Boeing CFO says 737 re-engining unlikely

Not Just an Engine Decision

Farnborough is long over and Boeing and Airbus exhaled a collective sigh of relief as the C-Series and MRJ did not have major show orders announced that would have placed added pressure to make a decision on narrowbody re-engine or redesign. Unfortunately, the pressure remains high with operators who have an aging fleet of 737’s and A320 series aircraft; when will they be provided with much needed breathing room in the terms of a new efficient narrowbody that is the mainstay of many airline fleets around the globe?
The Airlines are not sitting idle as they are voicing their concerns that a decision needs to be made on new clean sheet design because re-engining will not achieve the efficiencies needed to make difference in operation. Meanwhile lessors are focusing on the short sighted plan of re-engining and the devastation it will have on their current portfolio value and future deliveries of 737’s and A320’s. The engine OEM’s are eager to provide a powerplant no matter what the choice and have judiciously steered clear of any crossfire during this debate.
As the rhetoric continues have the airlines and lessors lost sight of an important concept introduced on the 787 that could save each of them millions of dollars in operational/capital cost and stabilized portfolio value of aircraft? Boeing, Airbus and the engine OEM’s probably do not want this concept repeated with a re-engining option or a new design next generation narrowbody. Make the engine interchangeable at the wing. We all marveled when Boeing made this decision on engine interchangeable at the wing the 787 but much has not been said about this revolutionary change in aircraft/engine design and its application to a narrowbody re-engining/redesign program.
This concept has the ability to be refined in both the re-engining and clean sheet design phase. If Boeing and Airbus spend the R&D dollars design a new pylon for a re-engining program, why would it then not be possible to transfer the design to the clean sheet aircraft and allow the use of the advance technology engines used in re-engining? Airlines and lessor would look favorably on this concept as it will provide economies of scale and protect their portfolio values. Now I know the naysayers are preparing to list the reasons why this is not achievable so let’s look at history of engine efficiency upgrades on the CFM56-7B used on 737NG.
The base CFM56-7B was first improved with upgrades to the HPC/HPT airfoils, LLP lives and low emissions combustor. No change to the mounting or intermixability limitations of engines on wing. Next round of improvements were made in the turbine with a reduction in airfoils again without a change in mounting. It is proven modifications to improve efficiency can be made without architectural mounting changes to incorporate those changes. It is highly unlikely that in the next ten years another 10 to 15 percent in efficiency will be gained by either engine OEM who are already touting 15% in improvements over current engines.
Boeing and Airbus need to seriously consider this interchangeability concept on their re-engining or clean sheet designs. This will place the engine OEM’s on notice to design an engine that is reliable, efficient and the lowest overall cost to operate. Lessors will benefit by being able to transition these large portfolios of aircraft between operators and not be saddled with an orphan fleet that is of no value to anyone.
So let’s stop the rhetoric of the airlines will wait for the right solution or measuring the distance of the nacelle from the runway. It is a simple concept which could yield major benefits to airlines that have been ready for the right solution for a long time.

I think we will see a 737 replacement thats basiclly a single aisle 787, and an single aisle A350 style A320 replacement from Airbus. i.e. plastic airplanes. I don't think Brazil can build anything like that soon.

Perfectly put, exactly the case.
Thank you.

RR & GE did a good job with designing the "box" for the 787. Two completely different engine designs (three spool vs. two spool) that needed to fit in the same space. Enabling the removal of one engine type, installing another and some simple flight deck software changes you have different airplane. IMO your IMO is bit oversimplified.

One problem about the Interchangeability engines for the next generation NB is that there is a big possibility that the Open rotor is the next step in 10-15 years.
I don't think that you can fit a Open Rotor on an existing aircraft design.