Airbus A320 dominates it's Market
in close adherence to an article by Norbert Burgner

Boeing 737, McDonnell Douglas MD-90, or Airbus A319/320 ?  Which airliner stands for the best short and medium range concept? For Airbus' chief strategist, Adam Brown, there is no doubt about it: 1000 ordered aircraft in less than eight years since its market entry makes the A320 family the best-selling civil jet airliner program in the history of aviation.
Adam Brown, Airbus Industrie's Senior Vice President Strategic Planning, is convinced that AI's family of short and medium range airliners deserves the laurels and not the Boeing 737 or the "rehashed antiques" from McDonnell Douglas.

"This market segment was dominated in the past by the DC-9 and, later, the MD-80, mainly by the Boeing 737. But the actual calendar of the competitors does not start sometime in the sixties, but in the mid-eighties, when the A320 came on the market and offered the airlines a real alternative for the first time. Since then we have been leading that market segment", Brown explained his - somewhat biased - standpoint.
For him, the reason for the success of the program is clear: "The Airbus A318/A319/320/321 family is the only really new short and medium range concept on the market. It integrates all new technologies in a practical way, such meeting already today the needs of the coming century. While archrival Boeing keeps on claiming that infatuation with technology is the only characteristic of the Toulouse(correction: Hamburg-Finkenwerder)-made aircraft, the Seattle-based manufacturer is obviously not able to understand the Airbus philosophy or is spreading this false statement on purpose, the second being most probable." Brown points out that the name Airbus does not just stand for technology for the sake of technology, but for its application where it pays off in the aspects of flight safety, operational performance, as well as, profitability.

"The A320 family marks the design standard of today. McDonnell Douglas on the other hand, with its MD-90 and MD-80, is clinging to the fuselage design of the DC-9 which is a development from the upbringing of the jet-airliner era. The 737 fuselage is nothing else but a shortened tube of the late fifties' 707, such going even farther back in time. The A320 concept however, is the realization of customer wishes on the step to the next century. It has a much wider cabin, wider seats, a wider aisle, and more spacious stow room, in short: it offers more passenger comfort and a freight system that is compatible to the large-capacity aircraft, all of this at significantly lower operating costs", Brown is promoting the European product.   Furthermore, even US institutions have no choice but to confirm these facts. According to Brown, the US Travel and Tourism Administration (USTTA), which belongs to the US Department of Commerce, has recently published the result of a survey, saying that the US passengers prefer the European A320 before the US models 757, MD-80, and 737. Interestingly, the governmental subsidies for TTA were canceled shortly after the report was published...

"The two US manufacturers have, again, decided not to present a new concept but to convince the airlines to stick to long-tried designs, instead of meeting customer needs which have been articulated for a long time. In the case of McDonnell Douglas MD-90, this thinking resulted in an old MD-80 equipped with new A320 engines (IAE V2500). This design was able to generate only little enthusiasm among the airlines", Brown is furthermore refining his company's position.   Concerning the new 737 versions (-600/-700 and -800), Brown said that Boeing tasked itself in updating each detail except of the cabin. While admitting that the new 737s are able to close the existing performance gap to the A319 and A320, however, Brown says that this was only possible on the basis of a hollow compromise to the disadvantage of the maintenance compatibility with the predecessing 737 model and flight safety: "Even after the market entry of the new 737 generation, there will still be only one real modern airliner concept in the short and medium-range market segment - the A320 family."

Safety
Brown also points out that Boeing's product strategy is really questionable when it comes to the certification of its new airliners: "A new aircraft design should meet the safety requirements of the time. Derivatives of older aircraft usually only required the implication of new regulations if major changes to the design were made. Other than that, the old law from the time of the first certification applied. While our competitor does not miss an opportunity to promote the alleged modern high-tech design of its new 737 generation, Boeing is more then eager to claim the "grandfather's rights" of the very first 737 for its newest product-line. The basic 737 was certified in 1967 according to annex 15 of the federal airworthiness directives. Numerous safety requirements were added in the following 20 years, according to which the A320 was certified in 1988 (annex 56). Now, another ten years later, Boeing is demanding the certification according to the 30 year old derivative rights for the new 737, even though it has larger wings, another structure, new high-lift devices, new engines, a new empenage, a new landing gear, a new electrical system, as well as, significantly modified fuselage sections, entirely new avionics, and a new cockpit.

15 important Exemptions
Although Boeing is asking for 15 exemptions to the total of 377 sections of the current regulations, exactly these 15 points, in my point of view, are a major concern to flight safety."
According to Brown, Boeing is trying to gain a competitive advantage against Airbus by asking for the 1967 standards for the cabin doors and the emergency evacuation system, which gives the 737-800, as the largest member of the new 737 family, a capacity of 189 seats. This is nine more seats than the A320 can offer, which has larger exits according to the newest regulations.
Furthermore, Boeing wants an exemption for the required accelerate stop distance, which would give the Seattle product a significant advantage in take-off performance. The demands of the US company even include "relaxed" criteria concerning the damage tolerance limits and the demand to keep the old cabin pressure decompression system, although Boeing plans a higher cruise altitude for the new 737.
For Brown, these are only a few examples for Boeing's dubious product philosophy.
Other points concern the resistance against higher inertial forces during emergency landings,
the design of the flight control system, warning systems and
the general design of the safety systems.
In all of these points the A320 had to adhere to the new regulations, while Boeing is willing to accept outdated safety standards to gain a competitive advantage.
"The catalogue of exemptions mounts in the birdstrike regulations. While all modern airliners must be able to return safely to the ground after the stabilizer has been hit by an eight pound bird, Boeing is asking to be released from this regulation", Brown gets worked up.

Economy
However, Brown continued, even if the FAA would accept this questionable catalogue, Boeing would still have to match the economical performance of the Airbus family.   "On a typical short or medium range profile of 500 NM, the Airbus A320 uses approximately twelve percent (12%!) less fuel than the large 737-800. This adds up to an advantage of US$ 200.000 on a yearly basis", Brown points out.   About the same savings arise in the comparison of maintenance and overhaul of the two aircraft designs. According to Brown, these extra costs are a result of the 737's "new technology".

Dented Aerodynamics
The lower aspect ratio and the thinner profile of the 737 wing degrades the aerodynamic performance of the wing, resulting in a reduced lift capability, an earlier buffet onset and consequently lower initial cruise altitude and higher drag. Also, the use of the old 737 flap system required to move the rear wing spar which is further degrading the aircraft's already dented aerodynamics. All together, these compromises result in a slower economic cruise speed.   "Papers of the engine manufacturer CFM International indicate Boeing's goal to decrease the maintenance costs for the third 737 generation's new CFM-56-7B turbofans by 15 percent as compared to the -3C models used in the first generation. The A320's -5B engines on the other hand show already major improvements in that aspect. The new 737 engine is based on the same core engine as our A320. However, due to the 737's limited ground clearance, it must use a smaller fan, resulting in hotter engines at the same performance level and, according to our calculations, would increase the maintenance costs by 14%. This would also amount to a US$ 200.000 cost disadvantage for the 737-800", Brown explains.   Furthermore, in addition to its inefficient aerodynamics and the engine problems, the 737 has to cope with a higher take-off mass as compared to the A320. This reduces the range, but increases the landing and airway fees. To sum things up, Brown believes that the Airbus A320 can be operated approximately US$ 550.000 cheaper per year and per aircraft than the new 737-800: "Together with the profits, which the A320 can generate from its special freight container system, Airbus Industrie's medium-range concept offers its operator a US$ 1.1 million higher profitability per annum as compared to the 737-800."   Brown continues, claiming that the discrepancy between demand and reality becomes even more obvious with the variants of the newest 737 generation. According to him, Boeing customers had to find out it is not the A319 which is the direct competitor to the 737-700, but Boeing's own predecessor 737-300: "The new -700 with its larger wing and higher weight generates approximately two percent higher direct operating costs than the 737-300, both versions having the same freight and seating capacity."

"Boeing is talking of a product family; we have one."
Taking into account that the airlines can save up to one million dollars per aircraft in training expenses for the cockpit crew, due to the cockpit commonality of all Airbus aircraft, and, furthermore, considering the incompatibility of the new 737 cockpit's LCD-configuration with the older 737 generations, according to Brown really shows the difference in the product philosophy of the two manufacturers: "Boeing is talking of a product family; we have one."
 

in close adherence to page 26 of FLUG REVUE 11/96
published at http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH9611/FR9611b.htm