Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Airline Threatens Move to Airbus Unless Boeing Provides Needed Support Plan
Oman Air CEO Abdulaziz Al Raisi plans to hold talks with Airbus if Boeing does not provide a support and recovery plan for its grounded 737 MAX planes before June 17, a statement by the Omani company said on Friday. “The grounding of the 737 MAXs has had a major financial impact on Oman Air,” the statement cited Raisi as saying.
Great link! The posters on that site are great at taking apart the numbers, e.g. Vince writes:
In addition, the higher bypass ratio and lower core speed on the LEAP1A engines suggest that the engines consumes slighly less fuel compared to the LEAP1B engines on the B737max. Coupled with the lower thrust requirements on the A319neo/A320neo, it is very clear that Airbus has the better and more efficient aircraft, contradicting to the conclusion of the article that Boeing has the better aircraft. Clearly a Boeing bias article.
or Ian who wrote:
A correct comparison should show fuel consumption and emissions per seat. No airline operates an aircraft at the max possible range (50nm more) on 99% of their routes! As in a previous comment, 7 passengers less equals 700kg less load giving the Airbus an additional 40 minutes range at 470kt = 300nm!
Not to mention the comments highlighting the statement in the article that Southwest has 4,000 MAX's on order. The author responded by acknowledging that this was 1350% too high, and that he would correct the figure. That was two months ago.
This isn't a site I'm familiar with - maybe the airplane buffs here could comment. But judging from the comments, it draws a readership that's on the ball.
Great site. Thanks @msf. Crazy with that 4,000+ plane order by Southwest however.
A lot of $$ is riding on which aircraft the carriers eventually decide to buy in the coming years. So I thought a quick comparison of these two very similar planes from manufactures based on different sides of the Atlantic might be useful.
History: The A318/A321 line of aircraft dates from the late 80s and so has about a 20 year age advantage over the 737. While those numbers (318-321) denote increasing passenger capacity (up to around 200), the basic airframes and operational features are very similar. If you fly much in the U.S. you’ve likely been on the 319 or 320 numerous times. With the 737 Boeing designates the increasing passenger capacity with a subsequent number like: 737-700 / 737-800 / 737-900. Again, these are essentially the same airframes - but length varies. From what I’ve read over the years, the 737 was thought by pilots to be an easier (more forgiving) craft to fly, especially during landings.
Cabin Interior: My experience is that the Airbus is a wee bit more comfortable. It is wider and sits higher off the ground (though it’s exceedingly difficult to tell one from the other at airports). The A319/320 cabin interior runs 7” wider than the 737. Economy cabin seats on average (varies by airline) tend to be about a half inch or more wider on the Airbus vs 737 (but nearly identical in premium class).
Engine Technology: Of course, we’re talking now about the 737 “Max” and 318/320 “Neo”. Those suffixes denote the new fuel efficient models that are competing head to head. The fuel savings was largely achieved by outfitting existing planes with newer more fuel efficient engines. The “high bypass” technology has been around for many years but is always being improved on. Simply put, more intake air “bypasses” the hot combustion chamber and exits off to the sides of the engine housing. That results in less fuel being burned-off as heat and more sheer propulsive force (air) exiting aft. Early jets relied on hot exhaust gasses to propel the plane. Those days are long gone. Most of the propulsive force now (and for decades) comes from air being pushed out the rear by swirling turbines. And in terms of mph - the average jet transport aircraft today is a bit slower than it was in the 60s / 70s with the older engine technology.
Engines Choices: Looks like the 737 Max has but one option - that being an older “tried and tested” CFM high bypass engine. It’s a bit smaller than what’s on the A319 /320 Neo. The Airbus offers a choice of either a larger CFM or a Pratt & Whitney (also high bypass). The P/W is the more modern technology - but has a limited service history and, therefore from a service standpoint, is deemed less dependable at this point. Still, having the 2 engine option would appear to be an advantage for Airbus. CFM is a joint venture between GE (long an engine supplier) and French company Safran. Pratt & Whitney is an American based subsidiary of United Technologies.
Range, load, fuel burn: While these vary somewhat among each manufacturer’s various models, it’s pretty much “neck & neck” between the Boeing and Airbus overall. So those (very important) factors are unlikely to have much to do with sales. Both planes stack up well. My guess is that airlines’ decisions to buy one or the other will be largely based on: (1) purchase cost, (2) operational reliability, (3) maintenance costs. Of lesser importance would be passenger preference (as expressed thru bookings) - but don’t rule it out completely.
One interesting tidbit is that Boeing had plans to build a replacement from the ground-up for the 737 using mostly composite materials - which of course are lighter. But a combination of development costs plus unexpected problems with the composite-based 787 (Dreamliner) convinced them not to go forward. Thus, to compete on fuel economy with Airbus they decided to “upgrade” the 737.
I’ll share some of the links I uncovered in readying this synopsis. One in particular from Wikipedia does a nice job on engine technology. And another references the seat width to which I referred.
Great site. Thanks @msf. Crazy with that 4,000+ plane order by Southwest however. The problem with this subject is that the more you learn the more you realize how little you know.
You can thank @Ted for the site. He presented the link to substantiate the claim that Oman Air won't even talk with Airbus. The linked site itself is good. But the particular post purportedly showing how Boeing is superior in so many ways was thin and not well reasoned (per comments to that post).
The reality is that each manufacturer has plusses and minuses, as you note. You're not the first to opine that from the passenger perspective, the Airbus is superior to the 737, nor is it uncommon to read that pilots prefer the feel of the 737.
Given that, another reality is that for airlines, ease of maintenance is going to be a much bigger consideration, e.g. Southwest with an all 737 fleet would be one of the last airlines to switch manufacturers.
Oman AIr, with no A320s in its current fleet would seem to be in a similar situation. A difference is that it does have some Airbuses (A330s) and has operated A320s in the past. The 737 MAX's represent 10% of its fleet and it has an order to double the number 737 MAXs (that's the only type of plane it has on order).
That tends to substantiate the statement in the Reuter's piece that Oman is hurting from the grounding of these planes. (Only 5% of Southwest's planes are MAX's.) And that Oman is going to think carefully before doubling down. Its somewhat mixed fleet and history suggests that it's not as wed to the planes as Southwest. That's the business analysis.
Thanks for the correction @msf. (Nice to hear Ted offered up a useful link.) Yes - SW would seem to be in a bit of a box - of their own making of course. The original (much smaller) 737 fit their short-hop / frequent takeoff / landing route structure and operational style. Nowadays, with the 737 having grown larger it must present a bit of a dilemma for them. I suspect there’s a lot of deliberation going on there.
I mainly wanted to add here to the importance of the lost revenue this is all causing. Here’s a recent excerpt re American Airlines (I’d imagine of some significance to the economy of Chicago):
“... American Airlines has to cancel 115 flights per day between now and September 3rd, when it expects to be able to fly the 737 Max again. ... The company said in April that it expects to lose $350 million while the 737 Max is grounded, and Sunday’s announcement means those losses could deepen. United and Southwest had previously canceled thousands of 737 Max flights through August, during what is expected to be the busiest summer travel season ever.”
Who was the fella that said: “A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”?
Some years ago my wife and I had been placed, for weight distribution reasons, in the very rear seats on a very lightly loaded A321 from Florence into Frankfurt. For whatever reason the pilot needed to abort the landing and go around for another approach. Man, did that sucker climb! Thought that I was in a military fighter for a quick moment there as we were suddenly almost laying on our backs. (Because of the seat location it was like being on the end of a see-saw.) Fun, though.
@BenWP- thanks for the memory. I really liked Dirkson, Ervin, and that cohort of Republicans. Good men,unlike now... they all knew how to work the system for everyone's benefit.
@OJ - An A321 is a pretty large plane to worry about weight distribution. But it happens. Happened to me once with a similar size plane (737 or DC 9). But in that case I’d heard the crew beforehand discussing whether or not to take on some late arriving cargo. So, most likely the issue in our case was more with the cargo distribution in the hold and they were being extra cautious moving passengers around.
@Ben - Sounds like a nice ride. I agree those are nice planes. On rare occasions when the price difference isn’t too great I bump up to first class. Goes against every financial principal we promote & practice here - but one sweet ride!
I thought one needed a full price (or nearly full price) economy ticket in order to upgrade from there. To me, that's the big obstacle, not the upgrade price. I still shoot for the $99 specials. Hard to get upgraded from the cheap seats.
I thought one needed a full price (or nearly full price) economy ticket in order to upgrade from there. To me, that's the big obstacle, not the upgrade price. I still shoot for the $99 specials. Hard to get upgraded from the cheap seats.
@msf - I know you to be immensely more practical and money wise than myself.
Upgrade was the wrong word (my error). I’ll book 1st class occasionally. They seem to base the difference in pricing on the total flight distance. Best deal for me is the second leg of a trip from northern Mi to NYC. Down to Chicago (30-40 minutes) go economy. From O’Hare to LGA take first. One factor is that things are really slow at O’Hare. You’re likely to be on the plane for 45 minutes before they leave the gate. Than, not uncommon to taxi 15-30 minutes or more. So there’s an extra hour+ you get to enjoy that added comfort.
Price? Well ... an economy round trip (decent schedule) runs about $400 from near home ($100 less if you're willing to drive an extra couple hours each way). Than $50 or more to check a bag both ways. Many don’t allow you to use the overhead bin unless you upgrade to the next higher tier. That upgrade may add another $50 to the ticket price. Than add $40 or so more for extra leg room. And another $20-$30 more if you wish to select your seat in advance. Than if you want priority boarding it’s another $15-20 for each of the 4 legs of the flight.
Well ... that $400 “economy” R/T has escalated to around $600. For around $800 you can get 1st on all 4 legs of the trip. In some cases you can get it on just the Chicago - NY legs for only a few dollars more than that $600 number. With1st class you not only receive all those added perks, but also a much more comfy seat and you’re one of the first to disembark. The latter is especially helpful for tight connections at O’Hare where it may take 30 minutes to walk from one part of the terminal to another.
Perhaps an analogy might work: You can attend Phantom of the Opera at the Majestic for $65 - even if buying in advance. Huge theater. That $65 seat would be kind of like sitting in the third level of bleachers in far left field as far back from the plate as you can get - with some obstructions in the way - and likely farthest from rest rooms or other amenities. But for $200-$250 (about 4X the amount) you can have a wider seat, center section, on the aisle (extra leg room), and be ideally situated 3-4 rows back from the stage. I guess in baseball that might be the equivalent of being seated along the 1st or 3rd base lines at ground level. Doesn’t get much better.
Comments
https://simpleflying.com/the-airbus-a320neo-vs-boeing-737-max-what-plane-is-best/
Great link! The posters on that site are great at taking apart the numbers, e.g. Vince writes: or Ian who wrote: Not to mention the comments highlighting the statement in the article that Southwest has 4,000 MAX's on order. The author responded by acknowledging that this was 1350% too high, and that he would correct the figure. That was two months ago.
This isn't a site I'm familiar with - maybe the airplane buffs here could comment. But judging from the comments, it draws a readership that's on the ball.
Airbus-North America
A lot of $$ is riding on which aircraft the carriers eventually decide to buy in the coming years. So I thought a quick comparison of these two very similar planes from manufactures based on different sides of the Atlantic might be useful.
History: The A318/A321 line of aircraft dates from the late 80s and so has about a 20 year age advantage over the 737. While those numbers (318-321) denote increasing passenger capacity (up to around 200), the basic airframes and operational features are very similar. If you fly much in the U.S. you’ve likely been on the 319 or 320 numerous times. With the 737 Boeing designates the increasing passenger capacity with a subsequent number like: 737-700 / 737-800 / 737-900. Again, these are essentially the same airframes - but length varies. From what I’ve read over the years, the 737 was thought by pilots to be an easier (more forgiving) craft to fly, especially during landings.
Cabin Interior: My experience is that the Airbus is a wee bit more comfortable. It is wider and sits higher off the ground (though it’s exceedingly difficult to tell one from the other at airports). The A319/320 cabin interior runs 7” wider than the 737. Economy cabin seats on average (varies by airline) tend to be about a half inch or more wider on the Airbus vs 737 (but nearly identical in premium class).
Engine Technology: Of course, we’re talking now about the 737 “Max” and 318/320 “Neo”. Those suffixes denote the new fuel efficient models that are competing head to head. The fuel savings was largely achieved by outfitting existing planes with newer more fuel efficient engines. The “high bypass” technology has been around for many years but is always being improved on. Simply put, more intake air “bypasses” the hot combustion chamber and exits off to the sides of the engine housing. That results in less fuel being burned-off as heat and more sheer propulsive force (air) exiting aft. Early jets relied on hot exhaust gasses to propel the plane. Those days are long gone. Most of the propulsive force now (and for decades) comes from air being pushed out the rear by swirling turbines. And in terms of mph - the average jet transport aircraft today is a bit slower than it was in the 60s / 70s with the older engine technology.
Engines Choices: Looks like the 737 Max has but one option - that being an older “tried and tested” CFM high bypass engine. It’s a bit smaller than what’s on the A319 /320 Neo. The Airbus offers a choice of either a larger CFM or a Pratt & Whitney (also high bypass). The P/W is the more modern technology - but has a limited service history and, therefore from a service standpoint, is deemed less dependable at this point. Still, having the 2 engine option would appear to be an advantage for Airbus. CFM is a joint venture between GE (long an engine supplier) and French company Safran. Pratt & Whitney is an American based subsidiary of United Technologies.
Range, load, fuel burn: While these vary somewhat among each manufacturer’s various models, it’s pretty much “neck & neck” between the Boeing and Airbus overall. So those (very important) factors are unlikely to have much to do with sales. Both planes stack up well. My guess is that airlines’ decisions to buy one or the other will be largely based on: (1) purchase cost, (2) operational reliability, (3) maintenance costs. Of lesser importance would be passenger preference (as expressed thru bookings) - but don’t rule it out completely.
One interesting tidbit is that Boeing had plans to build a replacement from the ground-up for the 737 using mostly composite materials - which of course are lighter. But a combination of development costs plus unexpected problems with the composite-based 787 (Dreamliner) convinced them not to go forward. Thus, to compete on fuel economy with Airbus they decided to “upgrade” the 737.
I’ll share some of the links I uncovered in readying this synopsis. One in particular from Wikipedia does a nice job on engine technology. And another references the seat width to which I referred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56
https://www.airlinereporter.com/2010/11/who-has-wider-seats-airbus-a320-or-boeing-737/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_&_Whitney
https://airwaysmag.com/best-of-airways/737max-vs-a320neo/
The reality is that each manufacturer has plusses and minuses, as you note. You're not the first to opine that from the passenger perspective, the Airbus is superior to the 737, nor is it uncommon to read that pilots prefer the feel of the 737.
Given that, another reality is that for airlines, ease of maintenance is going to be a much bigger consideration, e.g. Southwest with an all 737 fleet would be one of the last airlines to switch manufacturers.
Oman AIr, with no A320s in its current fleet would seem to be in a similar situation. A difference is that it does have some Airbuses (A330s) and has operated A320s in the past. The 737 MAX's represent 10% of its fleet and it has an order to double the number 737 MAXs (that's the only type of plane it has on order).
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Oman-Air
https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Southwest-Airlines
That tends to substantiate the statement in the Reuter's piece that Oman is hurting from the grounding of these planes. (Only 5% of Southwest's planes are MAX's.) And that Oman is going to think carefully before doubling down. Its somewhat mixed fleet and history suggests that it's not as wed to the planes as Southwest. That's the business analysis.
I mainly wanted to add here to the importance of the lost revenue this is all causing. Here’s a recent excerpt re American Airlines (I’d imagine of some significance to the economy of Chicago):
“... American Airlines has to cancel 115 flights per day between now and September 3rd, when it expects to be able to fly the 737 Max again. ... The company said in April that it expects to lose $350 million while the 737 Max is grounded, and Sunday’s announcement means those losses could deepen. United and Southwest had previously canceled thousands of 737 Max flights through August, during what is expected to be the busiest summer travel season ever.”
Who was the fella that said: “A million here and a million there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”?
https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/10/18659692/american-airlines-extends-canceled-737-max-flights-september
Just rode a newer A321 home from DC and it was really comfortable. If I flew regularly, I'd be inclined to seek that plane out.
@BenWP- thanks for the memory. I really liked Dirkson, Ervin, and that cohort of Republicans. Good men,unlike now... they all knew how to work the system for everyone's benefit.
@Ben - Sounds like a nice ride. I agree those are nice planes. On rare occasions when the price difference isn’t too great I bump up to first class. Goes against every financial principal we promote & practice here - but one sweet ride!
Upgrade was the wrong word (my error). I’ll book 1st class occasionally. They seem to base the difference in pricing on the total flight distance. Best deal for me is the second leg of a trip from northern Mi to NYC. Down to Chicago (30-40 minutes) go economy. From O’Hare to LGA take first. One factor is that things are really slow at O’Hare. You’re likely to be on the plane for 45 minutes before they leave the gate. Than, not uncommon to taxi 15-30 minutes or more. So there’s an extra hour+ you get to enjoy that added comfort.
Price? Well ... an economy round trip (decent schedule) runs about $400 from near home ($100 less if you're willing to drive an extra couple hours each way). Than $50 or more to check a bag both ways. Many don’t allow you to use the overhead bin unless you upgrade to the next higher tier. That upgrade may add another $50 to the ticket price. Than add $40 or so more for extra leg room. And another $20-$30 more if you wish to select your seat in advance. Than if you want priority boarding it’s another $15-20 for each of the 4 legs of the flight.
Well ... that $400 “economy” R/T has escalated to around $600. For around $800 you can get 1st on all 4 legs of the trip. In some cases you can get it on just the Chicago - NY legs for only a few dollars more than that $600 number. With1st class you not only receive all those added perks, but also a much more comfy seat and you’re one of the first to disembark. The latter is especially helpful for tight connections at O’Hare where it may take 30 minutes to walk from one part of the terminal to another.
Perhaps an analogy might work: You can attend Phantom of the Opera at the Majestic for $65 - even if buying in advance. Huge theater. That $65 seat would be kind of like sitting in the third level of bleachers in far left field as far back from the plate as you can get - with some obstructions in the way - and likely farthest from rest rooms or other amenities. But for $200-$250 (about 4X the amount) you can have a wider seat, center section, on the aisle (extra leg room), and be ideally situated 3-4 rows back from the stage. I guess in baseball that might be the equivalent of being seated along the 1st or 3rd base lines at ground level. Doesn’t get much better.