|
Post by Jkkw on Jun 16, 2015 15:36:01 GMT 1
and here's Boeing's side of the Korean order, with 30 737-8Max (+20 options) and 2 77Ws.
Given the order for the Maxes are the -8 variant and the neos are all 321s, once again it looks like the market is speaking, the A321 is prefered over the 739 (I sound like John Leahy with that statement!).
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 16, 2015 18:08:48 GMT 1
Still it is interesting that 737MAX-8 is getting so many orders. One would expect that with the LEAP-1B with smaller diameter simply by definition should have a bit higher consumption than variant A with a bit larger one ?
But there might be other important advantages I do not see.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Jun 16, 2015 18:21:56 GMT 1
Boeing/GE/GECAS can offer extremely attractive packages. On the other hand, not everybody trusts P&W's reliability or that of the GTF.
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jun 16, 2015 19:17:26 GMT 1
Still it is interesting that 737MAX-8 is getting so many orders. One would expect that with the LEAP-1B with smaller diameter simply by definition should have a bit higher consumption than variant A with a bit larger one ? But there might be other important advantages I do not see. At short ranges, the fuel burn delta may not be that much of a problem. But do note that most (100% ?) of the orders are for the max 8.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 16, 2015 20:37:04 GMT 1
Of course - 7 is too small - very few want it - similar to 319 and -9 is simply worse than 321 so no contest and no choice, if BO -8 it is !
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 16, 2015 20:39:08 GMT 1
Boeing/GE/GECAS can offer extremely attractive packages. On the other hand, not everybody trusts P&W's reliability or that of the GTF. Sure - that would be the other reasons - price. Still even LEAP-1A must be from principle just a tiny bit more economical than the LEAP-1B. And on BO no choice LEAP-1 it is
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jun 16, 2015 22:48:58 GMT 1
Boeing/GE/GECAS can offer extremely attractive packages. On the other hand, not everybody trusts P&W's reliability or that of the GTF. Sure - that would be the other reasons - price. Still even LEAP-1A must be from principle just a tiny bit more economical than the LEAP-1B. And on BO no choice LEAP-1 it is Why would a LEAP-1A be more economical than a LEAP-1B ? I thought the 1B had a larger diameter first stage fan ? More compression and a higher bypass ratio ?
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 16, 2015 22:57:06 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Jun 16, 2015 23:03:29 GMT 1
sorry, I must have got them the wrong way round
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,957
|
Post by s543 on Jun 16, 2015 23:16:36 GMT 1
It is the problem with too low positioned wing and there is no space for the engine. The probelm was already with the NG - look how the engines had to be "flatted" on the bottom to fit.
With even the larger engines it is even worse on the newer generation.
|
|