Mariano,the issue is time. the MAX option can be delivered relatively quickly, even if it brings with itself some hurdles a clean-sheet design would not have (fan clearance).On the other hand, if Boeing went ahead with Y-1 project, and would not respond to A320neo by 737MAX, they would end up with a very competitive all-new airframe, but realistically deliveries would just very hardly be able to take place before 2022, if not later (just look at the 787 project). With A320neo left unanswered, that would mean that Boeing just left Airbus with some 6 years of dominating NB market by using 10% more efficient airplane (and that is pessimistic projection, optimistic projections predict 15% better fuel economy for neo vs current A320)Having 737MAX means that Boeing will be allowed to make use of Leap-X and some 787 technology with relatively low development costs, and time, thus maintaining competitivness with Airbus, and still allowing for Y-1 program to be finished somewhere late 2020s. That could mean 60 years in manufacture for the 737 lineage, not a small feat...

I agree with both Mariano and Peter in some aspects. I also think it's time for Boeing to leave the commonality between the current and older variants and start working in something fresh. But as Peter said, a new project would take way too much time to be launched, time which Boeing doesn't have. So the MAX was most likely the right choice for Boeing. But they do have to upgrade the plane. In matter of efficiency, it's in par with the Neo. Boeing says the MAX will be about 4% more efficient than it's competitor, which is great! But as Mariano said, they can't ignore the fact that technology evolved and that and airplane like the 737 is outdated regarding it's systems. It's time to start over. Throw the old cockpit away and build a new one, which will resemble the new Boeing airplanes. One that will create a standard cockpit for all their airplanes.Regarding the engine issue... Well, they may have to redesign. It'll be costly, but if a new engine with the same size of the current CFM56-7 is not enough, then we'll need a new landing gear, a wider gear bay and other adaptations. They have the basic frame in their hands. It's ready. They jus have to make the suitable changes.It's possible that the 737MAX becomes an entirely new airplane that just resembles the 737 NG in a few aspacts, like the familiar fuselage. But that's it. New engine size (hope they keep that flat bottom of the nacelle ), new landing gear, and most important, a new flight deck, that will have almost nothing to do with the NG one. Who knows... By 2015 we should know for sure.

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by barfra1995

Boeing hopes to minimise the changes between the Next Generation 737 and the 737 Max preserving both the common pilot type rating and grandfathered US Federal Aviation Administration certification.

That pretty much says it, no new 787-style cockpit for the Max...I think it would be just waste of time and resources at this time to include all-new cockpit, especially if that would mean losing FAA type certificate, that would take years to obtain.

I think it would be just waste of time and resources at this time to include all-new cockpit, especially if that would mean losing FAA type certificate, that would take years to obtain.

Not really. Airlines are always moaning that they want to maintain the same type certificate for training, but that is typical short term accounting, what you call stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny. Think about it, you are gonna hold back technological breakthroughs and advancements in aviation simply to avoid a one time cost of initial training? Training is always gonna be there, no matter what type certificate.I say at least make the cockpit the same as the 787. Say what you will about Airbus, but they got Boeing beat in this aspect. Look at the 320 series all the way up to the A340-600. If it wasn't for the thrust levers you would not know the difference. The philosophy from one to another is the same, the conventions are the same, the MCP is the same, the FMS is the same. You can CCQ on another variant in something like 3 days.Now look at Boeing, they seem to wande from one convention to another. They really need to sit down and iron out their philosophy or Airbus is gonna eat them up. The 787 was the perfect opportunity for them to introduce their "new cockpit" line. Instead, they put out the 747-8 with a 30 year old cockpit! Give me a break, imagine if the NG had come out with the same cockpit technology as the 737-200 initial design. No airline in their right mind would have bought it. No wonder the -8 is not selling well, Boeing cut its legs off at birth. I would not be surprised if in 2 or 3 years you see a new iteration of the -8 with a brand new cockpit that maintains commonality with the 787.

Mariano,the issue is time.

No doubt about it Peter, they were pressured into making a bad decission by American forcing their hand. They let one of the worst managed airlines dictate their business. Granted, AA said they would purchase whatever they make to replace the NG, so maybe their intention was a new design. I agree with you, the issue was time. But you should not let time become the issue. Airbus already beat them to the punch by announcing the Neo first. They took a huge gamble by doing that, they bet that Boeing would follow and they would have the lead. So that is exactly why Boeing should have announced the new design. That would have taken all of the wind out of the Neo's sails. It certainly would have stopped some of the B>A switches, like American or Norwegian. And a lot of the airlines that have now placed orders for Neos would be holding out to see what Boeing comes up with. This would eventually lead to Airbus announcing a new design and then they would be catching up to Boeing.It was a game of chicken, and Airbus won when Boeing swerved.

Well that is a good discussion going on here. Lets continue.

Look at the 320 series all the way up to the A340-600.

Well, yes, but those were all basically developed at one time. Now there is the A380, that no longer shares the commoniality, and for a good reason - it is twenty years younger. Maybe the A350 will share the common rating with A380 and maybe the A320 replacement will, but we do not know yet.

Now look at Boeing, they seem to wande from one convention to another.

Actually, they try and keep their standarts standardised. The 757 and the 767 share a common cockpit, as do actually 747-400, 767-400 and 777, even though they do not go as deep as Airbus.As a matter of fact, the 737Classics have a 757 style cockpit (bar the EICAS, which was IIRC financially impossible for the 737 at time) while the 737NG has what effectively is an iteration of a 777 cokpit.

They really need to sit down and iron out their philosophy or Airbus is gonna eat them up.

As I mentioned previously, it is not. Recent and following Airbus planes are no longer sharing the same (20 year old) cockpit.As a matter of fact, crosfleeting brings about a lot of problems in itself. In my personal opinion, Airbus can be glad, that there was no catastrophic accident yet, that was attributable to crosfleeting. There have been a plenty of incidents though.

Instead, they put out the 747-8 with a 30 year old cockpit! Give me a break, imagine if the NG had come out with the same cockpit technology as the 737-200 initial design. No airline in their right mind would have bought it.

Come on now, the difference between 747-8 and 787 is nothing to compare with 737 jurrasic/NG. The full glass cockpit was THE enormous breakthrough in cockpit technology. I do not think we are going to see anything remotely so radical any soon.

No wonder the -8 is not selling well, Boeing cut its legs off at birth. I would not be surprised if in 2 or 3 years you see a new iteration of the -8 with a brand new cockpit that maintains commonality with the 787.

Please, you can not really think that the cockpit is the reason 747-8 is not selling well.The actual reason shares the basic cockpit layout and is called the 777. The 777 has been outselling the 747 since it was launched, and now has over twice as much total orders than the 747-400, which is about 6 years older. Since 1995, 747 has been, and still is, a niche airplane. Almost anything it can do, the 777 can do better, and a little more. Where the 747 has a little more merit, is in freighter ops, and you can see that in -8 orders.Also, do you really think that with the projected 747-8 sales, it would be feasible to develop a whole new cockpit? Personally, I do not think so. All it would do is render the aircraft uncompetitive.

No doubt about it Peter, they were pressured into making a bad decission by American forcing their hand. They let one of the worst managed airlines dictate their business.

How do you figure? It seems to me that AAL is one of the better-managed American majors. Granted that might not be that much to go by.

I agree with you, the issue was time. But you should not let time become the issue.

On the contrary, you have to. Timing is everything and with the A380 and 787 delays, Boeing does not have the luxury of a dependable schedule in all-new development (neither has Airbus)

Airbus already beat them to the punch by announcing the Neo first. They took a huge gamble by doing that, they bet that Boeing would follow and they would have the lead. So that is exactly why Boeing should have announced the new design. That would have taken all of the wind out of the Neo's sails.

Realistically, all it would have done is give Airbus seven or so years of total monopoly in the narrowbody market. As of now, you could consider 737NG and A320 equivalent, 15% of A320neo efficiency would make up for a lot of market share...

It certainly would have stopped some of the B>A switches, like American or Norwegian.

Neither of those are switches. Both airlines ordered both A and B, and more likely then not, both did it because neither of the airframers could fulfill their delivery schedule requirements.

And a lot of the airlines that have now placed orders for Neos would be holding out to see what Boeing comes up with.

Thus basically freezing their narrowbody fleets for 7-ish years? Hardly so.This would eventually lead to Airbus announcing a new design and then they would be catching up to Boeing.This is still possible, neither of them announced the new narrowbody program yet.(seems I ran out of quote tags. If I add that one last quote tag, forum goes on a rampage telling me opening and closing tags do not match.

The APU exaust looks very "airbussy" :(

WOAH guys, it's still got a longggggg way to go before it comes.

Mariano - they're doing what their customers demanded. Those same customers would just buy A320neos if Boeing tried to ram a new design down their throats when they didn't want it. Boeing is very weary of all-new aircraft at this point after the delay and certification debacles with the 787 too...

Not really. Airlines are always moaning that they want to maintain the same type certificate for training, but that is typical short term accounting, what you call stepping over a dollar to pick up a penny. Think about it, you are gonna hold back technological breakthroughs and advancements in aviation simply to avoid a one time cost of initial training? Training is always gonna be there, no matter what type certificate.

Increased training costs for airlines is one thing (although I've heard that's why Southwest pushed for minimum change in the NG cockpit), but for Boeing the more important point is the potential loss of grandfathered regulations.Airworthiness regulations are constantly being updated. When you design an airplane you agree a certain date with the airworthiness authorities (in practice FAA and EASA), the regulations are frozen for you at that point. This means you don't have to modify your design to comply with any regulations that are added after that date (unless they are so safety critical that they are applied retroactively).If you design a new variant of an aircraft you should strictly speaking design it according to the latest set of regulations. However if your new variant is similar enough to the old design you may be allowed to 'grandfather' the old rules, that is you only have to comply with rules the original design had to comply to, and not the later ones.If the FAA decides that your new design is too different from your old one they won't allow you to grandfather the regulations and thus you will have to modify parts of your design that you weren't intending to modify in order to comply with the newer regulations. That can be very costly.

Mariano - they're doing what their customers demanded. Those same customers would just buy A320neos if Boeing tried to ram a new design down their throats when they didn't want it. Boeing is very weary of all-new aircraft at this point after the delay and certification debacles with the 787 too...

I don't think airlines are particularly averse to buying a new clean-sheet design (although recent experience with the 787 might make them somewhat nervous). However the improvements a new design promises would have to be significant in order to offset the higher risk. So far no one has identified a viable way of delivering that much better performance (or if they have they aren't telling). Composites aren't living up to the hype (yes they're lighther, but in current practice, not that much lighter) and flying wings or other tail-less designs haven't really taken off yet. Airbus has dropped some hints they're looking at open rotors (unless those were diversionary tactics), but if any one has seen the way forward they're not ready to share yet.For a variety of reasons the best we can do at the moment is squeeze every last bit of toothpaste we can from the metal* tube with wings concept. The tube is starting to get pretty empty though.*Or one-to-one composite replacement.

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by japascoe

Peter, my example was not comparing the 748 to the NG mind you. I was simply stating how the B748 is the only new Boeing variant (except for maybe the 743, pretty much a commercial failure) to be released with what is basically a 20+ year old cockpit - all for the sake of commonality. FAA regs allow only 30% change before they consider a new type. With all the money Boeing had buried into the re-engine 748 project that turned into re-engine + new wing, they should have just said F-it and gone all the way. I think then you would have seen an aircraft that would have given the 777 a run for its money. I know that the wing on the 748 is a pice of art and so efficient that Boeing is considering putting it on the 777 in future variants. So the talent is there, but the people willing to make tough decisions aren't anymore.And my point of the Airbus is exactly as you mentioned, I said A320-346 - specifically leaving out the A380 and 350 because they have new cockpits. I was trying to point out how standardized they are across that range. Yes, there are differences, but not as many as between Boeings. The 757 and 767 are very similar, but they are not very similar to the 74 or the 73. Even little things like the auto brake selector, or silly stuff like the color of the cockpit. I know, the buses are newer and were designed from the ground up that way. But that is my point, Boeing is missing that opportunity with the -8, all for the sake of keeping it as the same type. And they are gonna do the same with the Max, and they have done the same with the 787 to some extent (same type for pilots on the 777, which I think is ludicrous and a prime example of the FAA not doing its job to regulate - talk about an accident waiting to happen.) I can tell you from personal experience in the 748-744 that the minutiae of convention changes is ridiculous. For example, in the 744, when you open the speed window in VNAV PATH while descending, the mode will switch to VNAV SPD. Not so on the 748. It has a range of speed in which it will stay on path and let you fiddle with the speed. Agreed, this is an improvement, but it is a major change in the way you operate the aircraft. To achieve this it flies an "off-idle" descent path, which equates to 4x tables for profile calculations, a much shallower descent than the 744 which is 3x table.And forget about the 777, it has even more dangerous changes in convention. On the 744, you wait until bug speed to retract the flaps. So whichever bug is displayed, it indicates the minimum speed for that configuration. Where as the triple 7 has you retracting the flaps before reaching the corresponding bug. Talk about recipe for disaster with a heavy climb out! This is why several airlines, ours included, tried to get crews CCQed to fly the 744 and 777 and could not get it past the regulators. Don't get me wrong, when you add variants, you add another link in the chain - regardless of wether it is A or B. But my opinion is that Airbus is much better at maintaining a standard cockpit throughout their range (generational leaps excluded, like the A350 and A380). So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Only time will tell I guess. At the rate the -8 is selling Boeing is not gonna make much money on it. You are right that the 777 killed the 744, I've seen it first hand where I work. That is all the more reason for Boeing to have come out with a design in the -8 that is leaps and bounds beyond the 744. They had the technology, but like I said before, I don't think Boeing is the company it used to be (and for the record, I have never flown Airbuses, most of my jet time is on Boeings and other types).

Mariano - they're doing what their customers demanded. Those same customers would just buy A320neos if Boeing tried to ram a new design down their throats when they didn't want it. Boeing is very weary of all-new aircraft at this point after the delay and certification debacles with the 787 too...

I agree Ryan, they are doing what their customers demanded. That is my point, I think they should know better. It is like a restaurant; customers come and pick what they want to eat - they don't tell the Chef what to put on the menu or how to cook it. If your aim is to make the best food possible, customers will be there and your competition will always be trying to play catch up. In this case, Airbus went for the mediocre, and Boeing raced to match that mediocracy. It reminds me of that TV commercial with all the kids that have low aspirations - "What do you want to do when you grow up Timmy? ... I wanna crawl my way up to middle management" Woohoo!Tu put it another way, It would be like us telling PMDG what aircraft they must develop... oh wait, we do that every day - we're all doomed! :(

Well one thing's for sure, we will see a clean-sheet narrow body design I think in the next 30-35 years. I wouldn't expect really anything from either manufacturer for a long time.We are forgetting some things though here. There are plenty of other companies out there offering some pretty competitive and modern aircraft that can almost fill the narrow-body market.Embraer's big E-Jet's are proving to be a very popular rig, and I know many airlines have replaced their traditional narrow-body equipment on many routes with something like a E190 or 195. Air Canada's the most vivid example for me. People love the 2-2 arrangement and ACA loves the better load factors with the E-Jets.We will have to see how Bombardier's C-Series turns out but it's pretty clear they are targeting their marketing not just at the regional market.We always have the Russians as well although it's really a pity with export and regulatory hurdles it's tough for them to break out of the CIS region there.

Mariano, I am afraid you put too much weight on the cokcpit issue. Having a slightly better cockpit would not make the 748 a 777 killer, it would not change anything in the realm of efficiency, ranges, performance etc. while having the airlines keep multiple pilot pools instead of one crossfleeting on 744/748.Unless you are talking about a major redesign in terms of massive CFRP utilisation, bleedless pneumatics, full FBW etc., but it remains questionable how much it would be feasible. Boeing obviously does not feel it is.... and I agree.The things that are just that bit different to be confusing, like the staff you mention, yes, those are unfortunate, but not commercially relevant.

But my opinion is that Airbus is much better at maintaining a standard cockpit throughout their range (generational leaps excluded, like the A350 and A380).

Well, the fact that Airbus has had no legacy, as opposed to Boeing, when introducing the line-up, allows for that. Boeing does not have the luxury, and neither has Airbus anymore...

So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Only time will tell I guess.

Possibly so....

At the rate the -8 is selling Boeing is not gonna make much money on it. You are right that the 777 killed the 744, I've seen it first hand where I work. That is all the more reason for Boeing to have come out with a design in the -8 that is leaps and bounds beyond the 744. They had the technology,

Yeah, they had the technology, but as long as the only selling point of the 748 is, that is is basically just that bit better 744, would it be a commercial success? Hard to tell, but I am of the opinion that it would not.

As for doing what the customers demanded, here's what Norwegian's CEO had to say about it:"In June, Bjorn Kjos, Norwegian's CEO, cast his ballot at the Paris Air Show in favor of Boeing to develop an all-new narrowbody.As the ink dried on a purchase agreement for 15 more 737-800s...Kjos told a room of journalists he was "lining up in the queue to tell Boeing to build a new aircraft." and was urging Boeing it was time to take "the next giant leap."At that point for the Northern European low-cost carrier, Kjos saw the cost of switching to an all-new Boeing aircraft with 20% better fuel efficiency as outweighing any cost of breaking its 737 fleet commonality. (quote from: http://www.flightglo...t.html#comments)"

Edited January 28, 201214 yr by japascoe

Mariano, I am afraid you put too much weight on the cokcpit issue. Having a slightly better cockpit would not make the 748 a 777 killer, it would not change anything in the realm of efficiency, ranges, performance etc. while having the airlines keep multiple pilot pools instead of one crossfleeting on 744/748.

Peter I was using the cockpit issues to show their lack of commonality even among the same family of aircraft, I think most of the efficiencies to be gained in the cockpit are already there. The 748 comes with GLS which will allow precision CATIIIB Autoland to any runway within 250nm of the receiver. We trained for them using Moses Lake, which has one installed. The technology is amazing and it will also allow curved procedures. Imagine every airport from Hartford to Philly having a precision, Autoland capable approach to every runway with the use of just one receiver. Pretty amazing and definitely a step in the right direction.The -8 also has the RNP/ANP capability we see on the NGX, so there is more efficiency with tailored arrivals into tight / noise sensitive airports while providing the most efficient constant descent approach. In fact Hong Kong has been trialling these technologies and will be one of the first airports around the world to implement it. If you liked the Kai Tak approach, you will love the left downwind RNP approach to R07L at CLK. It has you leveling wings on final at about 1000feet with a complete 180 degree course reversal while descending over the hills just north of the airport. So the cockpit efficiencies are already there, it is just the infrastructure that needs to catch up.My point about Boeing getting the most out of the -8 was in other areas, like composites and system redesign. I think they could have squeezed another 10-15% from technologies learned in the 787 program which they currently could not incorporate while maintaining the same type certificate. That was my point, a 747-8 that is 25-30% more efficient than a 747-400 is a real contender. Especially to places which have problems with twins like hot/high or both (Jo-burgh). The "big twin" really looses its appeal when you push above 5000ft.Anyway, good discussion and interesting to see what will happen. I still think there might be hope for a new clean-sheet design when they really start looking at the design more carefully. I noticed Boeing is already in rumor control about the costs of the Max. Analyst already put the costs at twice the Neo's re-design costs, which I think is very conservative. They've already compromised on fan size due to ground clearance, so the Max is gonna sit tail low like a CRJ-200 (yuk!). And for god's sake, they need to do something about the noise level in the cockpit. You can hear a mouse fart in an Airbus or B777 cockpit. The 737 and 747 sound like you left a window open, very annoying to have to wear ear-plugs for hours on end.

Edited January 29, 201214 yr by M_Sauce