!
Sure…the same way that while I “AIMED” for a new Mercedes, I ended up with a 2000 Volvo.
don’t know about Volvo.
For a Saab you would definitely be better off with a pre 1998 one 🙂
Friend of mine has an 1982 Volvo 164E that is still going strong.
In Germany the Turkish people driving to their home village in Turkey and back can tell you which cars can take that beating over and over, old Mercedes and Volvo’s have a good reputation for making it. But today their electronics with software will probably determine their life (like an Windows PC) before mechanical parts wear out.
Looks like the remaining Alabama republican wants the CS for his state, and he has some support as well
://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/two-us-lawmakers-throw-support-behind-bombardier-in
In order to better evaluate this forecast one should go over prior estimated Boeing gave over the years. They were right on spot when they made their VLA forecast years ago in contrast to what the marketing gurus of Airbus were predicting. Airbus was lucky that the some oil princedoms from the Middle East agreed to subsidize their colossal mistake.
@David:
“In order to better evaluate this forecast one should go over prior estimated Boeing gave over the years.”
Just prove that talent+willingness for bogus mkt projections is not exclusive to 1 brand.
“They were right on spot when they made their VLA forecast years ago in contrast to what the marketing gurus of Airbus were predicting.”
But the “marketing gurus of Airbus” are also right about their earlier predictions re VLA demand……..as soon as they change VLA definition recently to include 333 and 77W in 400+ seat configs…..
I never fully understand the term “the art of marketing” until I see this mkting stuff fm Airbus and Boeing…..
With Southwest going to Paine Field, this is the canary in the coal mine in terms of population growth versus aircraft manufacturing. I think Paine will be popular for travel, and the NMA will be built somewhere else, even if the wings are built in Everett.
Southwest’s announcement that they plan five flights a day adds to previously announced plans by Alaska and United for 13 and 6 flights a day, respectively, to make for a total of 24 planned flights a day. Is Delta not interested or just not invited? If Delta does decide to serve Paine Field, maybe their advertising slogan could be “Proudly Fly Airbus on Your Business Trip to Boeing’s Wide Body Factory at Paine Field!”.
The quote is from the article at the link below.
“EVERETT — Southwest Airlines announced Thursday morning that it plans to serve Paine Field with up to five daily flights, using the new passenger terminal under construction there. It did not disclose destinations.
Southwest is the third airline to announce plans for the airport, which is owned and operated by Snohomish County. Earlier, Alaska Airlines said it plans 13 daily flights and United Airlines announced it plans six flights.
In all, there could be up to 24 passenger flights a day from Paine Field by late this year. Propeller Airports broke ground in June on a passenger terminal adjacent to the airport’s control tower. The 27,000-square-foot terminal will have two gates.”
“Seattle-based Alaska Airlines on Jan. 16 announced it plans 13 daily flights to eight West Coast destinations — Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose. The Seattle-based company in May became the first airline to commit to flying from Everett.
United Airlines in August announced plans for six daily flights to San Francisco and Denver. From those hubs, Chicago-based United serves cities throughout the world.”
https://www.heraldnet.com/business/southwest-announces-it-will-be-third-airline-to-fly-from-paine-field/
Maybe Delta wants to use CS100’s into Paine Field?
Alaska will be using some E-175s, who knows what United Express will fly , maybe CRJs, they are adding to their fleet of CRJ200’s.
Skywest is United Express pacific coast provider, so that could be E-175 or CRJ’s
Hello dukeofurl,
According to the Everett Herald article that I quote from below (if my prediction about where this comment will land in the thread is correct), both Alaska and United will be start service with E175’s operated by their regional affiliates. Southwest will be using 737’s, which doesn’t come as much of a surprise since the 737 is the only aircraft they operate.
“Southwest now serves 99 cities with a fleet of 687 airplanes — all Renton-built Boeing 737s. United and United Express serve 338 airports with a mixed fleet of 1,251 airplanes. Alaska and its regional subsidiary, Horizon Air, serve 118 destinations with a mixed fleet of 281 airplanes.
“Southwest’s 737’s can carry between 159 to 181 passengers. United and Alaska said they plan to fly smaller Embraer 175 regional jets. Those planes seat 76 passengers.”
I believe that the last sentence in the quote that I provided above from an Everett Herald article is in error regarding the seating capacity of Southwest’s 737’s.
According to the quote: “Southwest’s 737’s can carry between 159 to 181 passengers”; however, according to Wikipedia, Southwest’s 737’s are or will be equipped with either 143 seats (737-700 and 737-7) or 175 seats (737-800 and 737-8).
I find it interesting that according to Wikipedia, Southwest’s single class 737-8’s (all seats have 32 inch pitch) have about the same number of seats (175) as American’s multi-class 737-8’s which have 172 total seats, consisting of 16 First Class seats with 37 inch pitch, 30 Main Cabin Extra Seats with 33 inch pitch, and 126 Main Cabin seats with 30 inch pitch. I wonder if Southwest is using the same small restroom on its 737-8’s that American is using on its 737-8’s. According to both Wikipedia and the American Airlines website (from which I took the seat pitch data for American’s 737-8’s), American’s 737-800’s currently have only 160 seats vs. the 172 seats on its 737-8’s. Wikipedia says that American’s 737-800’s will be reconfigured with 172 seats, just like its 737-8’s, by 2021.
https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/experience/planes/planes.jsp
@AP_Robert:
“Southwest’s announcement that they plan five flights a day adds to previously announced plans by Alaska and United…make for a total of 24 planned flights a day. Is Delta not interested or just not invited?”
I think DL is in a slightly diff shoe re the attractiveness to op @ PAE:
UA /WN=
No hub @ SEA but hv to compete directly with AS+DL which hv hubs there. PAE represents a clean slate for them to grow where no one has hub power(@ least not yet for quite a while).
AS=
Already dominate SEA for a long time which is its largest hub. To grow even bigger @ SEA will usually mean rubbing against DL…possible but higher effort. A lower effort way to grow and to defend its mkt share in the overall Seattle region is to go PAE.
DL=
Does hv a hub @ SEA but still far less extensive/weaker than AS. It must continue to build up hub scale there not only to rival AS but also make its already small longhaul network there more viable. Going to the new PAE party with the others will be a distraction against DL’s work-in-progress @ SEA.
Hello FLX,
You make some good points.
The quote below is from a Puget Sound Business Journal article about the upcoming Paine Field service that I found interesting and which brought back memories of the years that I lived and worked about 80 miles north of SeaTac and 40 miles north of Paine Field. On frequent weekend trips to the San Francisco Bay Area where I had family, often my preference was to leave for SeaTac straight from work around 5 PM; however, if I did so I would hit the rush hour traffic through downtown Seattle and could not count on getting to SeaTac until about 8 PM, which meant that I could not book a flight leaving any earlier than about 9 PM, which would get me to San Francisco between 11 PM and Midnight. Driving the 80 miles to SeaTac took more time than flying 680 miles to San Francisco. If I was travelling any further than San Francisco or to an unfamiliar area, I would probably have to delay my departure until Saturday morning. It usually only took me about an hour to get to Everett, even in bad traffic, so I could have booked flights from Everett as early as about 7 PM.
Even if I was departing Saturday morning, an Everett flight would have cut the worst 40 miles, through downtown Seattle traffic, off of my drive to the airport.
“Seattle traffic has become so frustrating that Alaska’s passengers are seeking alternatives as they struggle to get to and from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Almost a quarter of Alaska Airlines customers have told the airline they would prefer departures from Paine Field in Everett over Sea-Tac Airport.”
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2018/01/25/alaska-airlines-paine-field-flyers-portland.html
Hello Anton,
Re: “Maybe Delta wants to use CS100’s into Paine Field?”
That is a good point. Or maybe they want to start out with regional affiliate E175’s like Alaska and United (see the quote below from the Everett Herald article that I provided a link to above). Either choice would completely ruin the advertising slogan that I proposed if one does not regard the CS-100 as an Airbus aircraft.
“Southwest now serves 99 cities with a fleet of 687 airplanes — all Renton-built Boeing 737s. United and United Express serve 338 airports with a mixed fleet of 1,251 airplanes. Alaska and its regional subsidiary, Horizon Air, serve 118 destinations with a mixed fleet of 281 airplanes.
Southwest’s 737’s can carry between 159 to 181 passengers. United and Alaska said they plan to fly smaller Embraer 175 regional jets. Those planes seat 76 passengers.”
Partial list of Snohomish counties largest employers, from the link after the list.
The table below shows the Top 20 private and public sector employers in Snohomish County as of 2017.
The Boeing Company, Aircraft Manufacturing, 34,500, Private
Providence Regional Medical Center, Medical Services, 4,775, Private
The Tulalip Tribes, Gaming-Real Estate-Gov’t Services, 3,200, Public
Naval Station Everett, U.S. Navy Base, 2,987, Public
Washington State Government (includes colleges), State Government, 2,950 Public
Snohomish County Government, County Government, 2,617 Public
Edmonds School District, School District, 2,605, Public
https://www.economicalliancesc.org/industry-and-major-employers/
C Series into Paine Field, eh? What’s next? Airbus A320/321s?
Superjets
No danger me thinks. They’ve done a “not a Boeing” on that one:
http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/no-faa-approval-leaves-us-ssj100-suppliers-struggling-mro-support
has that changed?
United Airline’s current thinking on “small mainline aircraft” according to the 1-24-18 FlightGlobal article at the link after the quote. The same article says that United is buying three used 767-300ER’s.
“Replacing the small jets with larger aircraft would require scope relief from pilots. United’s pilots contract, which becomes amendable in January 2019, caps the number of 70- to 76-seat aircraft at 255 – where the fleet stood at the end of 2017.
“We can wind up turning 50-seaters into larger regional jets but we [need to] make some kind of commitment to them,” says Kirby on scope relief from pilots. “Whether it’s a growth commitment or jobs.”
Another possibility floated by Levy is the addition of a new small narrowbody to United’s mainline fleet.
“Our hope is that we can replace our 50-seaters with bigger regional jets or, in some cases, maybe a small narrowbody mainline airplane. Stay tuned,” he says.
United’s pilots contract allows it to add up to 65 more large regional jets, for a total of 320, to its feeder fleet with the addition of a small mainline narrowbody.
However, Kirby has repeatedly pooh-poohed the idea of a small mainline aircraft since he joined United in 2018.
“The economics of a 100 seater are just really, really challenging,” he said on the topic in August 2017. He cited the additional complexity of adding a new aircraft type that does not have commonality with United’s narrowbody fleet of both Airbus A320 family and 737 family aircraft.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-pauses-fleet-upgauging-with-50-seater-additio-445179/
Hi Transworld, not looking for trouble but attached for you.
http://c.newsnow.co.uk/A/921335801?-303:3665:3
Heads Up, Everyone:
Reader Comment Rules prohibit commenting about someone’s grammar, spelling, attacks on integrity (whether in jest or seriousness), etc. English is not the first language of some and not everyone is a good speller or a whiz at grammar (not with today’s US schools, especially).
Readers are commanded (by me) to treat each other with respect and dignity.
Consider yourselves warned. Continued violations may result in suspension of commenting access or closing comments.
Also: how does a post on commercial aviation turn into a debate about cars? Get back on topic, please.
Hamilton
Apparently Theresa has had a word with the Donald at Davos. Perhaps she can talk some sense into him.
Otherwise it will probably be worse for the US aviation industry than anyone else.
I can foresee a compromise that effectively slows down BBDs cashflow and buys BA some time.
An CS500 must now be on many minds, but I believe that this and an AB-BBD deal could pave the way for an PW1500G powered A319 that will have as benefits type commonality with the 320 family and belly (LD3) revenue. Could be a stunning little aircraft, sorry 737-7.
I’m ROFL.
Is Boeing realizing that there is a market for smaller twinjets?
(Does this eliminate potential partnership with Embraer?
We now know that Boeing lost its case against Bombardier. Will it stop playing games or look for other tactics like the devious lumber makers in the ‘softwood’ lumber dispute with Canada?)
Hothigh is a point, places like MEX and perhaps some airports in South America are quite high. As for range, reminds me of the 747SP – shorter and lighter (though it also had simpler flaps to reduce weight).
Range is of course so much more with modern engines – 737s going from southwest BC to Hawaii for example.
The 7MAX may well be attractive for business use. (Business jets of more normal configuration have also greatly improved, so pitiful decades ago that a basic 757 had better range.)
Someone who isn’t a Boeing employee said something nice about the 737-7. The quote is from the Bloomberg article after the quote.
“Boeing Co.’s slow-selling 737 Max 7 has a big fan in Western Canada.
WestJet Airlines Ltd. next year will become the second carrier, after Southwest Airlines Co., to operate the smallest version of Boeing’s upgraded workhorse. The Calgary-based company is set to receive five of the single-aisle jetliners next year.”
“We love those planes,” WestJet Chief Executive Officer Gregg Saretsky said in an interview, citing the aircraft’s range and 12 additional seats compared with the Boeing 737-700, a linchpin of the airline’s fleet. “It’s great for long, thin markets.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/westjet-ceo-sees-boeing-s-slow-selling-max-7-as-key-to-savings
Breakdown of models in the 737 portion of WestJet’s current fleet according to Wikipedia.
737-600: 13
737-700: 56
737-800: 48
737-8: 4
Breakdown of 737 models on order by WestJet according to Wikipedia.
737-7: 23
737-8: 16
737-10: 12
According to the above data from Wikipedia, the most numerous 737 model in WestJet’s current fleet is the 737-700, and the most numerous model in it’s future order book is the 737-7.
Why did Delta bother to from a joint venture with WestJet if WestJet has a fleet weighted down with what Delta claims are uneconomic aircraft?
http://news.delta.com/delta-and-westjet-agree-form-joint-venture
For those who click on the above link to a Delta press release on their joint venture with WestJet, what type of aircraft is pictured in the headline picture?