Southwest COO pushes for narrowbody replacement

I hate to bust your bubble, Anonymous, but Mike is not out to save the world and his comments are far from futuristic and bold. All he wants is to cut costs at his business, comments that businessmen have been making for millenniums.

Well, get over it--the laws of physics mean that Jets will never fly much faster as long as they fly within the atmosphere. You can lighten the plane, tweak the wing and improve the engine. There is nothing else to do. Improving air traffic infrastructure is the only way to get you there faster.

A single isle 787 or A350 that is near the size of the current 737 A320.

Bruce... "Get over it... There's nothing to do."

This is the common response to improving aircraft for fuel savings of 25% or more. This only because we've lived in a tube and wing culture for so long that few can think outside the tube. Bruce. Check out the information at the site below. Hopefully, you will begin to see that things CAN be changed.

There absolutely IS a way to improve the airframe to increase fuel economy by 50% per pound or passenger as well as reduce noise, eliminate engine bird strikes, increase passenger safety in emergency landings, take off and land around 100mph and still go as fast or faster than the best airliner design of today. It's already been done. Aircraft leading up to this design were flown and improved for over 40 years.

Go to Google, Images and enter GB-888A
Go to Google, Images and enter X-43B
Compare the striking resemblance of these designs that are almost 40 years apart. This is a viable design.
Go to burnelli.com and read about the history of this design and how it could change the future of flight.

The IS something that can be done to surpass the goals set by NASA in their Environmentally Responsible Aviation project challenge.

I'm workin' on it. You can too.

The time for new narrow bodies from Boeing and Airbus has come. Technological advances developed for 787 and A350 plus new discoveries in airframe and engine design in the next decade, when applied to new narrow bodies, should mean much better economics for the airlines and much more comfort for passengers.
Neither air framer can afford to lose this market segment to Bombardier or new designs from China and Russia.
Plus now would be a good time for Boeing to gain ground on Airbus. At this time the E.U. can't afford to give billions more for R&D to EADS.

A couple of thoughts... 1st as stated earlier, Airlines are not out to savethe world, but rather to make money...A LOT of money. 2nd the manufactureers have made unbelievable gains in the technology side of aviation and produce products that would blow the collective mind of the flying public both for it's effiencies and performance...here's the problem...WHO is going to pay for it? The airlines would love to have us build it...but for the same price they pay for an airplane today. Not going to happen...we can only build airplanes that turn a profit or we'd be out of business. Granted we need to invest in the future but we can't do it for free orat tremendous losses.

Both Boeing and Airbus have not been sitting still over the last 20 years. Along with the engine manufacturers (GE and IAE), both have introduced incremental improvements to their respective single aisle aircraft. As a result, the "step change" that the airlines are seeking can be elusive. Other operating economic features such as the passenger onload/offload speed can drive Boeing and Airbus to sacrifice some aerodynamic efficiency for greater utilization for the airline. These facts, combined with the HUGE backlog of current A320 and 737 aircraft, demand caution by the leaders of each company and the stockholders that they represent.

The new Pratt GTF series engine will be a winner like it's predecessor JT8D engine was to 737 and DC9 aircraft. I bet Pratt will hit the jackpot with their GTF engine.

Wow, pretty lofty goal! "Save the world." The world is just fine, it's the Liberty of the inhabitants that is at risk.

How about "Transport people in the safest, most efficient manner possible and maximize profits while doing so." Suggested reading: F.A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

Hi!

The Bombardier C-100? and C-200? are 20% more fuel efficient aircaraft out there now. They will seat 110-140 in a two-class configuration. I think they will be out in 2015, BUT, they are a new design, so no one really knows how they will perform, which is why, Delta, for example, has not committed to them. NWA was going to buy them to replace their DC-9s. The Pratt and Whitney GTF (Geared Turbofan) engine is powering the Bombardier C. Mitsubishi is also producing a new narrow-body aircraft soon.

Ironic that Southwest leadership calls for updates to the 737-NG, when they have always been the last in the industry to adopt change to the platform. When the 737 NG was being designed, Southwest insisted on commonality with it's legacy 737's, resulting in a design that is less optimal than envisioned by Boeing.

The Bombardier C-100 and C-130 can hold up to 145 if Asian size small seats are used in a one class config. With the GTF P&W engine, it will save any airline big money over the short or long term. Even new types of paint that reduce wind resistance may have a bigger effect than many realize. With the retirement of the head of Bombardier to the son who might take bigger risks on new technology, this could be the game changer for a 2 year head start over Boeing and Airbus before they catch up. All airlines now fly just a bit slower to save millions on fuel costs. Landing 7 minutes later is not as critical for the customer as it is for fuel saving for the airlines.The biggest problem now for purchase or lease of new or used aircraft is a huge lack of world wide capitol. This is not 2007 anymore. It is a new world where lack of money prevents the world from going round or do i have that backwards??.

A lot of folk on Airliners.Net Forum will be very disappointed to hear that Airbus selected Pratt as the sole source supplier for the GTF engine excluding Rolls Royce!!
They had us believe that this engine program for the re-engined A320 must incluce RR which was a load of rubbish! Ha, Ha: I love it)

The statement of the Southwest COO has CSERIES written all over it.

It will be very good tactical advantage by Boeing to commit asap. With the 787 in flight testing, I believe there has been alot that has been learned and developed to support a large composite airframe. Working with a smaller airframe will mean utilitizing more plentiful smaller autoclaves. Plus, there is the structural analysis that occurred which indicated what areas are reinforced and those areas which can be reduced. The important part is that the manufacturing capabilities and composite technology is in place due to the 787... utilize it.

Wrong!!!! We had mechanics and engineers giving their input on how to improve the 737NG. Including fuel efficiency and ease of maintenance. There was some concern by SWA that the new plane would cause the pilot's union members to be dual cerified.