Steven Udvar-Hazy, President and CEO of the International Lease Finance Corporation spoke to FlightBlogger this morning in a wide-ranging interview, and revealed that Boeing is exploring development on a new mid-range 787 derivative.
Mr. Hazy revealed to FlightBlogger that Boeing is exploring “very exciting” derivations of its hot-selling Dreamliner to, “…address more of the medium-haul and short-haul end of the market.”
Mr. Hazy elaborated:
It would be, “another version of the 787 that is lighter, that addresses more the performance capabilities at a different, at more the medium haul end of the market. That might be a more practical product line that will have a wider application with more customers than the -3 and we’re encouraging Boeing to come up with a 787 derivative to address that middle market which has wide global appeal to airlines in North America, European airlines, Middle East, China and South America and intra-Asia and US trans-con market and so forth. The dash three doesn’t quite do it. It seems too heavy.”In addition, Mr. Hazy also felt that development of the 787-10 has “somewhat stalled” for a number of reasons.
“I think the Boeing engineering and product team is totally focused on the 787-8 and -9 and also getting the 747-8 intercontinental airplane into production and get it certified both the passenger and freighter. With the weight creep on the 787-9 there’s some real issues that have arisen, for example the landing gear, we have to have to be at a different landing gear configuration on the -10. The wing will have to be beefed up so your creating more weight, which means more thrust which then gets the situation into a regime with Rolls Royce and GE where the original GENx design and the Trent design for the 787 was not intended to be at those thrust levels as to what’s required at the -10. I think Boeing is carefully looking at the -10, but I think it’s slipped in terms of its priority.”
Listen to the complete interview here.
Much more with Steven Udvar-Hazy below the fold
The discussion turned toward the 737/A320 replacement cycle coming in the next decade.
Mr. Hazy revealed his preference for the configuration of a new narrow-body product. In fact, his ideal configuration for a replacement family wouldn’t be a narrow-body at all. Mr. Hazy has been advocating to Airbus and Boeing for a seven-abreast twin aisle short range aircraft with a cross section slightly smaller than that of a 767.
“The next family of small aircraft may have to be larger gauge aircraft than the ones they are replacing and as the world traffic grows and as we have infrastructure constraints we’re going to have to move to larger average size aircraft. So, one way of addressing that would be a small twin aisle offering: 797 or A360 as we call it at ILFC.”Mr. Hazy elaborated further:
“Again, a lot depends on the technologies that Boeing will become more familiar with as the 787 goes through its certification process and the engine technologies and then would miniaturize some of the these technologies efficiently enough to give to give us that double-digit efficiency improvement...If we had to make a long term twenty five, thirty year product decision, I am leaning more towards a small twin aisle.”The viability of a narrow-body replacement product is contingent, Mr. Hazy added, on a “magic number” for performance improvements over current generation aircraft.
“Fifteen percent. That’s not only in fuel efficiency, it’s in economics. Maintenance costs will have to come down, and when you’re dealing in a high cycle environment when aircraft might make 10 or 12 takeoffs and landings a day, maintenance costs will become a much more important driver than a long haul environment where an airplane may be making a 12 hour flight. So, maintenance costs are important and the environmental aspects in the short haul environment are much more important and the reliability, so, engine technology is obviously the key driver, and I see both Airbus and Boeing being cautious on a replacement aircraft. I think both programs have moved a little to the right. Also, we have to keep in mind that Boeing and Airbus are preoccupied with 787 development and the A350 development. That’s consuming a lot of their internal talent and resources financially. I think the narrow body replacement will become more focused as the 787 is certified and the A350 is further a long in terms of its cycle.”Mr. Hazy felt that as schedules for narrow-body replacement are pushed back, Bombardier may have an opportunity to capitalize on the new timelines.
“That’s a big decision to make on the CSeries. I think that the delay in the 737 and A320 replacement families creates a window of opportunity for Bombardier to launch the CSeries and they now have an engine platform with the GTF that appears to show double digit [specific fuel capacity] improvement and efficiency improvement. At the same time we might be facing a slowdown in the global economies and it’s difficult to estimate the competitive response will be from Airbus and Boeing.”Mr. Hazy felt that Airbus and Boeing would respond to protect its turf.
“If the CSeries does come out, it’s basically at the lower end of the 737/A320 families, and I don’t think Boeing and Airbus will be bystanders. So I think the Canadians have an interesting challenge. I think there’s a window of opportunity, but I think Boeing and Airbus will respond aggressively in terms of not losing market share. It will be very interesting to watch how that evolves.”
Sorry to pernicket, Jon, but SFC = Specific Fuel Consumption, which is what's bothering the engine makers as well as the airframers, as you rightly point out ...
For the C-Series, I think you're right; but the window of opportunity's going to be fairly narrow, with the new-generation "single-aisle" replacements following so relatively quickly that the C-Series may not have as long a service life as the A320 and 737 ... Which clouds the Return on Investment picture ...
Sorry again about the pernicket - it's always interesting to read your blog, so thanks for all your reports ...
JP
Steven's views on a fat short-hauler makes absolute sense. Some years ago many airlines used the A300 in this role. I do not know of the economics but as this was done for many years, it must have been viable.
It is interesting that Mr. Hazy only mentions Bombardier and does not mention Embraer as a potential new-comer to the 140 - 180 seat market. Curious.
His statement is a little bit hazy.
Boeing patented a twin-aisle small plane design several years ago. The details may be found here:
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/050515boeingsuccessor.pdf
Just a brief comment on the "fat twin aisle"
For many years Air Canada has used 767's on the YUL-YYZ runs. So the concept isn't exactly new or revolutionary.
Sounds like a validation of the 2-2-2 Boeing design study. This would be an interesting concept that on its face seems attractive. You think the A380-800 is ungainly looking. Imagine what a 797-100 would look like....
John,
Thanks for an interesting article and interview. I'm a huge fan of the 2-3-2 idea, and fully expect a two plane solution to the 737RS market (2-3-2 and a 2-3, developed like the 757/767 solution). While a twin-aisle, high cycle aircraft may lose efficiency due to increased drag from the larger fuselage, it may gain a lot from more rapid boarding, and quicker turnaround.
Would be interesting to hear an interview with Bombardier...
Interesting news.
I wonder if Boeing will go with GEnx exclusivity on this craft since this engine is the most technically advanced and most fuel efficient when compared to the competition.
Why don't Boeing take the next giant leap for aviation. Build an unmanned freighter.
Short & medium range airliners for thick routes
are already required and will be demanded more in future. Cabin configuration 2-2+2*-2 for 160
to 240 seats capacity acctually offer key advantages - quicker embarcation & exit ( +
beter emergency evacuation) equal hand luggage
space for each seat & row, better configuration for galleys & toilets...
*lower structural weight loss with 2 ails ( 8
seats per instead 7 per 2 ails & more toilets
and galley space within length.
FWD etrance area & galley space enable good
aerodinamic solution for larger fuselage.
"Baby jumbo" offers good cargo volume or aux.
fuel tank for min. wing structure - span & weight and variety of ranges.
Also, not of high importance, but not neglectable, very much desired pair of seating
and overall feeling of large cabin space.
S. Savic
What's the GE plug doing here? The GenX is noisier than the RR, only passes the blade-off test by breaking it half way along (unlike PW and RR who break it at the root) and pushes out NoX at levels which won't help CDG FRA and LHR meet Euro pollution limits. It can't be pushed because GE already pushed the core to the limit to match the RR for weight. Which is why Airbus don't want it for the 350XWB. And since the GE90 was late into service with weight and bird-strike problems and the GE90-115s are having technical problems, a single source GenX variant would come with huge risk. Its main merit is a claimed 2% fuel consumption advantage in cruise on entry into service, which, even if true, would erode as 2-spool engine performance decays faster than three spool.
During x-mas holidays (yes, I'm a real family man) I did some sketches on a "wide narrowbody"
It makes possible 2-2-2 for short haul operation (quick de/boarding) and a wider seat 3-3 option for medium operations.
http://s191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/?action=view¤t=greenliner-1.jpg
btw this is the long "-300ER" version ;-)
"fat short-hauler"
= a small BWB?
- Open rotors/ reared fans/ whatever(!) shielded from the ground.
- Concerns about acceleration during banking on outboard passengers could be addressed by software control laws...
- Boeing has a big model in wind tunnels/ R/C flight already...
-Only problem is ramp footprint
Does anyone remember that a company called Embraer exist? Maybe they will build a plane size like A320 and B737 in a future. Bombardier make a soup-opera whit their CSeries and till now...
A new narrowbody is cost of purchase vs cost of operation during a working day across a few time-zones. Airbus and Boeing will charge for any savings.
A larger conventional turbofan with a shaft driven propulsor outboard will do the bypass-ratio trick without effecting installation.
Jacking up the pressure ratio to 50:1 should be enough and then you have it.
Airbus always wanted to do the A322 and now will have the thrust for it.
It will look like 4 engine from a distance making everything lock like 707's and DC-8's but with only 2 propulsors...
The twin-aisle small plane is something Boeing has been looking at for years, and in fact has a patented design. See these links:
http://www.leeham.net/default.asp?Page=32
http://www.leeham.net/filelib/050515boeingsuccessor.pdf
Actually, the GEnx is less noisy than the Trent.
Updated blade-off certification requirements is the reason for mid-span breakaway testing.
GEnx NoX levels are lower than the Trent.
GEnx core growth is possible.
Airbus DO want a higher thrust GEnx for the 350XWB.
GEnx is currently the most technically advanced engine in it's class.
The GE90-115 has a well proven reliability record and is the leader in pioneering the way for high thrust engines.
Posted by unregistered user at 2/12/08 12:05 a.m.
351 is 8 years away so for the next 4 years or more, 773er orders are safe
after that 4 year period, boeing will do 777ng to stem 351 orders while preparing for 777 replacement
then 797 first to fly will down 320 series, 320 replacement late due to 350 effort
meanwhile 748i will reduce 380 uptake and
a bwb 747 replacement based on usaf cargo/tanker will limit final 380 profits
340 is out and 330 on the downswing
these are assuming no another 911 event
bottom line, boeing is in a better position than airbus for the next 5 years
Posted by unregistered user at 2/12/08 7:04 p.m.
97592
351 design process not yet finished, maybe not even in your 2 year period
warmed up 777ng has the momentum to carry it forward and competitive seat-mile cost vs 351
boeing will be first with 797 based on airbus capex and scheduling issues
just watch 748i reduce 380 profits
bwb will fly as pass aircraft in 20 years, just compare the tech advance from wright to the 787
5 years is conservative
please go back to this post in 5 years and let us compare notes
97766
i feel that you're an electrical engineer and i'm sure boeing has also ee's for this issue
Posted by unregistered user at 2/12/08 8:19 p.m.
you're right - new material, new production system, new electricals
a lot of new permutations, and a comet situation has to be avoided
boeing needs to scale up composite airplane experience and simulate it with a bleedless engine
Posted by unregistered user at 2/12/08 11:28 p.m.
97865
in 20 years, possibly in the 737/320 market segment
but most probably not yet world competitive
also include japan and india
or they will be made part of a 787 production model
Posted by unregistered user at 2/13/08 7:17 p.m.
98222
airbus and boeing will not forego the 737/320 segment
it's profitable
it supports overhead
and it stops competitors from growing too big to threaten the high margin segments
it's interesting if bombardier goes ahead with the c series and makes a success of it
specially that the u.s. legacy carriers need something in this segment
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
1. single aisle is more efficient that double aisle in short range - just need to increase width to accomodate obesity in the population, you can also do it with telescoping seats © ApproSys
2. 787-3 is just about the right 767 range replacement
Previous poster, you forgot the big fat Unmanned Freighter packing a couple of
GE90-150s. It's great to dream!
When GE go into a weight reduction mode for the -90 series by mounting a composite fan case
on this engine and tweak the thrust, it will be ideal for the A350WBX. Borrowed technology from the leading GEnx on to the -90 will make for a great engine as it has done in reverse ways for the GEnx.
Airbus want either GE or EA (Engine Alliance) on A350 wings to spread the sales wider for this airframe.
I was reading in Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine that Rolls Royce are moving to a twin spool architecture for their small series engines. Since RR triple spools lose their fuel efficiency after climb-out, I wonder if they will replace the triple spool architecture for twin spools on the big fan engines to stay with the competition. After climb-out, the twin spool designs are superior in fuel efficency to the triple spools. Also, the Pratt GTF (Geared Fan)will be much superior to triple spool fuel burn in climb and cruise and even beating today's twin spools by a good margin.
Latest news:
Someone working for SIA has been found tampering with GE90 engines to tarnish their reliability image!
When GE go into a weight reduction mode for the -90 series by mounting a composite fan case
on this engine and tweak the thrust, it will be ideal for the A350WBX. Borrowed technology from the leading GEnx on to the -90 will make for a great engine as it has done in reverse ways for the GEnx.
Airbus want either GE or EA (Engine Alliance) on A350 wings to spread the sales wider for this airframe.
I was reading in Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine that Rolls Royce are moving to a twin spool architecture for their small series engines. Since RR triple spools lose their fuel efficiency after climb-out, I wonder if they will replace the triple spool architecture for twin spools on the big fan engines to stay with the competition. After climb-out, the twin spool designs are superior in fuel efficency to the triple spools. Also, the Pratt GTF (Geared Fan)will be much superior to triple spool fuel burn in climb and cruise and even beating today's twin spools by a good margin.
Latest news:
Someone working for SIA has been found tampering with GE90 engines to tarnish their reliability image!
Would the person who posted the following, please contact me at flightblogger (at) gmail (dot) com.
"Latest news:
Someone working for SIA has been found tampering with GE90 engines to tarnish their reliability image!"
Thanks,
Jon
To continue the rather random GE-plugging / bashing component of this thread:
"GEnx engines don't work for us at all," Leahy said. "We have no intention of putting their GEnx engine on the A350 at all." seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/318483_airbus05.html
"An unusual rash of engine shutdowns since early December has temporarily stranded three General Electric GE90-powered Boeing 777-300ERs."
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2008/02/18/3275704.htm
NOX works as a global cooling (rather than warming) agent at altitude and a nasty pollutant at ground level. So the LHR/CDG/FRA problem requires engines at maximum efficiency in take-off and climb whereas cruise doesn't matter much. The GEnx disadvantage all comes in the take-off and climb phase...
I do hope "Scott" isn't the CEO of GE-Aviation, making his posting less than dispassionate!
In a two-spool engine the IP compressor turns at the same speed as the fan, driven by a common turbine, which gives suboptimal internal air flow. To compensate, variable stators are used on the compressor. In a three spool engine, the fan is driven by its own turbine and the IP stage can operate at optimal speed, reducing (but not entirely eliminating) the number of variable stators required. Optimal rotation speeds and the reduction in moving parts lead to a compact lightweight design. Achieving better fuel-efficiency than a two shaft depends on getting the right trade off between low-moving parts count and efficiency.
The geared fan achieves the same benefit as the 3-spool (optimal fan and IP rotation speed ratio), but with the weight and complexity issues of a gearbox.
RR used to claim that 3 spool is best for very large engines. (Its small engines have always been 2 spool.) PW believes it can deliver major efficiencies with a GTF in the 20,000 lbs thrust range for Bombardier and Mitsubishi regional jets. GE and RR hope it won't be scalable.
Both GE (all 2 spool) and RR are keen on "open rotor" where the fan is outside the engine and works partly as a propeller for the 30,000 to 40,000 lbs range where the A320/B737 replacements' thrust requirements will fall. But these will pose major environmental and engineering challenges. So RR is working on a small 3-spool and GE on a small GEnx type design as well.
Seems like competition is a good thing.
Thanks for the previous post which was excellent. I don't see why the GTF would not be scaleable and I hope it is, as Pratt deserve a come-back in big engines. If it is scaleable, then GE and RR will have to come up with something in order to stay competitive.
Mr. Hazy has other things to worry about like his son and unborn son due this winter so cut him some slack...because court time this month I wont. I am selling our story to this highest bidder to support our children since he has said he will no longer support them, medical bills (our 1st son I had to put on welfare), etc. If interested please contact me.