Unsporty game

Sporty is defined as “exhibiting sportsmanship” and there is nothing sportsmanlike about the war of words that has erupted over claim and counter-claim on fuel burn for the A320neo and 737 MAX.

It’s as though the manufacturers were comparing their latest respective offerings to aircraft from the 1960s and that the laws of physics somehow differed from Seattle to Toulouse.

One of the reasons for the vitriol, according to Aviation Week’s Guy Norris is the “current imbalance between the backlogs of the new Airbus and Boeing designs. Since its launch in late 2010, the A320neo has amassed more than 2,400 firm orders, options and commitments while the 737 MAX — which officially hit the market only in mid-2011 — has accumulated orders, options and commitments for about 1,040. The A320neo has 1,384 firm orders compared with 451 for the 737 MAX.”

Another commentator observes that Boeing is on the ropes and Airbus senses a killer blow. But being on the ropes is nothing new for Boeing: its 737 began life after virtually all major airlines had committed to DC-9s or BAC 1-11s. Its giant killer 777 was last out of the gate against the MD-11 and A340 — and has now sold almost triple the number of 777s as all A340s and MD11s combined.

In Aviation Week last month, Guy mused that both manufacturers claim accurate predictions for perhaps the most crucial parameter of all: fuel burn per seat, saying: “[This is] despite the fact that none of the new engines that will deliver the bulk of the improvements has yet run.” And engine maker’s track record on specific fuel consumption (SFC) guarantees is not stellar.

Airbus claims that the A320neo will deliver double the fuel savings over the current A320 than the 737 MAX will over the 737NG. Boeing’s view is quite different, of course, saying in April that their aircraft will have a 17 per cent edge over the current A320 and a five per cent edge over the A320neo. However in early May Boeing announced a new winglet configuration that would show a further gain of 1.5 per cent.

Interestingly, both manufacturers claim they have a better understanding of each other’s redesign and structures work for the designs, with wildly differing weight and drag penalties being touted.

Addressing March’s International Society of Air Transport Traders meeting in Phoenix, Airbus senior vice president for leasing markets Andrew Shankland said the A320neo powered by the LEAP-X would have, on an 800nm mission, a 15 per cent fuel burn than the A320 fitted with CFM56 engines.

This comprises seven per cent for the improved core, the same for the larger — 32 per cent – fan area, one per cent for powerplant integration and 2.4 per cent from the sharklets. This 17.4 per cent gain is offset by a 2.7 per cent penalty for extra weight and engine drag.

Using the same mission, Mr Shankland claims the 737 MAX will yield only an eight per cent gain, comprising a 10.5 per cent improvement in SFC from a six per cent gain in the core and four per cent from increased fan area of 24 per cent plus another one per cent from powerplant integration and aero improvements. He claims these gains are offset with a three per cent weight and drag penalty for the new installation.

In the face-off between the two designs, Mr Shankland says Airbus is claiming the A319neo will have a nine per cent advantage over the 737-7MAX with both seating 124 pax, while the A320neo will enjoy an eight per cent margin with 150 seats over the 737-8 with 157 seats. At the top end, the A321neo with 185 seats will have a 12 per cent better SFC per seat than the 737-9 MAX with 175 seats. Again all these claims were made ahead of Boeing’s new winglet design.

Again, the competition’s view of the comparison is the opposite. At the International Society of Transport Aircraft Trading conference, Boeing Commercial Airplanes vice president marketing Mike Bair presented a graphic that painted a very different picture.

Boeing says that using a baseline as a two-class 150-seat A320 without sharklets the 737-800 with 162 seats has a six per cent SFC advantage. He told the conference the A320neo would have a 12 per cent gain over the baseline A320 while the 737 MAX would enjoy a 17 per cent margin. On top of that gain, Mr Bair claimed the 737 MAX would be more reliable, have lower maintenance, more range and be lighter than the A320neo.

Perspective

Highly respected New York-based Bernstein Research believes there is a four-five per cent gap in fuel burn performance between the current A320 and the 737-NG but notes that the advantage is offset by lower pricing on the A320.

In its February report Boeing, EADS: A320neo Versus 737-MAX — The View from Each Side issued in February and of course well ahead of Boeing’s revised winglet, Bernstein said Airbus expects the A320neo to have a fuel burn advantage coming from the larger fan size of its engines — 78in for the LEAP-1B, 81in for the GTF — compared with the 737 MAX’s 68in fan size.

The report notes: “But the 737 operates at a lower thrust level and Boeing now says that CFM is going to optimise the core for the LEAP-1B. Such changes would reduce the gap between the two airplanes. We find the biggest difference between the assumptions of the two OEMs is the impact of drag and weight.

“Boeing expects that any fuel burn advantage of the neo engines will be cancelled by higher weight and drag of the larger neo engines. Airbus believes, based on wind tunnel tests, that the positioning of the MAX engines will lead to a fuel burn penalty relative to the neo (one per cent).”

Bernstein says that separately, for GE and Safran “designing two separate cores will likely increase development costs for the LEAP”. And it notes that the 737 faces a greater re-engining challenge because it has less ground clearance than the A320: “Such constraints led Boeing to move the engine slightly forward and up relative to the wing.”

However, Boeing tells Bernstein that changes to the design have resolved the various problems.
Bernstein says: “In addition, Boeing says that the slightly forward positioning of the engine should not add any risk of flutter. Structural modifications will be needed to integrate the heavier engines, which Boeing does not see as major changes. Unlike on the A320, however, the 737 nose gear is being raised.”

Still on the engine installation, Airbus sees the addition of the new engines as straightforward, says Bernstein: “Airbus has already modified the wing for the addition of Sharklets (modified airplanes are being delivered this year) and sees additional modifications for the engines as relatively minor.

“Although we have heard concerns that new materials would need to be introduced into the wing to strengthen it, Airbus says that no such changes have been necessary. Airbus argues that wind tunnel tests show that the lower positioning of the wing should have better aerodynamic properties than Boeing’s even though the fan size is larger – Boeing does not believe this is the case.”

On engine choices, Bernstein’s view is that Boeing and Airbus have gone down the right path: “We believe in this case that it was easiest for Airbus and Boeing to offer the same choices as on their current models (i.e. two choices at Airbus, one at Boeing). We expect some added complexity at Airbus as it moves through a period with four airplanes being produced in parallel (current and neo, two engine types on each).

“But Airbus says that aside from the engine and pylon, the different engines will be essentially plug and play, making costs minimal. Still, there will be added development costs with two engine options and certification will need to be done for each engine.”

After extensive discussion with the airlines Bernstein believes the 737NG’s four to five per cent fuel burn advantage over the A320 will be eroded somewhat but the amount of the reduction depends on the assumptions regarding aerodynamic, drag and weight losses and gains. It also points out that in the Boeing view of the world, the 737 MAX will gain an 11 per cent improvement over the NG, while the A320neo will gain a 12 per cent over the standard A320.

Airbus’s view is that there will be no disadvantage due to greater drag and weight of the GTF and wider fan LEAP and in fact it expects to be better aerodynamically than the MAX by one per cent.
One example of this tit for tat face-off is the addition of sharklets on the A320.

Airbus says the net effect of adding sharklets is an improvement in fuel burn of three per cent on short haul routes and by at least 3.5 per cent on longer routes, as the real benefit occurs during cruise, not climb or descent. But Boeing says the net effect is more likely to be two per cent.

Well away from the percentiles of drag and weight and discounts to offset what salesman can’t deliver, Bernstein sees no certification or production showstoppers which will be a relief to airlines.
It comments on certification: “We have heard three items raised with respect to certification.

“First, Airbus will need to complete certification for two engine types, which will add to cost. Still, Airbus expects these one-time costs to be outweighed by the value of providing airlines with two engine options.

“Second, sustained engine imbalance (SEI) is an issue that required certification beginning in 2000 . . . we do not see this as a major challenge for either company.

“Third, flutter is always an issue when designs are changed. Although each company has raised concerns about the other’s ability to deal with this issue, neither sees an issue with their own designs.”

Both manufacturers need to make modifications to the wings to handle the larger, heavier engines and Bernstein suggests that each company seems to believe it is better prepared to make the changes: “At Airbus, the view is that the wing has already been modified for Sharklets and that additional changes will be relatively small. Boeing will also have to raise its nose gear to accommodate the larger engines, which adds complexity.”

On the thorny issue of production complexity Bernstein says: “. . . concerns have been raised . . . because there will be a period in which Airbus will be running A320s down the assembly line with four different engine types (CFM-56, V2500, LEAP, GTF).

“This could add complexity to operations. Airbus believes this issue will not be material. There will be different pylons for the GTF and the LEAP but there will be no differences in the wing or the fuselage. The pylon differences are intended to optimise aerodynamic performance for each engine. But the pylons are designed to be plug and play so that there will be negligible additional complexity on the assembly line.”

Optimisation

Boeing is strongly touting the optimisation message and dismisses the implication that bigger fan diameter automatically means better fuel economy line. Vice president product marketing for the 737 MAX series Joe Ozimek refers to Breguet’s laws of aerodynamics on range that say it is a balance of weight, fuel burn and aerodynamics and argues that the 737MAX’s engine is perfectly optimised for the mission when balanced against the 737s lower weight.

“It’s all about how they [the three factors] work together. Do we put a GE90 on a 737 to get a bigger fan? Do we put the 747 wing on a 737 to get grater span — hell, no?”he says.

A perfect example of this is the proposed greatly improved 777X, which will be larger, carry more and fly further than the current 777 while being powered by a smaller engine – largely because it weighs less and has aerodynamic improvements. “Nothing has leverage like seats,” argues Mr Ozimek.

In a two-class configuration the 737 has a 12-seat advantage and in an all-economy configuration it has a nine-seat advantage thanks to grandfather rights and location of mid-cabin exits.

Residual values also are a big win for Boeing, claims Mr Ozimek: “Look at any blue book — 737-800 values are better. It has higher lease rates, higher residual values and the NG is more reliable and cheaper to maintain.”

He also quotes some interesting numbers on maintenance, claiming that over 10 years, compared with the A320 neo, the 737 MAX will: be $1.80 million cheaper to maintain on airframe costs, $1 million cheaper on engine maintenance, spend 67 fewer days out of service and have half as many schedule interruptions.

He’s also comfortable with the fuel gains that the LEAP will deliver to the 737 MAX and thus the A320neo but is a bit doubtful on the GTF.

When asked would Boeing consider fitting the GTF if it was a runaway success, he asked the question: “When was the last time an engine exceeded on expectations? Never!”

But on the LEAP he argues that the engine is a scaled-down 787 GEnx engine and the concept is proven.

Mr Ozimek also claims that the 737 will continue to hold its range advantage over the A320 based on Boeing rules but that advantage is decreasing. According to the Boeing chart the 737-MAX 7 will fly 330nm further than the A319neo, 737- MAX 8, 150nm further than the A320neo and the 737- MAX 9 will have a 315nm advantage over the A321neo.

More improvements

However, more tweaks may be in the works for the 737 MAX to meet or exceed targets. According to sources at Boeing and CFM, the parties are looking at a one-inch increase in fan diameter to 69in when the 737 MAX’s firm configuration is comes together in 2013. This news is confirmed by Aviation Week’s Guy Norris from separate sources.

The 737 MAX also will also have fly-by-wire outboard spoilers for reduced complexity, weight savings and load-alleviation benefits. Also in the mix, according to Mr Ozimek, are significant aft body changes to reduce drag that will add one per cent to the fuel burn savings. Essentially, the 737 will get the 787 treatment with airflow not breaking up around the tail.

At the April briefing in Sydney Mr Ozimek alluded to revised wingtip treatment but added no specifics. On May 2, Boeing announced what it called the advanced technology winglet with a promise of an extra 1.5 per cent fuel-burn improvement, dependent on range, on top of the 10-12 percent improvement already offered on the new-engine variant.

Boeing said in a statement: “Compared to today’s wingtip technology, which provides up to a four per cent fuel-burn advantage at long ranges, the advanced technology winglet provides a total fuel-burn improvement of up to 5.5 per cent on the same long routes.”

The company said the concept was more efficient than any other wingtip device in the single-aisle market because the effective wing span increase is “uniquely balanced” between the upper and lower parts of the winglet. And it claimed that ongoing 737 MAX testing in the wind tunnel validated the new concept on the aircraft.

It added that airlines operating the 737 MAX now would gain an 18 per cent fuel burn per seat improvement over today’s A320 and that dependent on the range of the mission, MAX operators would realise even more savings.

Other announced improvements include regauged main gear, lengthened nose gear to make the 737 level as per all Boeing aircraft, local fuselage regauge with strengthening for rotor burst, ECS digital bleed control, wing and main gear supports strengthening and new inlet with retractable APU door.

Mr Ozimek says Boeing’s sky interior has been a great success and a significant advantage over the A320 but concedes Airbus will almost certainly offer something similar for the neo. And he suggests that by Farnborough, Boeing will have great success to announce taking firm orders for the MAX over 1,000 and many customers will be identified.

The timetable for the MAX calls for firm configuration to be completed by the end of 2013 with a critical design review set down for late in 2014. Major assembly begins in 2015 with first flight in about September 2016 and EIS in 2017.

Competition?

The moves by Airbus then Boeing to upgrade their narrow body offerings is bad news for the new wannabe competitors at the lower end of the market, says Bernstein.

“Even in captive markets such as China and Russia we find that most airlines still have a preference for the 737 or A320. In addition, just as with Boeing and Airbus, we do not expect new entrant programs to deliver on time. Bombardier is the nearest threat but Boeing and Airbus re-engines have closed the gap with promised C-Series performance and we expect delays.

“We expect to have COMAC to have long term success, but we expect delays on the C919. We see many challenges for Russia’s MS-21 and Embraer has decided not to compete against Boeing and Airbus.”

The market is going to be bullish, with Bernstein suggesting that “given a high level of demand from emerging markets — SE Asia, China and India — and replacement needs of mature markets in a high fuel price environment, we see Airbus and Boeing as limited by production capacity (including the supply chain), rather than by the market.”

The research firm also sees the narrowing of the performance gap between the A320neo and 737 as a positive for Airbus, as it can reduce its discounting to make up for performance shortfalls.
It also feels the range improvement of the neo as a big plus with the A321neo now able to handle some 757 routes including US transcon, saying:“The A321 currently has too short a range to address some important longer routes.”

A negative for Boeing is the complexity of its engine/wing join, which Bernstein suggests will double the development costs for the 737 MAX.

The market

Bernstein sees no real price premiums for the aircraft or the engines — but says no one should care at this stage: “The feedback we have received from customers and suppliers is that pricing is roughly the same for the NEO and MAX as on the current A320 and 737.This outcome is not surprising, given that this is essentially what happened when the 737NG was introduced to replace the 737 Classic in the late 1990s.”

It says there will be “little visibility into the profitability of these aircraft until 2017-18, when production will ramp up, so we do not see the pricing issue as having a material impact on the stocks of the Boeing, EADS, or the engine suppliers”.

Bernstein sees most airlines wanting to maintain commonality with their existing fleets although there will be exceptions. American, Norwegian Shuttle both Boeing 737 customers have selected the 737 MAX and A320neo, while Garuda has selected the neo for its Citilink operation. Otherwise, airlines have stayed true to fleet commonality.

While Qantas has announced an order for the A320neo, these aircraft apparently are for its subsidiary LCC operations across Australia and Asia and no image has been released of the A320neo in Qantas colours.

One big win for Boeing could be the United Airlines order, which will be a swing back to the 737 for United, although its much stronger merger partner Continental is a firm Boeing supporter.

As both these designs are at the end of their life and a new offering will emerge in just over 10 years, it is hard to see too many airlines shifting from their installed base. Margins of advantage, given a worst-case scenario for both, are small when price discounting is factored in.

At the end of the day, simple availability could swings deals back and forth.