Both American and United have voiced their growing frustration with the pace of development of a suitable replacement for the nearly 400 aircraft they want replaced. Both Boeing and Airbus are in no hurry to replace their narrowbody offerings. But really, why should they? There were almost 1800 A320/737NG aircraft ordered in 2007.
Each excerpt courtesy of Lori Ranson with ATI
United:
Jake Brace, CFO at United parent UAL, told journalists today that in the long term the carrier is “very interested” in a narrowbody replacement that “neither of the manufacturers is offering yet.”“We are encouraging them because we think that is the right way to replace what is a pretty large narrowbody fleet for us,” Brace says. He adds the carrier would not seek a replacement aircraft until well into the next decade.
American:
Management at American Airlines is hinting the carrier might have to use current Boeing narrowbodies to replace its MD-80 aircraft as a result of slow movement by manufacturers in offering a next-generation narrowbody design.CEO Gerard Arpey tells analysts and investors the carrier “continues to be a little discouraged” by the timing of the next generation narrowbody.
According to the Flight ACAS database, there are 615 active MD-80 and Classic 737 aircraft being flown by Delta, Northwest, United and American. These airlines have made no secret of their desire to replace each and every single one with a newer generation of fuel efficient aircraft.
Enter the CSeries
The frustration by US airlines presents itself as a golden opportunity for the Bombardier CSeries. There has been speculation as to whether or not the new 110/130 seat aircraft will ever see an official launch. However, according to Mary Kirby of Runway Girl/Flight International/Air Transport Intelligence:
“We expect to have guidance by the end of 2008 on whether to go forward with that,” said Bombardier director, airline industry analysis and strategy Chuck Evans today during an Air Transport World webinar.Bombardier could wait until the end of the year before announcing a decision on whether to launch the proposed 110/130-seat CSeries.
He notes, however, that Bombardier sees the CSeries “as the next logical step for our business”.
He adds: “We’re looking at the CSeries as the future platform to carry us [into the] future.”
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
The proposed fuel efficiency of the Geared Turbo Fan engines is the most attractive selling point when compared to fuel guzzling DC-9s and MD-80s. Bombardier will also benefit from the lessons Pratt & Whitney learns from its experience with engine launch customer Mitsubishi. When I spoke with Gary Scott at the Dubai Air Show, who heads up new aircraft development for Bombardier, he said that Northwest is the ideal launch customer for the CSeries. When you take a look at Northwest, Delta, United and American, the business case for the CSeries is loud and clear.
United - 94 Total
737-500 - 104 Seats
737-300 - 120 Seats
Northwest - 105 Total
DC-9-30 - 100 Seats
DC-9-40 - 110 Seats
DC-9-50 - 125 Seats
American - 300 Total
MD-80 - 129/131 Seats
Delta - 116 Total
MD-80 - 128 Seats
on January 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply
Isn't the delay in a firmer committment to a new narrow body more the result of a lack of engine than Airbus and Boeing resting on their laurels? From what I've read, the engine that can provide the order-of-magnitude efficiency increase is still quite a ways off (the geared fan being the most widely known). Based on this, how much more efficient is the CSeries estimated to be? Is it on a scale of the 767 vs. 787? That would be surprising.
And what's Embraer up to these days in the 110 - 150 narrowbody debate? They've been awfully quiet...
on January 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply
You're right, it is the lack of an engine. However, both Boeing and Airbus have the ability to push engine development along (see GENx and Trent 1000 & XWB), they just have no need to with products selling so well.
As for fuel burn, CSeries is looking at 37% below DC-9 and 21% below MD-80.
My bet is we see Embraer stick with their massive backlog and the partner with Airbus or Boeing when it comes time for their narrowbody offering.
Jon
on January 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply
A GTF's greatest fuel savings is in cruise. Narrow body aircraft spend less time in cruise than long haul aircraft such as the A350XWB or B787, therefore total trip fuel savings will be lower.
Further, since a narrow body aircraft uses less total fuel per trip, a ten percent savings in fuel adds up to less actual savings for the airlines, compared to other fixed costs per flight.
Finally, with Airbus establishing A320 assembly lines in China, and given that Boeing and Airbus' narrow body backlog is currently over 4,500 aircraft, both Boeing and Airbus can be forgiven if they don't rush in to design a replacement composite narrowbody right away.
on January 23, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply
I don't understand your number, "As for fuel burn, CSeries is looking at 37% below DC-9 and 21% below MD-80." I always thought the 737-800 was 25% more efficent than the MD-80. But is the CSeries less efficent than the 737-800? Or is there some principle I'm missing?