So funny to read fow some people create their own reality here

Chemist wrote:

Let's also not forget the one detail that although the 737 and many systems are a lot older than the A32x, the wing is quite a bit newer. So in that sense, the A320 is "older".

by age but not tech. A320 is the simpler more effective design.
( really shows the bane of incrementally sticking things here and there.)

First "modern" Boeing wing is the 787 afaics.

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

As the book said (available for a mere $239.20, lol) the 18:1 bypass ratio / 70:1 pressure ratio comes from a second generation engine, with different gears, different airfoils for fan, compressors and turbines, different bearings since core will be faster and fan will be slower, etc. Plenty of opportunity for shennanigans, IMHO.

Still the current GTF is to get 3% sfc gain in ~2019. (afaiu MTU said just from twiddling with profiles.)
does that about fit 1%/a ?
the issues they seem to have today are of the "fix once, happy ever after" kind, right?

You'd have to think the longer term issue is the damage to the reputation.

If you were a customer and were given the new profiles maybe you'd say "we just got the damn thing working, don't f*** with it!".

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Revelation wrote:

As the book said (available for a mere $239.20, lol) the 18:1 bypass ratio / 70:1 pressure ratio comes from a second generation engine, with different gears, different airfoils for fan, compressors and turbines, different bearings since core will be faster and fan will be slower, etc. Plenty of opportunity for shennanigans, IMHO.

Still the current GTF is to get 3% sfc gain in ~2019. (afaiu MTU said just from twiddling with profiles.)
does that about fit 1%/a ?
the issues they seem to have today are of the "fix once, happy ever after" kind, right?

You'd have to think the longer term issue is the damage to the reputation.

If you were a customer and were given the new profiles maybe you'd say "we just got the damn thing working, don't f*** with it!".

How much long term damage did the 787 do to Boeing?

How many A330's were sold as interim lift and how many years will they operate, and at the end of their lease / life whatever, will the carrier now order the 787?
Looking at lost sales is one way to look at damage.

par13del wrote:

How many A330's were sold as interim lift and how many years will they operate, and at the end of their lease / life whatever, will the carrier now order the 787?
Looking at lost sales is one way to look at damage.

Sorry, I meant damage to reputation. Has the 787 caused many airlines to assume any new boeing clean sheet will have the same screwups?

Same difference, if they were going to buy a 787 and saw the delays and opted to buy the next a/c available to suit their operations and they selected an A330, they will not be a Boeing customer for the next 10 to 15 years. Now are they really concerned about the quality of Boeing management for the next 10 years, other's maybe, but not the ones who purchased alternative a/c. If they are already Boeing customers the product they are using speaks more than management reputation.
Any way you take it, a customer who would have bought a 787 is gone for a significant number of years. Heard about any A330 customers turning in their a/c to get 787-9's now that the production has smoothed out?

Producing a/c is a huge and complicated issue, if the archives on this site are easy to navigate you can see that many knew of the pending problems with 787 production before Boeing made announcements, airlines can always go with the flow since there will be penalties to buffer lost productivity, and if the market forecast are off, a delay on the OEM's dime is better than a delay in your finances.

par13del wrote:

Same difference, if they were going to buy a 787 and saw the delays and opted to buy the next a/c available to suit their operations and they selected an A330, they will not be a Boeing customer for the next 10 to 15 years. Now are they really concerned about the quality of Boeing management for the next 10 years, other's maybe, but not the ones who purchased alternative a/c. If they are already Boeing customers the product they are using speaks more than management reputation.
Any way you take it, a customer who would have bought a 787 is gone for a significant number of years. Heard about any A330 customers turning in their a/c to get 787-9's now that the production has smoothed out?

They will now not buy a hypothetical MoM?

Yeah, I agree about not going with 787 when A330 is chosen, but I am talking about damage to reputation affecting programs other than 787.

When I put myself in an Airline CEOs shoes and wonder what I would buy - I weigh up the Boeing and Airbus factors for shorthaul and I nearly always come out with Airbus A320 series. This is because the A320/21 can do most, if not all routes I would need, they have the cseries that might be nice later down the road should I require a smaller set of aircraft and the MAX just falls short on some key areas.

Obviously I Know boeing could strike me a fantastic deal and make it a more financially pleasing option but from face of it, what does the 737MAX do the A320NEOs cant? and more importantly what can the A320NEOs do that the MAX cant (A few little things more than vise versa).

Well clearly Samrnpage you have not read the thread or perhaps 'your' airline does not fit the average profile.If it did you would know about the advantage the lighter 737 has over the 320 over the first 3 hours of flight (80% of flights).And think what would happen if the price of fuel rises!
But perhaps you need max pax size with longer trips.Ok then the A321NEO is the one for you.
It really is horses for courses which is why they both have 5 year backlogs.

The problem for Boeing is the market has and is shifting to these larger sizes which is their weakness.Whether the Max10 can address this who knows.But probably well enough to keep their existing customer base which they would probably be happy with.

parapente wrote:

The problem for Boeing is the market has and is shifting to these larger sizes which is their weakness.

Which is ironic, when Boeing did the 737NG series it moved the -800 to a size larger than the A320, the A320 sales did not suffer, so far no one seem to think that the 737 will survive the way the smaller A320 did, but time will tell, the big push on the A321 is now, much later than the -800 started competing against the A320.

The A320 has a bit of easy stretch left in it. They could do a A320.5 and A322 if they needed to. I think the 1000 is the absolute end of the line for the 737.

alyusuph wrote:

...Despite the 3,050 feet runway and the surrounding hills (Himalaya ranges)...

Just to clarify it is 3050 meters. This may have already been pointed out but I didn't go through three pages of responses to verify.

Moe

aeromoe wrote:

alyusuph wrote:

...Despite the 3,050 feet runway and the surrounding hills (Himalaya ranges)...

Just to clarify it is 3050 meters. This may have already been pointed out but I didn't go through three pages of responses to verify.

Moe

Most aircraft I think land uphill on RW02, and depart on RW20. RW20 slopes down 1.35% at its maximum 0.7% down average.

Agreed Seahawk and that's the 'frightening' bit for Boeing.
The A320 could easily have a little stretch to a 19"pitch 200 seater.But due to a 5 year backlog there is clearly no financial incentive to do so right now.
Equally as you say the A321NEO could also take a small stretch.Indeed Airbus themselves floated this idea about 15 years ago but back then there were no takers- I bet there would be now!Of course you would need to trade this additional capacity for range but you would probably still get a 2.5 knm aircraft.
But again,why would you when you have a 5 year backlog and 321's are flying off the shelves.
All this could of course happen with the existing wing and engine so timing would not be an issue.

Anything more would require a new wing/engine so you are suddenly 10 years circa away.

kitplane01 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

Two thoughts ...

I) Small advantage in running costs matters ALOT because airline profit margins are small. Delta (which today chose the A321) has a profit margin of 7%. So telling me some plane costs 5% less to fly is a huge advantage.

2) The A321NEO is outselling the 737-10MAX by a 1496:274 ratio. Airlines prefer the A321NEO over the 737MAX alot. (As per wikipedia, which does not yet have the delta order.)

3) This makes me doubt Leeham, not the A321.

The sales difference is due to the late launch of the -10.

Wow,
I cant understand how people choose what's the better aircraft if it's not even in service wow!
The Boeing design has its problems but the a320 is not a perfect plane and has some issues to(there is nothing perfect here)

Boeing took the heat on the b787 and got a complete new plante out there with some issues well but it's easier to make now an a350 and follow others.

Airlines think in numbers in perferomance and on what they need they don't think on the 787 debacle because only few people know what plane they fly on. They don't care
The 777 is super stretched people mover it's not more comfortable than others but it fits in the airline plans to move people around the globe.

ILNFlyer wrote:

The sales difference is due to the late launch of the -10.

Few real -10 sales.
Most are afaics type swaps. from -9 and -8 to -10.

WIederling wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

The sales difference is due to the late launch of the -10.

Few real -10 sales.
Most are afaics type swaps. from -9 and -8 to -10.

... because the production line is so full, the only way to get an early -10 is to swap spots.

Time will tell about the -10, but given all the worried Airbus fanboy posts I suspect that it will do just fine.

spacecookie wrote:

Boeing took the heat on the b787 and got a complete new plante out there with some issues well but it's easier to make now an a350 and follow others.

So you think Airbus needed Boeing to show some "787 excellence" to have something to copy for the A350?

The 787 is tagged single digit better than the late 80ties A330 with the same engines.
Did Airbus learn any "don't do that"s from the 787 that they did not point out beforehand?

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

ILNFlyer wrote:

The sales difference is due to the late launch of the -10.

Few real -10 sales.
Most are afaics type swaps. from -9 and -8 to -10.

... because the production line is so full, the only way to get an early -10 is to swap spots.

Time will tell about the -10, but given all the worried Airbus fanboy posts I suspect that it will do just fine.

The production line is pretty damn full for the A321neo as well, but it still gathers orders at a fast pace. The MAX 10 will get a share of orders but it's got to overcome a performance disadvantage at a time when narrowbodies are flying more challenging routes and momentum is against it, quite likely that most A321s flying now will be replaced by A321neos which is a hefty chunk or orders, there isn't as large a replacement market for the 737-900ER.

MrHMSH wrote:

Revelation wrote:

WIederling wrote:

Few real -10 sales.
Most are afaics type swaps. from -9 and -8 to -10.

... because the production line is so full, the only way to get an early -10 is to swap spots.

Time will tell about the -10, but given all the worried Airbus fanboy posts I suspect that it will do just fine.

The production line is pretty damn full for the A321neo as well, but it still gathers orders at a fast pace. The MAX 10 will get a share of orders but it's got to overcome a performance disadvantage at a time when narrowbodies are flying more challenging routes and momentum is against it, quite likely that most A321s flying now will be replaced by A321neos which is a hefty chunk or orders, there isn't as large a replacement market for the 737-900ER.

All I was addressing is the swaps issue. As for the bigger picture, Airbus is doing fine and Boeing is doing fine. Boeing has enough orders and options now to keep the 737 production line full till they get past the 777X and (presumably) NMA development efforts and into the time frame when NSA would be in play.

RJMAZ wrote:

I get the impression most people think the A320NEO family is smashing the 737MAX family at the moment. I completely disagree.

The picture is more nuanced than that. The A321neo is absolutely "smashing" the MAX 9 and MAX 10. The battle between the A320neo and the MAX 8 is close to parity and both products are home runs. Both the A319neo and the MAX 7 are flops.

The NEO also has a more orders from airlines with much higher growth goals. Airline A might order 100 NEO's to replace 50 CEO's. Airline B might order 75 Max's to replace 50 NG's. Airline A would be higher risk of deferrals or cancelations.

I agree that there is probably a bit more business risk in the Airbus order book than the Boeing one, but it's not nearly enough to make up the clear difference between the A321neo and MAX 9/MAX 10. Airbus is going to take two-thirds of that market until Boeing has a new product to address it. The MAX 10 seems to have gotten Boeing up to one-third or so from one-tenth or so.

The A321neo has three advantages that each attract a different set of operators: 1) a substantial efficiency advantage at the outer edge of the range envelope; 2) much better field performance, even with the MAX 10's fancy new gear; and 3) a bit more payload capacity, good for LCCs.

parapente wrote:

Agreed Seahawk and that's the 'frightening' bit for Boeing.
The A320 could easily have a little stretch to a 19"pitch 200 seater.But due to a 5 year backlog there is clearly no financial incentive to do so right now.
Equally as you say the A321NEO could also take a small stretch.Indeed Airbus themselves floated this idea about 15 years ago but back then there were no takers- I bet there would be now!Of course you would need to trade this additional capacity for range but you would probably still get a 2.5 knm aircraft.
But again,why would you when you have a 5 year backlog and 321's are flying off the shelves.
All this could of course happen with the existing wing and engine so timing would not be an issue.

Anything more would require a new wing/engine so you are suddenly 10 years circa away.

I would not say that you need a new engine. The GTF is probably good for PiPs of around 5% that might only leave the wing to do and there is the CRFP wingbox they have shown already. I guess they won´t have done that for nothing.

Then there was the CRES test run in 2015 and Safran had a sketch of a single aisle double bogey MLG at Paris. Airbus has shown some interesting advanced or improved A320 parts in the last 3 years, which have been brought to TRL 6, but so far have not been spotted in production frames. I guess there is a reason for that.

RJMAZ wrote:

I get the impression most people think the A320NEO family is smashing the 737MAX family at the moment. I completely disagree.

The Max is roughly a year behind the NEO. 15 month behind in first flight. Sales per year brings it to approx 45/55 split.

The Max10 only just launched. Max family sales would be higher if it was launched at the start as it would make the family more complete and versatile.

The NEO also has a more orders from airlines with much higher growth goals. Airline A might order 100 NEO's to replace 50 CEO's. Airline B might order 75 Max's to replace 50 NG's. Airline A would be higher risk of deferrals or cancelations.

Taking all of this into account I think it will be very close to a 50/50 split right now.

For those who think the 737 makes less profit per frame that is a big assumption. Boeing has a tighter supplier network so its manufacturing costs will be lower. So it is a possibility they actually have a higher profit margin than Airbus.

I completely agree that the A321 is in a much better position to grow further into a A322 MOM. But in terms of short haul the 737 still has many advantages over the A320.

The 737max sales will no doubt decline next decade as airlines routes get thicker and they want to upgauge. But these sales will mostly go to the 797 not the A321. The 737/797 combo will probably outsell the Cseries/A321 combo.

Airbus needs to get the CS300 in the hands of low cost carriers with a tight 6AB ASAP. They need to simple stretch the A321LR and remove the fuselage fuel tanks so there is no max takeoff weight increase.

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

chiad wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I get the impression most people think the A320NEO family is smashing the 737MAX family at the moment. I completely disagree.

The Max is roughly a year behind the NEO. 15 month behind in first flight. Sales per year brings it to approx 45/55 split.

The Max10 only just launched. Max family sales would be higher if it was launched at the start as it would make the family more complete and versatile.

The NEO also has a more orders from airlines with much higher growth goals. Airline A might order 100 NEO's to replace 50 CEO's. Airline B might order 75 Max's to replace 50 NG's. Airline A would be higher risk of deferrals or cancelations.

Taking all of this into account I think it will be very close to a 50/50 split right now.

For those who think the 737 makes less profit per frame that is a big assumption. Boeing has a tighter supplier network so its manufacturing costs will be lower. So it is a possibility they actually have a higher profit margin than Airbus.

I completely agree that the A321 is in a much better position to grow further into a A322 MOM. But in terms of short haul the 737 still has many advantages over the A320.

The 737max sales will no doubt decline next decade as airlines routes get thicker and they want to upgauge. But these sales will mostly go to the 797 not the A321. The 737/797 combo will probably outsell the Cseries/A321 combo.

Airbus needs to get the CS300 in the hands of low cost carriers with a tight 6AB ASAP. They need to simple stretch the A321LR and remove the fuselage fuel tanks so there is no max takeoff weight increase.

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

According to Leeham the discounts for MAX10 launch orders were around two thirds (66%).

Historically these two aircraft families have been pretty 'even Stephen's'.Not the same mind both family's have different strengths and weaknesses.Being lighter the smaller variant (the 7 today) had an advantage as did the 321 at the top end.But.The bottom end has shrunk/disappeared whilst the top end is growing exponentially.Hence the recent advantage to Airbus.

The killer blow is that Airbus have 'doubled down' on that (initially small) advantage.
Blended winglets ,a super high by pass GTF engine,revised fuse/exits,a new smaller flex galley/loo's and the introduction of slimline seating has in reality created a whole new class of aircraft.The 240 seat 321neo is now a full blown 757 ( minus 30% SFC of course).
This is where the 737 Cant go or indeed the inevitable 322 stretch.Hence a new aircraft being required.

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

The overall failure of the 9MAX continues to disappoint me a bit... as It just seemed like the perfect single class 200 seat, 32/33:" pitch, 4 flight attendant plane, with decent range. I also imagined a few dual class arrangements wtih 2 X 4 42" rows (8) and 32 X 6 31" rows (192) (maybe a few of those rows are 30" ultra economy) configurations to get to 200 seats, 4 flight attendants, as well. Whereas, the A321NEO is too much plane for 200pax. I had expected it to find a few more homes than it has. Yes, I always expected the A321NEO to outsell the 9MAX by 3 to 1; but the present 5 1/2 to 1 ratio has surprised me.

The apparent failure of the 7MAX is also disappointing. A know that airlines are upsizing. However, with the absolute sheer number of A319s/73Gs in service, I had expected a few more takers for the 7MAX as well, again the perfect 150 seat, 32" pitch, 3 flight attendant plane with great range.

Maybe Boeing can introduce the flat bulkhead in the 8MAX, allowing the same galley/seating reconfiguration that the 900ER had, to add just one more row of seats, pushing the 8MAX advantage over the A320 just a bit more to capture those sales?

Back to the question of the 10MAX: The sales imbalance continues to grow. Perhaps availability will start to come into play, and the 10MAX may enjoy a few more orders simply due to price/availability despite not being as capable as the A321NEO. However, the 10MAX implementation has to be flawless, fast and without requiring super long takeoff lengths. Perhaps when Airlines see it built and performing, they might place orders.

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

~1,500 of which predate the launch of the Max10. If you want to talk about if the Max10 has changed anything or not you have to be careful how you frame your argument.

AirlineCritic wrote:

BayAreaLen wrote:

Boeing aircraft, and especially the 737 MAX retain for me that purity, good looks and performance that a true aviation enthusiast longs for, while by contrast I find the Airbus A320 NEO (or CEO) family to be among the most dull to look at and dull to fly on aircraft on the market today. So, as this conversation about the MAX 10 and the 321LR heats up, I prefer the MAX 10, all night long, and at the end of the day, regardless of which racks up the most sales when this race eventually dies down, I'd venture to bet that most airlines will be more pleased with their decision to invest in the Boeing 737 MAX, with better operating economics on the majority of the route lengths that airline use narrow body jets on, along with better and proven dispatch reliability and far less chance of a glitch of automation that an Airbus might have that puts a dent in your day at a moment's notice, not to mention a much better looking jet. It still boggles my mind how people are such fanatics of the 321LR here on A-net, which has to be to most dull, tube and wing aircraft in production to this day.

I don't know about the economics.... but I you have a point about beauty and particularly about dullness. The 737's background shows, it does look different. And with today's aircrafts and cars, being different is a blessing for the enthusiast. Blessing also maybe for some people's eyes, others prefer a different look. In general, in recent years airplane looks have improved quite a bit due to winglets, particularly the more and more fancy looking winglet designs.

That being said, I think you are not necessarily seeing the entire picture of favouritism on a.net. I think the A320 has been a fav for many here, and I'd argue justifiably so, but so has for instance the 777. And again, justifiably. But in either case probably overdone at times, and other possibilities are not easily seen by the fanboy mob. By the way, the A320 and B777 -- that's our two evenly leading winners of the airplane dullness contest

I beg to differ. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While my favorite airliners in terms of aesthetics are the Concorde and 747, I find the 739 visually hideous and over-extended; it looks like a 707 that did a belly flop, whereas the A321 looks just right for a plane of the A32x family. IMHO, the most beautiful 737 is the MAX7 and the most beautiful A32X is the A321.

ODwyerPW wrote:

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

The overall failure of the 9MAX continues to disappoint me a bit... as It just seemed like the perfect single class 200 seat, 32/33:" pitch, 4 flight attendant plane, with decent range. I also imagined a few dual class arrangements wtih 2 X 4 42" rows (8) and 32 X 6 31" rows (192) (maybe a few of those rows are 30" ultra economy) configurations to get to 200 seats, 4 flight attendants, as well. Whereas, the A321NEO is too much plane for 200pax. I had expected it to find a few more homes than it has. Yes, I always expected the A321NEO to outsell the 9MAX by 3 to 1; but the present 5 1/2 to 1 ratio has surprised me.

The apparent failure of the 7MAX is also disappointing. A know that airlines are upsizing. However, with the absolute sheer number of A319s/73Gs in service, I had expected a few more takers for the 7MAX as well, again the perfect 150 seat, 32" pitch, 3 flight attendant plane with great range.

Maybe Boeing can introduce the flat bulkhead in the 8MAX, allowing the same galley/seating reconfiguration that the 900ER had, to add just one more row of seats, pushing the 8MAX advantage over the A320 just a bit more to capture those sales?

Back to the question of the 10MAX: The sales imbalance continues to grow. Perhaps availability will start to come into play, and the 10MAX may enjoy a few more orders simply due to price/availability despite not being as capable as the A321NEO. However, the 10MAX implementation has to be flawless, fast and without requiring super long takeoff lengths. Perhaps when Airlines see it built and performing, they might place orders.

Most A321s are currently configured around 190 seats; why would the A321neo be any different if it has the same fuselage? A high-density A321neo can carry 240 passengers.

Polot wrote:

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

~1,500 of which predate the launch of the Max10. If you want to talk about if the Max10 has changed anything or not you have to be careful how you frame your argument.

The 737-10 had authority to offer in October 2016. In 2017 Airbus sold 506 A321s (480 net). How many 737-9/10s sold last year?

scbriml wrote:

Polot wrote:

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

~1,500 of which predate the launch of the Max10. If you want to talk about if the Max10 has changed anything or not you have to be careful how you frame your argument.

The 737-10 had authority to offer in October 2016. In 2017 Airbus sold 506 A321s (480 net). How many 737-9/10s sold last year?

Oh I am not disagreeing that the A321neo sold more. But using 85% of the current total order market share to make your point is a very misleading when one plane has been available 4-5 years longer than the other. Even an eventual 60:40 split annually is very different from 85:15.

Polot wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Polot wrote:

~1,500 of which predate the launch of the Max10. If you want to talk about if the Max10 has changed anything or not you have to be careful how you frame your argument.

The 737-10 had authority to offer in October 2016. In 2017 Airbus sold 506 A321s (480 net). How many 737-9/10s sold last year?

Oh I am not disagreeing that the A321neo sold more. But using 85% of the current total order market share to make your point is a very misleading when one plane has been available 4-5 years longer than the other. Even an eventual 60:40 split annually is very different from 85:15.

That worn out argument. This was the year the 737-10 should have outsold the A321neo, first sales year bonus, the airlines waiting for it could order it. Instead the A321neo out sold the 737-9/10. There are between 250 and 350 firm defined orders for the 737-10, I assume still some MOU and we will see some conversions. Some of the 737-10 are converted 737-9 orders, meaning a reduction of the 737-9 backlog. There are 418 net firm orders for the A321neo in 2017, plus some 62 A321ceo. I imagine an 80 to 20 future split of the market to be very realistic.

Even though the MAX is not selling as well as the NEO, I think it was right for them to launch it and not continue on the Y1 project since Airbus would really have a monopoly on the single-aisle narrowbodies. The MAX would allow Boeing to complete the MOM as well as the NSA while still having a market share. Thus I think it is a great idea for Boeing to have launched the MAX

Planesmart wrote:

In the A321, Airbus enjoys higher margins / lower cost of production than Boeing on the MAX10, so potentially more wriggle room.

I'm amazed you know this. I didn't think Airbus published such information.

Can you provide a citation so we can all see where you learned this?

Just to be clear: I'm ready to be corrected, but I'm calling bull.

RJMAZ wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

For what it's worth I think this analysis is right on the money. The only thing I would dispute is range. From what I've read at mtow both planes are virtually identical.

No the A321 has greater range.

The A321 has a 10% greater maximum takeoff weight. While carrying the same 230 seat payload the A321 can carry 28% more fuel before hitting maximum takeoff weight. This is done by carrying two ACT tanks in the cargo hold.

The 737-10 would have to carry 40 less passengers if it wanted to fly the same distance.

The A321 if it reduces passengers by the same 40 seats could then carry a third ACT tank which turns it into a A321LR.

The advantage of greater range and heavier weight becomes a disadvantage on shorter trips. This is why the 737 is more efficient under 1000nm

On short trips in bulk configuration the 757 has 1670 cu. ft. of bulk cargo space. The A321 without ACT's has 1828 cu. ft.

Swadian wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

BayAreaLen wrote:

Boeing aircraft, and especially the 737 MAX retain for me that purity, good looks and performance that a true aviation enthusiast longs for, while by contrast I find the Airbus A320 NEO (or CEO) family to be among the most dull to look at and dull to fly on aircraft on the market today. So, as this conversation about the MAX 10 and the 321LR heats up, I prefer the MAX 10, all night long, and at the end of the day, regardless of which racks up the most sales when this race eventually dies down, I'd venture to bet that most airlines will be more pleased with their decision to invest in the Boeing 737 MAX, with better operating economics on the majority of the route lengths that airline use narrow body jets on, along with better and proven dispatch reliability and far less chance of a glitch of automation that an Airbus might have that puts a dent in your day at a moment's notice, not to mention a much better looking jet. It still boggles my mind how people are such fanatics of the 321LR here on A-net, which has to be to most dull, tube and wing aircraft in production to this day.

I don't know about the economics.... but I you have a point about beauty and particularly about dullness. The 737's background shows, it does look different. And with today's aircrafts and cars, being different is a blessing for the enthusiast. Blessing also maybe for some people's eyes, others prefer a different look. In general, in recent years airplane looks have improved quite a bit due to winglets, particularly the more and more fancy looking winglet designs.

That being said, I think you are not necessarily seeing the entire picture of favouritism on a.net. I think the A320 has been a fav for many here, and I'd argue justifiably so, but so has for instance the 777. And again, justifiably. But in either case probably overdone at times, and other possibilities are not easily seen by the fanboy mob. By the way, the A320 and B777 -- that's our two evenly leading winners of the airplane dullness contest

I beg to differ. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. While my favorite airliners in terms of aesthetics are the Concorde and 747, I find the 739 visually hideous and over-extended; it looks like a 707 that did a belly flop, whereas the A321 looks just right for a plane of the A32x family. IMHO, the most beautiful 737 is the MAX7 and the most beautiful A32X is the A321.

ODwyerPW wrote:

chiad wrote:

With the 2017 tally includeing the the orderbooks the A321Neo now has 1,920 frames vs 339 for the B737Max 9/10 (combined).
Has the Max10 changed anything considering that the A321Neo still has 85% of the orders in this segment?

The overall failure of the 9MAX continues to disappoint me a bit... as It just seemed like the perfect single class 200 seat, 32/33:" pitch, 4 flight attendant plane, with decent range. I also imagined a few dual class arrangements wtih 2 X 4 42" rows (8) and 32 X 6 31" rows (192) (maybe a few of those rows are 30" ultra economy) configurations to get to 200 seats, 4 flight attendants, as well. Whereas, the A321NEO is too much plane for 200pax. I had expected it to find a few more homes than it has. Yes, I always expected the A321NEO to outsell the 9MAX by 3 to 1; but the present 5 1/2 to 1 ratio has surprised me.

The apparent failure of the 7MAX is also disappointing. A know that airlines are upsizing. However, with the absolute sheer number of A319s/73Gs in service, I had expected a few more takers for the 7MAX as well, again the perfect 150 seat, 32" pitch, 3 flight attendant plane with great range.

Maybe Boeing can introduce the flat bulkhead in the 8MAX, allowing the same galley/seating reconfiguration that the 900ER had, to add just one more row of seats, pushing the 8MAX advantage over the A320 just a bit more to capture those sales?

Back to the question of the 10MAX: The sales imbalance continues to grow. Perhaps availability will start to come into play, and the 10MAX may enjoy a few more orders simply due to price/availability despite not being as capable as the A321NEO. However, the 10MAX implementation has to be flawless, fast and without requiring super long takeoff lengths. Perhaps when Airlines see it built and performing, they might place orders.

Most A321s are currently configured around 190 seats; why would the A321neo be any different if it has the same fuselage? A high-density A321neo can carry 240 passengers.

My favorite airliners in terms of aesthetics would be the 747, L1011 & the Concorde.

RalXWB wrote:

So funny to read fow some people create their own reality here

Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this:

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

Given that outsiders are saying there is no advantage for either company I don’t understand the world where someone actually believes:

mjoelnir wrote:

. I imagine an 80 to 20 future split of the market to be very realistic.

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this:

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

What it costs to operate the plane is only one factor in the equation. Just because two planes have very similar economics doesn't mean they'll sell equally.

Despite the availability of the 737-10, the A321 continues to sell in significantly higher numbers and continues to sell to airlines that have large 737 fleets (even some with MAX already on order). One can only conclude that the A321 must offer something over and above the 737 that airlines need or want.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

Entirely understandable. However, I suspect there are just as many detractors as fans.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this:

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

Given that outsiders are saying there is no advantage for either company I don’t understand the world where someone actually believes:

mjoelnir wrote:

. I imagine an 80 to 20 future split of the market to be very realistic.

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

Even with the Boeing CEO so far up Trump's behind, when Trump scratches his throat he ruffles the top of Muilenberg's head, and the added pressure the US will exert to try and win orders for Boeing the A321 still sells very well even when the line is way oversold for the next 9 or so years.

From your link,

One can just imagine if Delta buys Airbus. Notwithstanding the fact that many (or maybe all) of the A320neos might be assembled at the Mobile plant in deep red Alabama that loves Donald Trump, Boeing has remarkably and successfully kissed up to Trump and massaged his ego to no end. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg didn’t take a strong stand about Trump’s Charlottesville (WV) remarks basically endorsing white supremacists. Several CEOs on Trump’s Business Council quit in protest. Not Muilenburg.

When it comes to Boeing vs Airbus in Washington (DC), and especially the White House, Boeing has the advantage.

But its all just fanboys on a-net pointing out how much better one product is because they swallow the marketing material from their favourite company, not real world sales (and other factors but as seen on a-net sales determines the superiority of one product over another, 77W vs A346) on how one is doing against the other. But the 737-10MAX will sell in future because Boeing is willing to discount it by 66%, the A320 line is sold out way into the future and because of the political pressure that the US will use for some of Trump's friends. Then you can post on here that you were right, the 737-10 isn't as terrible compared to the A321 as those nasty scumbag Airbus fanboys have been preaching and shouting about.

Polot wrote:

Oh I am not disagreeing that the A321neo sold more. But using 85% of the current total order market share to make your point is a very misleading when one plane has been available 4-5 years longer than the other. Even an eventual 60:40 split annually is very different from 85:15.

Fair enough. I did however include the Max9 into the equation, which was supposed to compete with the A321NEO.
It was lauched launched some 8 months after the NEO program (December 2010 vs July 2011).
I don't have a clear view of the numbers, but I believe most of the Max10 orders come from Max8 and Max9 conversions. Someone here is sure to have the full overview.
13 months after the launch of NEO Airbus managed to get 1256 orders.
17 months after the launch of Max, Boeing managed to get 1064 orders.
My point is that there seem to be a rush of orders within the year of a launch, and the Max10 was launched in Jun 2017. Maybe the rush may come later for the Max10? Or not. We'll see.

enzo011 wrote:

But the 737-10MAX will sell in future because Boeing is willing to discount it by 66%, the A320 line is sold out way into the future and because of the political pressure that the US will use for some of Trump's friends.

I am sure the Max10 will sell, but will it restore the balance 80/20 balance (right now 85/15)?
Remember Airbus seems capable of increasing the NEO prodution across the lines (Europe, China and and Alabama). I think they will to keep the current Marketshare.
2018 sure will be interesting.

Does anyone know if both the MAX 10 and the A321neo would have the range to cross the Atlantic launching from a 6500 feet long runway? With a full load of passengers and luggage.

enzo011 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this:

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

Given that outsiders are saying there is no advantage for either company I don’t understand the world where someone actually believes:

mjoelnir wrote:

. I imagine an 80 to 20 future split of the market to be very realistic.

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

Even with the Boeing CEO so far up Trump's behind, when Trump scratches his throat he ruffles the top of Muilenberg's head, and the added pressure the US will exert to try and win orders for Boeing the A321 still sells very well even when the line is way oversold for the next 9 or so years.

From your link,

One can just imagine if Delta buys Airbus. Notwithstanding the fact that many (or maybe all) of the A320neos might be assembled at the Mobile plant in deep red Alabama that loves Donald Trump, Boeing has remarkably and successfully kissed up to Trump and massaged his ego to no end. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg didn’t take a strong stand about Trump’s Charlottesville (WV) remarks basically endorsing white supremacists. Several CEOs on Trump’s Business Council quit in protest. Not Muilenburg.

When it comes to Boeing vs Airbus in Washington (DC), and especially the White House, Boeing has the advantage.

But its all just fanboys on a-net pointing out how much better one product is because they swallow the marketing material from their favourite company, not real world sales (and other factors but as seen on a-net sales determines the superiority of one product over another, 77W vs A346) on how one is doing against the other. But the 737-10MAX will sell in future because Boeing is willing to discount it by 66%, the A320 line is sold out way into the future and because of the political pressure that the US will use for some of Trump's friends. Then you can post on here that you were right, the 737-10 isn't as terrible compared to the A321 as those nasty scumbag Airbus fanboys have been preaching and shouting about.

Mods, what are you getting paid for???

What is the point of allowing the publishing of this highly offensive crap?

Newbiepilot wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

So funny to read fow some people create their own reality here

Some of the comments are quite amazing given that the conclusion from the Leeham article is this:

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

Given that outsiders are saying there is no advantage for either company I don’t understand the world where someone actually believes:

mjoelnir wrote:

. I imagine an 80 to 20 future split of the market to be very realistic.

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

It is very simple, the market has spoke and is speaking. There are of course Boeing fan boys ignoring the numbers.

The A321 has out sold the 737-900/900ER by a huge margin. The A321neo is outselling the 737-9 and 737-10 combined by a big margin.

The A321neo orders were end of 2017 1920 frames. The combined 737-9 and 737-10 combined orders less than 500?

brindabella wrote:

Mods, what are you getting paid for???

What is the point of allowing the publishing of this highly offensive crap?

After reading it three times, I still don't see "highly offensive crap". It is your right to see it that way, but that doesn't make it so. More importantly it is just your opinion (as it is his). It still might be wrong or even crap. Freedom of speech, anyone?

I'm not a mod, of course.

I do wonder whether the actual basic question here is somewhat wrong.The A321NEO and next year the LR is (in some part) are not actually competing with the 737.
At 240 seats it is significantly larger and in LR guise (or with ACT's - see Australia 321 thread) can fly significantly larger loads further.
On TATL we know it's competing/replacing the 757 not the 737.
This comparison cannot be made in ROW simply because there are no 757's out there.But that would be the comparison.For some regional routes even old 767's are in the target market.
So it's no surprise it's outselling the 737 it's target market is vastly larger.This will end of course when Boeing plug the gap with the 797.

parapente wrote:

I do wonder whether the actual basic question here is somewhat wrong.The A321NEO and next year the LR is (in some part) are not actually competing with the 737.
At 240 seats it is significantly larger and in LR guise (or with ACT's - see Australia 321 thread) can fly significantly larger loads further.
On TATL we know it's competing/replacing the 757 not the 737.
This comparison cannot be made in ROW simply because there are no 757's out there.But that would be the comparison.For some regional routes even old 767's are in the target market.
So it's no surprise it's outselling the 737 it's target market is vastly larger.This will end of course when Boeing plug the gap with the 797.

The 737-10 was sett up as a competitor to the A321neo. This thread is set up to compare them. You just give some of the reasons why the 737-10 does not match up to the A321neo. (The A321neo that is of course still trying to catch up to the 737-9.)

Jerry123 wrote:

Does anyone know if both the MAX 10 and the A321neo would have the range to cross the Atlantic launching from a 6500 feet long runway? With a full load of passengers and luggage.

Unfortunately Boeing has not yet released ACAP documents for the 737 MAX 10, so this question is difficult to answer right now.

scbriml wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

The A321 has quite a fan club on this website.

Entirely understandable. However, I suspect there are just as many detractors as fans.

I don’t think posting a quote from Leeham is detracting from the A321 or 737.

This is what Scott Hamilton wrote.

Then, the question comes down to economics.
Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.
Pish-posh.
LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.
There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

When breaking it down further to specific airline needs, one airplane may be preferable over the other. The A321 is expected to have better takeoff performance. The 737 is expected to have lower short haul trip fuel burn. The A321LR is expected to have more range, but in the real world 737-900ERs and 737-800s have been used on routes 10% longer than A320s and A321s, so we aren’t quite sure about range figures until more numbers come out that can be used for real world planning.

So in the end I don’t know what the balance will be. It comes down to the unique operating environments of the individual airlines. I seriously question the analysis or objectivity of anyone who thinks they have enough information to truly come to a conclusion that one plane will outsell the other by 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 margins.