La relève des A320 / B737
| Auteur | Message | |
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 mars 2011 18:40 | |
|
Bonjour ! Grosse rigolade avec Al Baker, Qatar Airways ! Qui, en plus, n'a pas forcément tort ! Après avoir attendu 6 mois les infos du Série C, côté P&W ! C'est maintenant Airbus qui veut lui refiler des 320 NEO sans lui dire ce qu'il y a (Où aura)sous le capot ! Pas content le Al Baker, et si c'est vrai il a tout à fait raison ! A quoi joue P&W Vs Al Baker, Bombardier, et Airbus ?? Il reste 3 mois pour tout mettre au point, d'ici le Bourget, et Qatar Airways est intéressé par les 2 types d'avions ! Question, subsidiaire ... JL à vendu plus de 300 NEO, sans doc ni perfs contractuelles établies ?? C'est beau la confiance ! Ou al Baker a changé d'adresse ?? ------------ De Flight Global, le lien et l'article ------------ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... mance.html Qatar still considering A320neo, but wants performance data By Max Kingsley-Jones Qatar Airways is keeping Airbus guessing about whether it will sign for the A320neo, saying it is still waiting for definitive data to validate performance claims. Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker says it is still considered an order for the upgraded twinjet, despite his criticism of the re-engining strategy. Al Baker is frustrated by Airbus's failure, so far, to provide detailed performance information. "We need to have performance guarantees to know what the A320neo will do - and Airbus has still not provided this information," he says. "What will the fuel burn be? What will the economics be? We need this information to put into our models to decide if this aircraft will be as good as Airbus claims on paper, or whether it will be just a dressed-up A320," he adds. Al Baker hopes to reach a decision by the Paris air show in June, along with a potential deal for the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G-powered Bombardier CSeries. The P&W engine is offered on the A320neo, along with CFM International's Leap-X. P&W is a partner on the International Aero Engines V2500 fitted to Qatar's A320s. "We still have a long way to go to the air show - we have three months to finalise everything," Al Baker says. "We are considering both, because each aircraft does a particular mission." Al Baker says Bombardier has provided Qatar Airways with detailed performance information on CSeries because its development is far further advanced. "And because we are part of the study to acquire the CSeries, we have more engine data [on the PW1000G] available to us than Airbus is providing to the people signing MoUs for A320neos," he adds. _________________ JPRS |
||
 
|
||
|
gerfaut
Inscrit le 27/03/2008 |
# 24 mars 2011 19:25 | |
|
Bonsoir Beochien, Concernant le Qatar, j' y vais de mon hypothèse. Le Qatar joue sa carte à fond, il tente de tirer le plus d' avantages en restant le plus longtemps possible sur le fil entre 2 solutions : - Rallier Emirates et Etihad, GE pour s' entendre et ne plus se faire trop de concurrence, en gros se partager le marché. Donc aussi continuer à acheter des Airbus - Jouer la carte de la concurrence, donc sa propre carte face à Emirates et Etihad, en achetant américain mais aussi Canadien (donc pas américain), dans ce cas, il faut obtenir des supers prix pour compenser le fait de faire cavalier seul. Donc on négocie des 2 côtés, en fait, ou on le fait croire. C' est sans doute bien plus compliqué que cela, mais le fond est là pour moi. On ne sait toujours pas quel motorisation pour ses A380. On attendra... (Dernière édition le 24 mars 2011 19:44) _________________ "Je prends tout doucement les hommes comme ils sont, j' accoutume mon âme à souffrir ce qu' ils font" (Le Misanthrope, Molière) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 24 mars 2011 20:36 | |
|
Oui Gerfaut ! Côté marchands de tapis, ça y va fort ! De plus, il est certain que le Golfe ne peut pas multiplier par 2 ou 3 le coup de Emirates ! Il y en a déjà qq uns en faillite, ou en fortes révisions à la baisse ! Normal, la place n'est pas extensible à l'infini ! Sauf que j'ai la forte impression que P&W n'est pas du tout net et propre dans cette affaire, côté Qatar ! Ils ont , P&W, très tardivement répondu, et quasi coulé le C-Séries de Bombardier chez Qatar ! Leur faute, certainement, pour un client de presque lancement de Bombardier, en plus ! Donc à mon avis, pour se rattraper, ils freinent sur les données du PW1100G du 320 NEO, (Meilleur de 2-3 points) pour ne pas faire perdre Bombardier au profit du NEO, ce serait la cata MKTG et PR pour P&W, inimaginable ! Al Baker a vu la faille, bien sûr, et il s'y engouffre $$$$ ! Bon, il reste très possible que Qatar achète les deux avions, un moindre mal , et une bonne affaire assurée, Al Baker le dit, diplomatiquement ou commercialement, je ne sais pas ! Un jeu de marketing induit par les âneries précédentes de P&W ! Pas vraiment des génies de ce côté ! Je soupçonne JL de manipuler un peu aussi de son côté ! On voit quasi les ficelles ... (Dernière édition le 24 mars 2011 21:27) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
gerfaut
Inscrit le 27/03/2008 |
# 24 mars 2011 22:47 | |
|
Merci Beochien, Tout à fait d' accord sur le fait qu' une course à celui qui commande le plus n' est plus dans les plans des compagnies du Golfe. Si le prix du pétrole grimpe comme actuellement, cela n' incitera pas tellement plus les pays du Golfe à commander, comme c' est le cas pour les autres compagnies européennes par exemple, du pétrole ils en ont. Et puis les faillites à Dubaï ont fait réfléchir tout le monde. C' est pour cela que je crois que les compagnies les plus en vue ont interêt à se mettre d' accord, d' une façon ou d' une autre, pas vraiment joli, un peu sulfureux à dire, mais disons que c' est réaliste. S' il y a un accord, peut-être qu' Emirates ralentie aussi ses commandes pour laisser de la place au Qatar, sinon, il vont les fâcher. A voir. Pour les moteurs et P & W, je ne connais pas l' affaire aussi finement que vous. J' ai un peu de mal à relier le jeu de P & W avec celui du Qatar, pour moi chacun joue le sien. Peut-être bien que le Qatar achètera les 2 avions, le but de toutes ces manoeuvres côté Qatar étant de toute façon d' obtenir le plus possible. Je verrai si ce que j' ai avancé est vrai. Juste un avis. A suivre. (Dernière édition le 24 mars 2011 22:59) _________________ "Je prends tout doucement les hommes comme ils sont, j' accoutume mon âme à souffrir ce qu' ils font" (Le Misanthrope, Molière) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 31 mars 2011 15:54 | |
|
Bonjour ! Sans être vraiment un client de référence, Indigo choisit quand même le P&W 1100G ! Un très bon coup de client de lancement disons ... J'ajoute ... Ça a l'air confirmé par INDIGO et P&W ! http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/ ... n-history/ Et la certitude que Airbus lancera le GTF en premier (Peut être 6 mois, ou un an de gagné, mine de rien ! vs le LeapX ) De bonnes nouvelles pour P&W qui cache bien son jeux, De plus dans le buzz, tout le monde pense qu'ils feront mieux qu'annoncé de 2-3 points, mais qu'ils restent discrets, chez P&W, on ne sait jamais ! Tant mieux ! P&W au passage a déjà plus de cdes chez Airbus que chez Bombardier ! Bon, CFMI, doivent faire le forcing maintenant ... GECAS ... AF , pour répondre vite ! ---------------- Dans tous les coins, de Flightglobal ici ! --------- http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fligh ... pw110.html IndiGo selects P&W to power up to 150 A320neos Jon Ostrower/West Palm Beach In a major coup for Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofan, A320neo launch customer, Indian low cost carrier IndiGo, is to announce it has selected the PW1100G to power up to 150 of the updated Airbus narrowbodies, say those familiar with the deal. While the official announcement for 300 engines is expected as early as today, the win by the East Hartford-based engine maker comes on the heels of a hard-fought campaign to secure the right to provide 300 engines and associated service contracts to power what Airbus calls the "largest single firm order number for large jets in commercial aviation history". IndiGo signed an 11 January memorandum of understanding with Airbus for up to 180 A320 aircraft, including 150 of the re-engined A320neo, making it the European airframer's launch customer for the new variant due for entry into service in 2016. MIssing from the initial MoU was an engine selection, kicking off a fierce behind-the-scenes competition between the CFM International Leap-X and Pratt & Whitney PW1100G as both vied for the massive contract. The selection represents the second win for Pratt & Whitney on the re-engined jet, having been chosen by International Lease Finance Corporation (ILFC) to power at least 60 of its 100 A320neo and A321neo aircraft. The selection as launch customer also establishes the 208cm (81in) fan diameter PW1100G as the lead powerplant to fly first for Airbus's certification campaign. _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 5 avril 2011 18:30 | |
|
Bonjour ! Enfin ! Je l'attendais celle là ! Le A320 NEO P&W, sera lancé en Octobre 2015, 6 mois plus tôt ! Enfin un peu d'air, et d'avance supplémentaire pour contrer la réplique de Boeing ! C'est JL qui a parlé à Toulouse ... Le LeapX, 9 mois après ..; c'est bien côté Timing, cela correspond à peu prés aux niveaux de développement actuels ! Et aussi, le A321 passe en dernier, et après le A319 NEO ! Ca c'est moins bien, très probablement des développements plus compliqués identifiés ... Lesquels ... A suivre ?? ------------ De Flight Global , le lien et l'Article ------------ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ngine.html A320neo entry advances to 2015 with PW as lead engine By David Kaminski-Morrow Airbus is bringing forward the entry-into-service date for its A320neo to October 2015, and designated Pratt & Whitney's PW1100G turbofan as the lead development engine. The decision advances the arrival of the A320neo by around six months, the airframer having previously identified the second quarter of 2016 as the date of introduction. Airbus is also swapping the schedule for the other re-engined variants. The A319neo will become the second variant produced, six months later, rather than the A321neo. Speaking in Toulouse today, Airbus chief operating officer for customers John Leahy said: "We've managed that due to demand and our capability to do so." Airbus has not, however, identified a launch operator. Leahy says he expects the total sales of the A320neo to exceed 500 aircraft by the Paris air show in June, having logged commitments for more than 300. He expects to disclose another Latin American customer for the type - Brazil's TAM having already been identified - within the next couple of weeks, and adds that there are also new customers lined up in Asia and Europe. Airbus' decision to nominate the PW1100G as lead engine will allow industrial development of the re-engined A320 variant to "begin in earnest", says the airframer. Advancement of the schedule means Airbus will develop the A319neo - probably a PW1100G-powered aircraft - six months later and the A321neo six months after that. Leahy expects the CFM International to emerge with its Leap-X engine up to nine months behind the lead powerplant schedule, although "no longer than a year". Indian carrier IndiGo, lessor International Lease Finance and Lufthansa have all opted for the PW1100G for their A320neos. Airbus is to use eight prototype airframes for the overall development programme, in order to account for all permutations of aircraft and engine variants, as well as both flight management system options. _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
lequebecois
Inscrit le 11/02/2007 |
# 7 avril 2011 02:29 | |
|
Bonjour Beochien, Une des raison qui pourrait expliquer cette accélération est qu'Airbus s'était peut-être donné de la marge de manœuvre au cas où ils auraient gagné l'appel d'offre des tankers (Merci à Simon pour la suggestion). _________________ Le bonheur est une pause entre deux emmerdes ! Adepte de la discutaille du coin du comptoir du café de la gare |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 10 avril 2011 18:03 | |
|
Bonjour ! Dans AviationWeek ! Robert Wall sors 3 pages, pour le premier article vraiment complet, intégrant les récentes annonces Toulousaines ! Bien fait et en un seul morceau, alors que chez FlightGlobal, ça sors par petits bouts ! Les évolutions de poids du A320 NEO à peu prés cernés ! 200Kg de gains de poids, à la vista ! Il restera 4 ans pour faire mieux (Je n'ai pas changé d'avis)! Ramenant l'opération NEO à une surcharge de 1800 Kg, pour le moment, 1000 kg pour les moteurs ! Donc les 4000 lbs annoncées pour la re-motorisation, elles sont bien là ! Pour moi le LeapX devrait être un peu plus léger que le GTF, côté nacelles surtout, on verra ! Pour l'instant, un seul poids annoncé, pour 2 moteurs, nettement différents ! Le poids du P&W à priori, en sachant que les matériaux du fan, ne semblent pas figés ! Une explication au relatif déplacement du A321, c'est son aile qui retardera un peu, elle est différente (QQ m2 et les volets) actuellement de celle des A319 et A320, lesquelles vont bénéficier du même traitement côté renforts ! L'aile du A321 demandera donc un traitement spécifique ... espérons juste que cela pourra inclure qq m2 de voilure supplémentaires, pour voler plus haut et de la place pour un peu plus de fuel ! J'en parlais hier, un peu de pression, probablement de la part des cies US ! Noté que les nouveaux pylônes, semblent très prometteurs et moins pénalisants que prévu, tant mieux, probablement un pylône différent pour chaque moteur ! Noté aussi que les opérations de renforts des ailes sont nettement séparées, et successives dans le temps, pas de traitement de l'ensemble, certainement trop pénalisant pour les Non NEO ! Un peu dommage et certainement plus cher. Outer wing pour les Sharklets. Inner Wing après pour les moteurs ! Pas de mention côté WingBox, pourtant concernée par les Sharklets et les Moteurs. En un ou 2 temps, celle là ? ------------------------ Bien pour le post EIS du 320NEO, ça reste à suivre ... Car si JL veut produire des A320 NEO, dixit 6000 unités, jusqu'à 2025, voire 2030 ... il va falloir en lâcher un peu plus dans les années suivantes ! 6000 unités, ces sont dans les 250-300 Milliards de $, net, à la vente, pour ceux qui savent compter ! Et investir à 1%, pour assurer ce marché ... ce ne sont que 3 milliards de $ et ... 2%, seraient 6 ... sur 4-6 ans ! Comme quoi, quand une série marche .. c'est moins risqué d'essayer de la maintenir au top que d'en inventer une autre et de prendre des risques, avant d'en avoir besoin pour des raisons impératives (La concurrence) ! Un nouveau MC, ce sera 10 milliards d'€, soit 15 milliards de $, ... si tout va bien ! C'est le risque que va courir Boeing en 2020, et Airbus 4-5 ans après ! Noter quand même que Bombardier est en train de sortir un C-Séries pour 3,5 Milliards de $ qui iront certainement vers les 5 Milliards, avec Al-Li, et ailes plastoc au RV ... pas mal non ?? En attendant, mieux vaut engranger pour Airbus (Et réussir à produire aussi) Car le terrain laissé libre par Boeing, pendant 5 ans pourrait profiter à tous ceux qui sont à la porte ... si Airbus ne peut absorber la différentielle en sa faveur et se contente de hausser les prix pour calmer le jeu ! Savants dosages en perspective ! ------------ Un extrait de Aviationweek et le lien Page 1 ------------- http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... amp;next=0 The only really new hardware is the pylon. Engine and nacelle makers are working with Airbus on an integrated design plateau to help define the pylon, which Airbus is developing. Williams says the integrated effort could yield performance improvements beyond what has already been booked. Initial NEO production will begin in Hamburg, but any of the A320 production lines could handle NEOs and current standard aircraft. There is no commitment, yet, on building NEOs at the Tianjin assembly site in China. The NEO flight-test program is due to start in 2014, and is to include eight aircraft, four A320s—two with PW1100G, two with Leap-X engines—two A319s and two A321s. Airbus has offered the use of one of its aircraft for engine flight testing. Meanwhile, work by the winglet development team is progressing. A weight-reduction program is running in parallel to help ensure that customers of existing A320s do not suffer a weight penalty if the additional structure is introduced. It is to generate around 200 kg (440 lb.) of weight savings (of which 100 kg are already secured), says Wolfgang Engler, chief engineer for the A320. At aircraft level, the winglet changes will add about 200 kg. The NEO weighs about 1.8 metric tons more than an existing A320; around one ton is from the engines. _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
aerotech
Inscrit le 02/12/2010 |
# 11 avril 2011 13:14 | |
|
Bonjour A lire, c'est un peu long mais représentatif de ce qu'attendent les clients des futurs MC. http://www.centreforaviation.com/news/2 ... raft/page1 Despite overwhelming concern for fuel supply and costs, most airlines surveyed by a joint CIT/Forbes study indicated that they are likely to take a wait-and-see approach to how the next generation aircraft perform before making a commitment. CIT Transportation Finance President Jeff Knittel discussed the survey during a recent media briefing at the International Society of Transport Aircraft Traders conference (ISTAT). In the survey, 68% of those surveyed said they would wait and see how new aircraft perform while 32% would be the first to acquire or lease the new aircraft. Although not cited in the survey, among that 32% will likely be Southwest CEO Gary Kelly, who told attendees at the recent JR Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Military conference that he is anxious for Boeing to take a position. See related story: Southwest "can handle two or three aircraft types"; "anxious to have answers this year" from Boeing The survey results suggests that perhaps Boeing is right waiting to deliver more than just new engines to the market, despite the fuel urgency. But during the JP Morgan conference Boeing CFO James Bell said it has yet to make up its mind as to whether or not it will re-engine the B737, pretty much echoing what President James Albaugh told ISTAT. Even so, doubts about re-engining were high at ISTAT as GECAS CEO Norman Liu pushed the fact that putting a larger fan on the B737 is impossible without a lot of other major modifications. The big question, according to Mr Bell, is whether Boeing will be able to deliver the “big step change improvement” airlines are seeking. “The constraint for us is the innovation we need to have for a completely new aircraft,” he said, adding the company is selling all the 737NGs it can build. For now, it is looking into how else it can improve the B737 to equal the neo’s promises. He noted that offering more than one engine helps competitiveness but it is too early for a decision yet. Interestingly, in the CIT/Forbes study, the vast majority – 83% – indicated they were extremely likely or likely to acquire or lease newer, fuel-efficient aircraft within the next five years. How likely are you to acquire or lease newer, fuel-efficient aircraft within the next five years? Source: CIT Group In the CIT/Forbes survey 51% indicated they were extremely concerned by fuel supply and costs with another 31% ticking "very concerned". Recently, the Air Transport Association sent another letter urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to adopt stiff new rules intended by Congress to curb commodity speculation. The organiation is seeking support for its email campaign to CFTC. “Unfortunately, the CFTC is wavering, in part because the opposition has been working feverishly to protect the status quo,” it said. “The five commissioners, who soon will vote on a rule to establish speculative position limits are under tremendous pressure to adopt weak, ineffective rules. This harms all of us. Speculation contributes to volatile energy prices that affect the cost of nearly everything we buy, from gasoline to groceries. USA Today reports that corn prices have soared 52%, sugar is up 60% and wheat is up 24% compared with a year ago. The government now predicts that the average family’s gas bill will rise 28% over last year -- a painful USD700 increase. These price increases hurt families and, ultimately, put our nation’s recovering economy in danger.” How concerned is your business about fuel supply and costs Source: CIT Group Concerns over composite materials, regulations and aircraft supply shift took a back seat to fuel supply and costs and carbon emission regulations, both of which will drive sales more than the other factors. How concerned is your business about the following aircraft-related issues? Source: CIT Group As to how the multitude of aircraft scheduled on to the market over the next five years will be financed, operating leasing will lead all other sources, including manufacturer support, bank loans, export credit loans, security bond structure, government funding, tax leases and Islamic leasing. With the exception of government funding all sources will play an increasing role in financing with manufacturer support, tax leasing and bank loans growing the most in importance to those surveyed How important are the following sources of aircraft financing to your company? (% answering extremely important and very important) Source: CIT Group Complicating the picture is the trend toward consolidation which, according to the survey is far from over with 81% indicating they expected consolidation to increase or significantly increase over the next five years. Compared to the past five years, do you expect airline consolidation activity to increase or decrease over the next five years? Source: CIT Group Survey raises questions CIT is planning to repeat its survey, said Mr Knittel, who indicated that while some answers confirmed what the company thought, others required more thought in what it all means. “We are trying to anticipate the market and meet the needs and our narrow-body position supports that,” he said. “Some 25-30% of our portfolio is twin-aisle aircraft. The growth in that sector is terrific and the yields are very strong.” As with its leasing counterparts, CIT is focussing on the narrowbody having ordered B737-900ERs among the 100 aircraft it has on order. On the widebody side, it has also ordered seven A350s and 10 B787s which are now scheduled for 2015 delivery. He confirmed what most leasing companies at the ISTAT conference suggested, taking delivery later in the production cycle is better, and CIT is after the first 100 off the production line. Mr Knittel expressed excitement at the aircraft as a game changer, concluding, “Sometimes the pain gets you the gain.” In response to a question, he acknowledged that it was not surprising, given the economy, that there was not as much push back on delays as there otherwise would have been. He suggested there was not only growth but growing optimism in the industry although the US would concentrate more on fleet replacement while the growth will be outside of the US in emerging markets, especially China. He pointed to the number of airports being built in China and Asia. “Every month a new airport is coming on line,” he said, “especially if you look at the number of cities that have a one-million-population market and the number able to generate strong point-to-point services. People under-appreciate how many there are and they could be good markets for wide bodies as you have already seen at airlines in Asia.” He indicated that the A380 does not work for lessors. Lessors “help to create airlines for manufacturers,” said Mr Knittel. “The A380 will be a good aircraft and they’ll sell a lot just because of the lack of real estate. Lessors have to increase the number of airlines and when you look at the A380, creating a new 747 or A380 customer is not easy. The amount of infrastructure needed is too much.” In response to a question on whether financing for used aircraft will come back, Mr Knittel indicated it would not come back as robustly as new. “That’s logical,” he said. “The first thing you look for is safety and the risk increases with age and financial institutions don’t like risk. In my view, if more liquidity comes back into the market there will be more financing for used aircraft. Liquidity will be the driver.” He also said there was no sense of urgency to acquire the neo as the company continues to evaluate the new offering. “It could fit our strategy but there is no need to make a decision right now,” said Mr Knittel. “Airbus is still thinking about the segment and that goes with our theory for acquiring the 737-900ER. You have to drive the seat-mile costs down and the 900ER and A321neo will do that. But it won’t replace the 757. The A321 is range limited, but the combo sharklets and new engine changes that. If Boeing does the new technology the question then becomes whether they have the wherewithal to proceed now.” CIT’s concern about the future of the neo largely hinges on what Boeing will do with the B737. Mr Knittel believes there are three possible directions Boeing might go. Boeing could re-engine the B737 with the same or similar engine technology as the A320neo or launch an all-new replacement aircraft – which also would have the same engine as the neo but an optimised airframe. The third possibility that Mr Knittel suggests is that CFM, the engine supplier to the 737, could incorporate many of the technological advancements that are already available into the existing CFM56-7 engine used on the B737 today. Although this third alternative of upgrading the existing engine would not have the same efficiencies as an all-new engine, it could provide enough of an improvement to keep the 737 slightly ahead of the A320neo and has other side benefits, according to Mr Knittel. First, it is a much less expensive option for Boeing than a new engine or new airframe, which would translate into lower cost of ownership. Second, the improvements could be accomplished and available earlier than the neo – perhaps as early as 2013. Third, it would buy time for Boeing to launch an all new aircraft and develop further engine improvements that will come in the future. Lastly, it would have a much less dramatic impact on residual values – a concern for all owners, lessors and airlines alike. Mr Knittel also suggested it is critical for Bombardier to produce more orders “They are working a lot of campaigns,” he said. “the more important question is more strategic and that is whether or not Boeing and Airbus are vacating that space. For us the jury is still out. I don’t think they are ceding north of 130 seats. That’s what killed the the Fokker 100 and it became an orphan. My sense of the 100- to 150-seat market is that it is a good spot but it has been a kill zone for a long time and you just have to look at the Fokker 100 and the 717. I think there is a market. It is conceivable to me that gap will go unaddressed. That’s where the 737-200 and DC-9-30 were. The question is does the market dynamic make smaller aircraft too costly. In the US, there is a different argument and that has to with labour. But when you move outside the US there is potential a for growth in markets that are not immediately obvious. I just don’t know if it as big as [Bombardier Commercial Aircraft President] Gary Scott thinks it is at 6700 aircraft.” He would not commit to buying or recommending the CSeries, punting instead, saying he would have to understand the depth of demand. It was clear during the ISTAT conference that the lack of A319neo orders was a concern. “If they had a need for 120 to 130 seats I’d tell them to go forward but we still have a lot of work to do in terms of evaluating the CSeries for CIT,” he said. “But we have time. We don’t need to make a decision or a defensive move while we are waiting for Boeing to make their play. Once they decide where they are going, we’ll figure out where we’ll be.” Then he said something very interesting with respect to the Chinese C919. He noted that the Chinese have been investing in a lot of countries all over the world which has created a lot of opportunity for them. “When I look 10-15 years out, the Chinese will be a player,” he said. “The question is not whether they can develop the aircraft which has historically been the biggest question, but will they have the right product support and that is huge.” “The neo is not as helpful and I think it is interesting the order in which it will come out – the 321, the 320 and the 319,” he continued. “That says they are still thinking about that segment and that goes with our theory for acquiring the 737-900ER. You have to drive the seat-mile costs down and the 900ER and A321neo will do that but it won’t replace the 757. The A321 is range limited but the combination of sharklets and new engine changes that. If Boeing does the new technology, the question then becomes whether they have the wherewithal to proceed now.” It was clear during the ISTAT conference that there would be not Boeing offering to replace the 757 which needs replacement, according to operators. Speaking before the JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Defence conference last year, Airbus Americas President Barry Eccleston indicated the company is anxious to bring the NEO to market in 2015. He sees the A321neo, the first to hit the market now scheduled for 2016, as a 757 replacement. He also sees the A321neo as the company’s answer to winning over Boeing 737 customers depending on what Boeing ultimately decides to do. However, the company, said Mr Eccleston, has yet to identify all the resources necessary to bring the A321neo to the market a year ahead of schedule, he told investors. He noted the 332 orders and memoranda of understanding for the neo family in only three months since the company announced plans to re-engine the aircraft. It is projecting sales of 4000 neos making the business case even more compelling considering the investment needed to bring it off. Further goosing Boeing, Mr Eccleston added the A321neo's fuel efficiency is less than half the B737-900 or 900ER. Of course Boeing's James Bell, at the same conference disagreed, saying the B737 currently has a fuel advantage over the A320neo and whatever decision it made, would put the B737 and A320neo on par. Mr Eccleston also plugged the fact that the current A321 is already 14% more fuel efficient per seat than the B757 with almost as many passengers and, with sharklets, will increase that advantage to 17%. Manufacturers still best hope in short term Given the length of time before biofuels make a dent, the differing philosophies amongst the manufacturers will make a big difference. It is clear Bombardier and Airbus have made their bets. However, Boeing and Embraer remained largely silent on in their deliberations. |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 11 avril 2011 13:52 | |
|
Bonjour ! Merci Aerotech ! Il y en a qui croient encore trop au père Noël ou à Randy ! Un peu beaucoup biaisé ce M. Knittel ! La 3eme voie est la plus plausible, un CFM à la sauce LeapX ! Peut être guère différent d'un LeapX à By Pass réduit ! Comique ! Ouarf, ça écorche, prononcer "Re-Motorisation" Pour les chiffres il repassera, M Knittel ! Voire le 737, devant le 320NEO, avec une 1/2 re-motorisation ! Alors qu'il va re-passer derrière, le 737, rien qu'avec les "Sharklets" Une position bien étonnante pour un responsable d'une "Leasing Corp" ... et pour sa crédibilité surtout ! Je re-cite ! CIT’s concern about the future of the neo largely hinges on what Boeing will do with the B737. Mr Knittel believes there are three possible directions Boeing might go. Boeing could re-engine the B737 with the same or similar engine technology as the A320neo or launch an all-new replacement aircraft – which also would have the same engine as the neo but an optimised airframe. The third possibility that Mr Knittel suggests is that CFM, the engine supplier to the 737, could incorporate many of the technological advancements that are already available into the existing CFM56-7 engine used on the B737 today. Although this third alternative of upgrading the existing engine would not have the same efficiencies as an all-new engine, it could provide enough of an improvement to keep the 737 slightly ahead of the A320neo and has other side benefits, according to Mr Knittel. First, it is a much less expensive option for Boeing than a new engine or new airframe, which would translate into lower cost of ownership. Second, the improvements could be accomplished and available earlier than the neo – perhaps as early as 2013. Third, it would buy time for Boeing to launch an all new aircraft and develop further engine improvements that will come in the future. Lastly, it would have a much less dramatic impact on residual values – a concern for all owners, lessors and airlines alike. Et maintenant des petits pas pour ne pas bousculer les "Résidual Value" Tout le monde argumentait dans l'autre sens contre le NEO ! Et pour un nouvel avion ... Quelle bande de clown ! Ou de Pinocchio ! (Dernière édition le 11 avril 2011 13:54) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 12 avril 2011 22:35 | |
|
Bonjour L'avis de Buckingham analystes bancaires spécialisés ... Pas d'annonce de 797 pour le Bourget, il faudra attendre qq années ! Bon, c'est juste un avis parmi d'autres ! Mais qui devrait bien soulager Airbus et John Leahy, si c'est vrai ! Chaque année gagnée ... compte pour beaucoup chez Airbus ! -------------- De Flight Global Le lien et un extrait ---------- http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... w-737.html Analyst thinks Boeing will back away from all-new 737 By Scott Hamilton Buckingham Research, a boutique New York investment bank with a good track record of forecasting Boeing moves, has issued a note in which it says the Seattle airframer is moving away from unveiling an all-new 737 replacement. _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
aerotech
Inscrit le 02/12/2010 |
# 13 avril 2011 09:20 | |
|
bonjour Changement de com chez boeing, on a l'impression qu'ils ne savent pas trop par quel bout attaquer le pb ou du moins qu'ils ont du mal à trouver une réplique solide face au A320neo http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/ http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/04 ... v-a320neo/ http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.com/ 4/12/2011 No new Boeing airplane in sight...? Scott Hamilton has it here: chances that we will seen and hear an announcement from Boeing for a new airplane, call it 737RS, call it 797, are getting slim. Buckingham Research now says that they do not expect an announcement from Boeing for a new airplane at the Paris Air Show. A approval to offer would not come before the end of 2012/ early 2013. As I argued earlier, there is no real technical case for a new aircraft in the 2020 timeframe. And if there is no technical case, there is no business case. No business man will spend $10-15 billion without getting a decent return, if he can get the same return by spending $1-1.5 billion, as Airbus does it. I don't want to say that Boeing now will do the 737RE - but in my eyes it would do much more sense. And this is one if the rare occasions I agree with Richard Aboulafia, who just today at the Aero Club in Wichita said that Boeing should quickly go forward with the reengining. If they do not move quickly, there is a real danger that long-time Boeing customers are moving to Airbus. A problem with reengining for Boeing could be the emerging signs that the CFM LEAP-X could be a little bit behind schedule. At least there is no customer for the LEAP-X on the A320NEO yet. As EIS for the NEO is 4.5 years away, some airlines (as well as ILFC) seem to be confident enough to order the GTF, but not the LEAP-X. They could also wait another year or even two and decide then about the engine - means ordering one engine now that they are sure that the other is not ready in time? Leahy last week said that the LEAP-X would be available by about 9 months, but no more than 12 months after the GTF. As EIS of the NEO was moved forward by 6 months at the same time, that means that the LEAP-X would have been 3-6 months later than the GTF per original schedule. Three to six months should not really be the deciding factor when ordering an aircraft that is used for twenty years and longer. So there could be something more behind all that.. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/04 ... v-a320neo/ Boeing’s message changes on 737NG v A320neo April 12, 2011Leave a commentGo to comments Here’s an article we did on changing messaging at Boeing about the 737 and the A320neo. Date: 11/04/2011 10:07 Source: Commercial Aviation Online Location: Seattle By: Scott Hamilton Boeing’s messaging on the 737 against the Airbus A320neo has changed subtly in recent weeks. Does this signal a slight shift in Boeing’s intentions whether to proceed with a new airplane in the 737/757 class? Boeing dismisses the business case for the A320neo, until recently saying the 737-800NG has only a 2-3% cash operating cost deficit today versus the projected NEO economics. By the time the A320neo entered service what was originally announced as Spring 2016, Boeing officials were confident that they could improve the economics of the 737-800 by at least that amount, retaining a fleet advantage of one engine type and a lighter airplane. But Boeing’s message has shifted slightly. “Right now, the 737 from an operating-cost standpoint – cost of acquisition, cost of operation – is about 8% better than the Airbus product,” Boeing president Jim Albaugh said 26 March, as reported by Aubrey Cohen in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “Even after the re-engine we’ll be 2% better, and that’s if we do nothing on this airplane. We are going to do some things. One thing we will always have is the most capable and the most efficient airplane in every market that we serve.” Airbus scoffs at Albaugh’s 8% figure, rhetorically asking, “If the A320 were 8% worse than the 737, why would we sell more of them than Boeing sells of the 737?” The tit-for-tat over cash operating cost advantages is as old as commercial aviation itself. But more to the point, what does the shift in Boeing’s messaging mean? Boeing says that its new airplane as currently envisioned will be about 18-20% more fuel efficient than today’s airplanes. Airbus promotes the A320neo as about 15% more efficient when equipped with sharklets in combination with the CFM LEAP-X or Pratt & Whitney GTF. Boeing largely agrees, noting it concluded a 737RE would have a fuel burn improvement of about 10-12%; the NG already has winglets, so Boeing can’t get the additional 3.5% in fuel reduction Airbus gets on the NEO with the sharklets to reach 15%. Airbus COO-Customers John Leahy doesn’t think it makes sense for Boeing to spend $10 billion on a new airplane to get only 3-4% better economics, which is why he believes Boeing will eventually proceed with a re-engined airplane. While Boeing knows how to re-engine the 737, the cost of doing so, the changes required and the net benefit to the airlines make the business case tenuous. Boeing is proceeding with designing further enhancements to the 737NG. Although Boeing is cagey about what these are, officials have said enough to draw some conclusions. Enhancements, beyond those already in testing for certification this year, appear to focus on the following: Further aerodynamic improvements: While the 737NG is already a “clean” airplane aerodynamically, officials have revealed they continue to try to reduce drag. Two areas where noticeable changes might emerge are slightly reshaping the vertical fin and reshaping the tail underneath the vertical fin. Aerodynamic improvements to the engine cowling may also emerge, but these would likely not be noticeable to any but the most meticulous of observers. Fuel burn reduction. CFM has been successful in achieving reductions in fuel burn in increments of 1-1.5% and this effort will continue in the future. Weight reduction: Given the increased weight associated with the NEO programme, Boeing strives to reduce the weight of the 737NG. Given the smaller size of the 737 relative to a twin-aisle airplane and the maturity of the 737, achieving substantial weight reductions is a major challenge. But every little bit helps. Boeing says that today’s 737NG is about 7% more efficient than when it entered service in 1998, 13 years ago. CAO understands Boeing’s goal is now 1% a year going forward. This is ambitious, given the maturity of the airplane, but assume it is achievable, with 2012 as the starting point (since 2011′s improvements are already in place). This means by 2015, the new entry into service date for the A320neo, the 737-800 would be on a par based on Boeing’s original messaging-or as much as 4%-5% better COC under the new messaging. By 2019, the 737NG would be 7% better than today’s 737NG if Boeing could meet its goal. Assuming the A320neo also improves between 2015 and 2019, the COC comparison would remain neck-and-neck, or Boeing would have a slight advantage, depending on who’s doing the talking. But more importantly, the 737NG would dramatically eat into the fuel burn advantage currently being discussed by Boeing for its own new airplane. If the new airplane today is thought to have an 18-20% advantage over today’s aircraft, a 737NG with 1% per year improvements would reduce this to 11-12%. Is this enough for Boeing to spend $10 billion for a new airplane? Or is the business case for a new airplane at this time becoming more shakey? |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 13 avril 2011 12:28 | |
|
Merci Aerotech ! J'avais vu l'article de Scott Hamilton, hier encore en ébauche ! Le jeux des Mktg A et B ! Continue .. on déplace des poteaux fictifs à tour de bras ! Juste une question : C'est destiné à qui ce spectacle ? Les Airlines ne s'en laissent pas compter et votent avec leurs pieds, ou avec leurs chèques (Quand ils ne se cassent pas la figure) ! Les Analystes jouent le jeu, pour se faire payer leurs nombreux (Et contradictoires) services et conseils, plus c'est embrouillé, plus ils se régalent ! Reste les investisseurs ... qui peuvent s'y perdre, et qui regardent les ventes (Sans savoir à quel prix , cf le 787) Et les bloggeurs qui noircissent du papier pour faire passer leurs idées ! Comme moi et d'autres ! Des centaines de ligne sur le même sujet chez A.net, bon courage ! http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/5110946/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/5111955/ Il faut dire que les 2 avions (737-320) se tiennent à +/- 2% en fait, cela dépendant des missions, et des moteurs aussi chez le A320 ! Cela avant les "Sharklets, qui feront re-pencher légèrement la balance côté A320 ! Dans le cas d'un 737RE (Re-Engined), cela va dépendre du niveau des modifications, des rehausses prononcées ou pas et cela va du simple au double, en coût et en efficacité ! Après, cela dépendra des Tweaking's à 1% par an, on les voit d'ailleurs plus souvent chez Boeing ! Bien que Airbus ... s'ils s'y consacrent aussi, ils ont du grain à moudre ! Pour l'instant Airbus, ils ont l'avance que va leur procurer les motoristes ! Noté ailleurs ... 1 milliard d'investissements pour P&W, pour le GTF ... pas cher vu les résultats ! 15 -16 % today ! Combien de milliards chez A et B pour moins de la moitié de résultats ! C'est la vraie question ! Les motoristes, pour l'instant font beaucoup plus pour bien moins cher ! (Dernière édition le 13 avril 2011 12:30) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
Krakotte
Inscrit le 03/02/2011 |
# 13 avril 2011 20:33 | |
|
+1, si Boeing ne réagit pas au salon du Bourget, il va laisser la place à Airbus et dc perdre des marchés. Boeing a tout intérêt à faire une annonce ...bidon ou véridique (cf l'annonce du supersonique avt le vrai 787). Annonce qui peut être une remotorisation ou un nouvel avion mais ce qui est clair c'est qu'une annonce aura le mérite de laisser planer le doute chez les éventuels clients, à défaut, les clients iront chez Airbubus faute de produits concurrents pertinents. Krakotte |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 13 avril 2011 21:32 | |
|
Bonsoir ! Il existe une question subsidiaire ... soulevée par Stich sur A.net ! Si Airbus gagne des cdes, disons 2000 avions MC 320 NEO sur 2 ans, en écrasant Boeing, faute de réaction adéquate de Boeing ... j'en doute un peu mais ... Airbus sera plein jusqu'à 2020, on peut supposer qu'ils montent jusqu'à 500-550 par an, en faisant travailler les Chinois aussi .... Juste noter que A et B ont déjà 4 ans de MC en cde sur les bras ! Qui va livrer les 3-400 avions manquants sur le marché tous les ans, pendant 4-6 ans ?? et avec quoi ! Assumant que d'ici 2020, ni les Chinois, ni les Russes ne seront capables de fournir de grandes quantités ! Stich conclut que Boeing continuera à fournir ses 737 de toute façon, ne serait ce que pour boucher les trous ... Bien, une idée qui en vaut une autre ! _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
