10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record

[b1lanc]

You can argue stats about who sold more in the last decade, but this is still quite an achievement.

[deanm]

Gee - I didn't realise SW's fleet was *that* big...!
Dean

[tsgas]

SW is the #1 pax carrying airline within the USA and has the largest fleet of B737's in the World.

[framer]

I got it Deanm.

[deanm]

Phew!
Thanks Framer!

[Heathrow Harry]

I can remember when Mr B thought they'd made a dreadful error as only European airlines were interested............

[DaveReidUK]

I can remember when Mr B thought they'd made a dreadful error as only European airlines were interested............

Boeing rarely got it right with the -100 variant of any of their products. :O

[Loose rivets]

As an aside, when the 737 was fairly new, a man from Boeing in Texas, when realising I was British, mentioned that Britannia had the highest utilisation in the world. IIRC, 19 3/4 hours.

[TylerMonkey]

715 in Southwest’s fleet.

[glad rag]

715 in Southwest’s fleet.

:eek: that is incredible.

[captplaystation]

427 for Ryanair ain't too shabby for a European Upstart.

[Highway1]

Boeing rarely got it right with the -100 variant of any of their products. :O


I think if you hit a sales figure of 10,000 you can be assured you got it right..;)

[DaveReidUK]

I think if you hit a sales figure of 10,000 you can be assured you got it right..;)

Yes, but only 0.3% of those were 737-100s. :O

[Discorde]

You can argue stats about who sold more in the last decade, but this is still quite an achievement.

Soon it'll overtake the DC3/ C47 series in overall sales!

As an aside, when the 737 was fairly new, a man from Boeing in Texas, when realising I was British, mentioned that Britannia had the highest utilisation in the world. IIRC, 19 3/4 hours.

IIRC at one time Britannia were operating the 737 with the highest airframe hours in the world - G-AWSY, a (very) Basic -200 with -9 engines.

[llondel]

IIRC at one time Britannia were operating the 737 with the highest airframe hours in the world - G-AWSY, a (very) Basic -200 with -9 engines.

I need new glasses. I read that and wondered where they put the other seven engines.

[Discorde]

@ llondell

For '-9' read (when you've got your new specs) 'JT8D-9'. Later (Advanced) models of the FLUF had JT8D-15 engines. Thought I'd better write that in full to avoid 'where did they put the other 13 engines' comments.

[Matey]

G-SY used to swap places with another aircraft for the world’s highest time/cycle B737-200. Can’t recall which other aircraft was involved. When SY went into the hangar for a seriously major engineering check Boeing sent a team over and paid for it to be torn to bits and reassembled as it provided a unique insight into how the airframe was performing. I spent many happy hours flying around in that aircraft hoping it didn’t fall to bits! Just retired after 43 years flying, most of it on 737 variants. Great aeroplane.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Well when I first read it I thought they meant SW has 10000 737s:}

[maggot]

I think if you hit a sales figure of 10,000 you can be assured you got it right..;)

Yep they certainly did
Unfortunately they didn't see to upgrade it properly!

[msbbarratt]

2 pence's worth...

Another way of looking at this record is that Boeing have procrastinated too long over replacing such an ancient design. Since the introduction of the A320 Airbus have helped themselves to a very large slice of the market, with Boeing failing to introduce a superior, or even equal, design to compete. Yes, the 737 family's sales figures have been healthy, but really they ought to be regarded as a significant under-performance. Boeing could have preserved their percentage market share of the 1980s, 1970s, but ceded that without much of a fight.

If Boeing had introduced a new design 25, 30 years ago, and made it extremely hard for Airbus to win sales on technical merit alone, we'd now be looking at a very different Boeing to the one we know today. Airbus's unfettered success has been a 30 year indicator that Boeing has needed to do something, and the row over the very effective C Series is an indicator that the writing is being written on the wall.

Boeing can still regain their former leading position, but every A320neo sale that happens now is yet another 737 (or its successor) that isn't sold. Half-baked solutions like 737-MAX simply gives Airbus even longer to make huge money from the A320neo family, and leaves the field open for aircraft like the C series to take a massive slice of the smaller end of the market.

[FlightlessParrot]

I need new glasses. I read that and wondered where they put the other seven engines.

Was this the little-known direct-thrust VTOL version?

[Discorde]

G-SY used to swap places with another aircraft for the world’s highest time/cycle B737-200. Can’t recall which other aircraft was involved. When SY went into the hangar for a seriously major engineering check Boeing sent a team over and paid for it to be torn to bits and reassembled as it provided a unique insight into how the airframe was performing. I spent many happy hours flying around in that aircraft hoping it didn’t fall to bits! Just retired after 43 years flying, most of it on 737 variants. Great aeroplane.

The only time I experienced pressurisation failure (complete with 'rubber jungle' down the back) was in 'SY, caused by a faulty door seal. We were over the Alps in IMC at the time (MSA 18,000 ft) which complicated matters somewhat.

[cooperplace]

2 pence's worth...

Another way of looking at this record is that Boeing have procrastinated too long over replacing such an ancient design.

Boeing can still regain their former leading position,.
as a very frequent passenger in 737s, I couldn't agree more. As a passenger, the 737 is nasty, because its 6-abreast seating, in this age of ever fatter pax, guarantees discomfort. Especially on longer flights like LAX-ORD, SYD-PER. Longer range but no more elbow room!
Narrow-body Airbuses are almost a foot wider. If Boeing were to announce a 737 successor 18" wider or so, and still 6-abreast, passengers worldwide would rejoice.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I think that all Boeing narrow bodies have the same fuselage diameter as the 707

[CaptainSensible]

And not forgetting the cockpit ergonomics from the 1950's

[rog747]

i think Orion UK had the 1000th 737?

who had the 737th?

[Max Angle]

I also remember that British Midland had a -300 which was the airframe that made the 737, at the time, the most produced jet airliner ever over the 727. There was a little plaque just inside the door.

[DaveReidUK]

i think Orion UK had the 1000th 737?

who had the 737th?

Line number 1000 went to Delta and number 737 to Orion.

[Highway1]

2 pence's worth...

Another way of looking at this record is that Boeing have procrastinated too long over replacing such an ancient design. Since the introduction of the A320 Airbus have helped themselves to a very large slice of the market, with Boeing failing to introduce a superior, or even equal, design to compete. Yes, the 737 family's sales figures have been healthy, but really they ought to be regarded as a significant under-performance. Boeing could have preserved their percentage market share of the 1980s, 1970s, but ceded that without much of a fight.

If Boeing had introduced a new design 25, 30 years ago, and made it extremely hard for Airbus to win sales on technical merit alone, we'd now be looking at a very different Boeing to the one we know today. Airbus's unfettered success has been a 30 year indicator that Boeing has needed to do something, and the row over the very effective C Series is an indicator that the writing is being written on the wall.

Boeing can still regain their former leading position, but every A320neo sale that happens now is yet another 737 (or its successor) that isn't sold. Half-baked solutions like 737-MAX simply gives Airbus even longer to make huge money from the A320neo family, and leaves the field open for aircraft like the C series to take a massive slice of the smaller end of the market.


I dont disagree with a lot of what you say but if a 50 year old design can still sell profitably and out-compete the opposition then you would need a really good argument to spend billions on a replacement that may not generate the sort of profits seen by the 737 production line today.

[WHBM]

I can remember when Mr B thought they'd made a dreadful error as only European airlines were interested............
I think unlikely as the second order for them, after Lufthansa, was a huge (for the times) 75 aircraft order for United, and Western soon followed. They had however been beaten to this size of aircraft by the DC9-30, which scooped a number of US airlines shortly beforehand.

[WHBM]

G-SY used to swap places with another aircraft for the world’s highest time/cycle B737-200. Can’t recall which other aircraft was involved.
I think (recalling an article of the time) it was a Braathens aircraft that was keeping up with it. They had longer sectors for holiday flights from Norway down to the Mediterranean, and also high frequency year-round schedules within Norway that would have driven the cycles up. The aircraft were integrated within the day between the two types of operation.

[EIFFS]

So long as Boeing can convince the FAA/EASA that the next new 737 is really just a minor update and thus share a common type rating whilst matching the cost numbers per seat ( even if it’s a narrower seat) then they will continue to sell bucket loads to SW/FR and many others across the world, with well over 100 hours on the max I can testify that it is a much nicer aircraft to fly, far far smoother to land and taxi around, unfortunately most of the issues from the 737 let alone 738 continue, start switches that stick when it’s cold, issues with the pack system, whilst the new narrow toilets restore leg room on the 189 to the same as 186 config the quality of the fittings is poor in general, the Leap engines certainly reduce fuel consumption and 15%+ saving is there, but a flat windscreen in this day and age points to its Jurassic design era.

Can it really go on for another 10 - 15 years, let’s see who ups the anti next.

[tdracer]

Boeing has painted themselves into something of a corner with the 737. If/when they come out with a new 737 replacement, not only is there the ~5 year development cycle before they can deliver a new aircraft, it'll take many more years to bring the production rate up to the current nearly 3/day 737 production rate.
If they make it way better than the 737, orders for the 737 will dry up and there will be huge loss of revenue while they develop the new aircraft then bring the production rate up. If they don't make it way better, people will just keep buying 737s and the replacement aircraft will not be profitable.
Boeing really didn't want to do the Max - the plan was to develop a completely new aircraft to replace the 737. But then Airbus came out with the NEO - if Boeing had gone ahead with an all new aircraft, it would have meant ceding a huge portion of the market to Airbus for perhaps 10 years while they developed the replacement then built up the production rate. So they chose the Max as the best of bad options.

[Carbon Bootprint]

TDR, being in Everett and all, it would seem you have some insight into Boeing that many of us probably don't. Can you share some details about what the company's vision was for a replacement for the 737 that was scuttled because of NEO? Thanks.

[WHBM]

with well over 100 hours on the max I can testify that it is a much nicer aircraft to fly, far far smoother to land and taxi around,
It may well handle better from the flight deck, but the response from the paying pax back in the cabin (and the FAs) has been notably negative. American Airlines in particular is receiving daily flak which has spread to the mainstream media over the couple currently in service, for the claustrophobic (and for some activities, not fit for purpose) toilet modules, galley access problems, harder and smaller seats, pitch reduced again to an unacceptable level, etc. If that's the only way Boeing can find to reduce seat mile costs it's all rather poor.

[EIFFS]

TDR

I think that sums it up, catch 22, victim of its own success, whilst ever production slot run into years there is no incentive for Airbus or Boeing to bet the company on a replacement except for the A321 deilma and what to do about it.

Tail clearance/ approach speed has already made the MAX a Cat D aircraft which ups LVO minima, I have no idea if the 321 is also Cat D ?

The other issue is the weight of the leap engines mounted further forward means you have to use the aft hold, this will impact the like of Ryanair who only normally use the forward hold, its means a belt loader for the rear hold and unless they’ve specified the ‘ magic carpet’ internal belt loader an extra man in the hold which adds to cost and turnaround time.

The Leap engine is a work of art, but the start time when warm or warm OAT is close to 3 minutes per engine, this will cause a lot of frustration on busy ramps in the years ahead compared with the 40 seconds maximum on the CFM on the 738, progress ??

[Highway1]

Surely seat selection is up to the airline not Boeing? - if AA want harder and smaller seats with a reduced pitch, then it doesnt matter if it is a 737, A320 or Concorde, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't get a say.

[tdracer]

The Leap engine is a work of art, but the start time when warm or warm OAT is close to 3 minutes per engine, this will cause a lot of frustration on busy ramps in the years ahead compared with the 40 seconds maximum on the CFM on the 738, progress ??
The long start times are a direct result of 'Bowed Rotor Start' issues - BRS is not a new issue but it's gotten quite a bit worse with the newer generation of engines. It was a minor problem with the GE90 (resulting in a ~20 second longer motoring time prior to fuel on) - but got a lot worse on the GEnx on the 787 and 747-8. At first we thought it was just a seal rub that would cause a small performance loss, but on the GEnx-2 (747-8) we quickly discovered broken compressor blades due to the BRS related seal rubs (worse, the GEnx uses compressor "blisks" - the disc and blades are machined from a single piece - so it's not a simple mater to replace the damaged blade). So there was a FADEC software change to implement extended motoring times during warm engine starts to address BRS. The GE9X for the 777X actually incorporates a small 'rotisserie' motor that will slowly turn the HP rotor after shutdown to prevent the bowed rotor from forming.

Carbon, there was a dedicated PD group at Boeing that was working the 737 replacement - and I wasn't involved so unfortunately I don't know much. There was a big debate regarding composite vs. aluminum - last I heard they were leaning towards aluminum because the impact of the composite weight advantage was less with the shorter typical fight length. Past that, I didn't really hear much (or at least if I did I don't remember it).
Short term I think Boeing is more interested in a new so called Mid Market airplane - 200 to 250 seats. Rumor says 2-3-2 seating but I don't know if that means something using the 767 fuselage or something entirely new. I retired about 18 months ago so my information is somewhat obsolete.

[Carbon Bootprint]

OK , I appreciate your response. Thank you, sir. And enjoy your retirement!

[vapilot2004]

2 pence's worth...

Another way of looking at this record is that Boeing have procrastinated too long over replacing such an ancient design. Since the introduction of the A320 Airbus have helped themselves to a very large slice of the market, with Boeing failing to introduce a superior, or even equal, design to compete. Yes, the 737 family's sales figures have been healthy, but really they ought to be regarded as a significant under-performance.

The A320 is a perfectly fine aircraft, but the truth is, the 'modern' 737 (NG, MAX), in an honest, apples v apples comparison is slightly more fuel efficient, has a dramatically longer DSO, and is less expensive to maintain than its European competitor. Despite being based on an "ancient design", these qualities are why it has endured for so long.

[WHBM]

Surely seat selection is up to the airline not Boeing? - if AA want harder and smaller seats with a reduced pitch, then it doesnt matter if it is a 737, A320 or Concorde, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't get a say.
This is true, but the fact that multiple Max operators have installed the new "ironing board" seats, and none of the current 738NG operators (which is still very much in production) have done so seems to point to them being a feature associated with the new type.

And the new claustrophobic toilet module is certainly a Boeing offering. Apparently it is now impossible to change a baby in there any longer (bet the design was done and approved by men) so there is an increase in pax changing babies on the cabin seats.

[MaximumPete]

Can remember when the UK holiday airline Orion Airways, now defunct, took delivery of the 737th aircraft.

That was a long time ago!

[Niner Lima Charlie]

"Boeing said the 737 Max version is the fastest-selling airplane in its history, with more than 4,300 orders from 93 customers worldwide."

[oldchina]

Compared with 6,025 for the A320neo family

[msbbarratt]

I dont disagree with a lot of what you say but if a 50 year old design can still sell profitably and out-compete the opposition then you would need a really good argument to spend billions on a replacement that may not generate the sort of profits seen by the 737 production line today.

An activist investor taking a look at the changes in market share from Boeing to Airbus over the past 30 years would almost certainly conclude, "not profitable enough". And that's really the point; large profits from established models look good for a while, keep investor happy, but lost opportunity is lost profit. It's just that the posted profit is sometimes large enough to divert investors' attention. Over the past 25 years Boeing could have launched a model good enough to severely curtail Airbus' market share growth, but didn't. The growth in the total size of the market has masked Boeing's reduced market share over that period.

Google are in the same position - good profits, but really it's a total cock-up with regard to China, and large parts of Asia. Worse, the Chinese companies that are making tons of cash out of offering Google-style services are doing so on the back of the Android Open Source Project. Yes, Google are putting effort into software that others then exploit to make huge money of which Google never sees a cent.

[WHBM]

if a 50 year old design can still sell profitably and out-compete the opposition then you would need a really good argument to spend billions on a replacement
That was McDonnell Douglas' attitude in the 1980s to the warmed-over DC9 and DC10 they introduced then - and look where that got them.

[JPJP]

Over the past 25 years Boeing could have launched a model good enough to severely curtail Airbus' market share growth, but didn't. The growth in the total size of the market has masked Boeing's reduced market share over that period.

Karma and Hubris -

Airbus now has a clean sheet design in the Bombardier C Series, bought for pennies on the dollar. They can clean up in the small narrow body range, and then choose to use the CS as a next generation to replace the A320. When they finally finish fulfilling orders.

Boeing hasn’t even started on the development of a 737 replacement. I wonder if they regret telling Bombardier to ‘pound sand’, the week before the 300% tariff was announced ?

[DaveReidUK]

and then choose to use the CS as a next generation to replace the A320

Six-abreast in a CSeries? I don't think so.

[er340790]

I was always more than a little curious as to why Boeing saw fit to keep stretching and hanging more powerful engines onto the 737, while phasing out production of the more modern 757.

Or is the MAX really a 752 in disguise???

Nice job!

[tdracer]

I was always more than a little curious as to why Boeing saw fit to keep stretching and hanging more powerful engines onto the 737, while phasing out production of the more modern 757.

Or is the MAX really a 752 in disguise???

Nice job!
No, the MAX has little in common with the 757 other than some of the fuselage structure.
The problem with the 757 was it was relatively expensive to build - as soon as Boeing introduced 737-900ER the 757 was pretty much dead. The -900ER has nearly the same passenger capability but cost about half as much to build. Sure, the 757 had more range, but that didn't justify twice the price. The economies of scale that the high production rate of the 737 made possible simply made it worse.

[msbbarratt]

Six-abreast in a CSeries? I don't think so.

Well, I think the technologies used in the C Series would serve as a good starting point for an A320 replacement. Effectively what JPJP has pointed out is that Airbus:

1) now has the opportunity to market the very good C series up to a certain passenger count,

2) has the freedom to do a fresh development that they were going to have to do anyway, possibly drawing on the C series for technological ideas, but tailored specifically for a larger passenger count (no need to replicate the seat counts already covered by the C series)

3) can end up with two aircraft families heavily optimised for specific passenger counts, but for the price of developing just one aircraft family (Bombardier have already developed the C series at no cost to Airbus).

For Boeing to get to the same position, they have to do two entirely fresh developments, and they haven't started even one. They'd really have to do something spectacular if they respond with a single design vs Airbus's hypothetical two.

That's how much of a freebie Boeing has let go to Airbus. It's particularly damaging for the current Boeing management because they also had an opportunity to buy up the C series program, but passed.

[DaveReidUK]

drawing on the C series for technological ideas

can end up with two aircraft familiesNo argument with either of those propositions, in fact they are probably just stating the obvious, but that's rather different from

choose to use the CS as a next generation to replace the A320

[troppo]

Compared with 6,025 for the A320neo family

Yeah...define 'fastest'.
In 'its' history being the operative word.
Neo had a two year production headstart over the Max.
If you're saying the Neo has sold more faster...ball park math tells me they have sold at about the same rate over their production life.

[SeenItAll]

People constantly want to talk about what they think is "the best" plane. Further, they define "best" in terms of capabilities like speed, range, capacity, seat width, ease of handling, etc. What they must understand is that by themselves, none of these capabilities matter to airlines. To an airline, the "best plane" is the one whose capabilities and costs (both acquisition and operating) allow them to make the most money. Such a plane is rarely the one with the most capabilities.

[Heathrow Harry]

Boeing are going to the 757/767 replacement next - probably a mistake TBH as it pushes the 737 replacement out towards 2025/2030

The 737 will be looking very old by then I suspect

[DaveReidUK]

People constantly want to talk about what they think is "the best" plane. Further, they define "best" in terms of capabilities like speed, range, capacity, seat width, ease of handling, etc. What they must understand is that by themselves, none of these capabilities matter to airlines. To an airline, the "best plane" is the one whose capabilities and costs (both acquisition and operating) allow them to make the most money. Such a plane is rarely the one with the most capabilities.

Strange. In all the years I've spent working on both sides on the fence, airlines and aircraft manufacturing, I've yet to meet anyone who didn't have at least half an eye on the bottom line.

Who are these "people" of whom you speak ?

[SeenItAll]

Who are these "people" of whom you speak ?

People in this thread who glowingly praise the B757 because of its longer range, higher-powered engines and prettier silhouette than the B737. Or people who laud the A320 for its wider cabin. Unless these features earn the airline more money, they don't make the plane a better choice for purchase.

[misd-agin]

From a Boeing contact - new 737 cockpit/nose cost, to match the 757/767/777, might have a negative impact on sales. So the pilots are stuck with the old version.

[A Squared]

as a very frequent passenger in 737s, I couldn't agree more. As a passenger, the 737 is nasty, because its 6-abreast seating, in this age of ever fatter pax, guarantees discomfort. Especially on longer flights like LAX-ORD, SYD-PER. Longer range but no more elbow room!
Narrow-body Airbuses are almost a foot wider.


Well, no. Airbus 320 family is 7 inches wider (inside and outside) than the 737 family. I suppose an argument could be made that 7 inches is closer to 1 foot than it is to zero feet, but it's not "almost" in the sense that most people use the word "almost". More to the point, that 7 inches does not equate to 1.166 inches more seat width. It of course varies by airline, and most which have both types have slightly wider seats in the Airbusses, but not by a lot. Some have the same width seats, and Lufthansa, inexplicably has slightly narrower seats in their Airbuses than their 737's.


If Boeing were to announce a 737 successor 18" wider or so, and still 6-abreast, passengers worldwide would rejoice. Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.

[FlightlessParrot]

Well, no. Airbus 320 family is 7 inches wider (inside and outside) than the 737 family. I suppose an argument could be made that 7 inches is closer to 1 foot than it is to zero feet, but it's not "almost" in the sense that most people use the word "almost". More to the point, that 7 inches does not equate to 1.166 inches more seat width. It of course varies by airline, and most which have both types have slightly wider seats in the Airbusses, but not by a lot. Some have the same width seats, and Lufthansa, inexplicably has slightly narrower seats in their Airbuses than their 737's.


Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.

I think you're right on the numbers, but I will choose a 320 over a 737 whenever I can. I am a fat old fart, with discretionary income, and we are the demographic of the future. The difference is sufficient to overcome my prejudice that real airliners are made in Seattle--but of course, the modern Boeing isn't a Seattle company. Some airlines treat their passengers with contempt (while calling them "customers"), but one can sometimes choose.

[cooperplace]

Strange. In all the years I've spent working on both sides on the fence, airlines and aircraft manufacturing, I've yet to meet anyone who didn't have at least half an eye on the bottom line.

Who are these "people" of whom you speak ?
both sides of the fence?
maybe there's a third side: passengers who like to be comfortable, which is compromised in a 737

[cooperplace]

Well, no. Airbus 320 family is 7 inches wider (inside and outside) than the 737 family. I suppose an argument could be made that 7 inches is closer to 1 foot than it is to zero feet, but it's not "almost" in the sense that most people use the word "almost". More to the point, that 7 inches does not equate to 1.166 inches more seat width. It of course varies by airline, and most which have both types have slightly wider seats in the Airbusses, but not by a lot. Some have the same width seats, and Lufthansa, inexplicably has slightly narrower seats in their Airbuses than their 737's.


Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.

Thank you for your correction re the numbers. I prefer an A320 over a 737 any day. And I spend a lot of time in both, as passenger.
i don't care if the plane is made in France or Washington state.

[DaveReidUK]

both sides of the fence?
maybe there's a third side: passengers who like to be comfortable, which is compromised in a 737

On the contrary, many passengers are equally concerned with their own bottom line and willing to trade comfort for lower cost, hence the growth of the LCCs.

[SLFandProud]

Thank you for your correction re the numbers. I prefer an A320 over a 737 any day. And I spend a lot of time in both, as passenger.
i don't care if the plane is made in France or Washington state.

Indeed. They are also an appalling advert for Boeing build quality; I don't know if Boeing manufacture their own passenger cabins or outsource it, but I've never been on a 737 which didn't show signs of poor fit/finish, with misaligned components and normally at least one aircon/light/masks panel hanging half out of the roof.

I was on a releatively 'modern' 737ng at the weekend and remain astonished at how many seats "benefit" from having no window at all, as I understand because of the routing of aircon ducts. That is just sheer laziness.


Mind, I was on a 787 last week and was reminded that Boeing apparently shop for plastics and cabin fittings at the same place as British Leyland in the 70s, so hardly a surprise I guess.

[A Squared]

Thank you for your correction re the numbers. I prefer an A320 over a 737 any day. And I spend a lot of time in both, as passenger.
i don't care if the plane is made in France or Washington state.

I don't much care myself either, although I can't say that I've noticed the AirBusses are substantially wider. Still, the Airline/Aircraft/Seat width chart I looked at shows that the Airbus does, on the average across airlines have a half an inch wider seats, so that's something. The thing is (and I think this ties into DavidReid's post) *you* may be vitally interested in things like seat width, and place that high in your list of criteria for choosing an airline, but for the most part, travelers don't, it's a long way below a small price difference. Passengers make a lot of noise complaining about seat size, but when it comes time to click the "buy" button, they are driven primarily by price. That's how we have arrived at the current state of affairs. Airlines have been reducing seat pitch and width for long time. If passengers were truly as interested in seat size as they claim, the first airline to reduce seat size would have discovered that a significant portion of their passengers were going to their competitors, who had not reduced the seat size, and that trend would have been stopped as an unprofitable strategy. But that's not what happened, airlines kept making seats smaller and smaller and people still kept on buying tickets. If seat width was a a significant driving factor in purchasing airline tickets, all the seats on Airbus 320's would all be 1.1666" wider than all the seats on 737's and Airbus and the airlines would be making that fact well known, and Boeing wouldn't have sold many 737's after the 320 got rolling.

[Flapping_Madly]

May I chip in with an opinion? I am only a lowly SLF and a regular user of Ryanair. Recently I had the pleasure of flying on one of their very latest 737-800s. It really was only days old and had the new skinny seats -still with absolutely nowhere to put anything at all-- not even a place to stash the wrist watch perfume and snacks price list which ends on the floor. At least the knee room was better but the back was hard.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.

[A Squared]

May I chip in with an opinion? I am only a lowly SLF and a regular user of Ryanair. Recently I had the pleasure of flying on one of their very latest 737-800s. It really was only days old and had the new skinny seats -still with absolutely nowhere to put anything at all-- not even a place to stash the wrist watch perfume and snacks price list which ends on the floor. At least the knee room was better but the back was hard.
But the nub of this post was the overhead lockers. When we got on all the bins were open. So we began to look for our row. We could not see any row numbers. Very odd everyone thought. Then a small woman shouted out "Oh look they are here".
The row and seat numbers are on the front of the bins. Instead of having a front door that opens upwards and leaving the numbers on display the new scoop shaped bins drop down towards the floor and take the numbers down with them. The row and seat numbers are only visible if you are sub five feet in height and looking directly upwards. Like most male and some female passengers my eye level was above the downward pointing numbers. Sure slowed things up.
I chatted to an English speaking cabin crew about the weird number placement and she agreed. She also said the bins take far more effort to push up to close. She was not full of joy.
I thought it was triumph of design over function. Often called progress.
Overall the lighting and general appearance was very pleasant and a real improvement.
Just my two cents worth.
Thanks for a brilliant website.


That's not unlike the problem I saw the first few times I flew on an Airbus. It's been long enough that I don't really recall what type or what airline, but on boarding there were no row numbers visible as I was walking down the aisle. For whatever reason, the row and seat numbers were labeled on this little octagonal or hexagonal projection whcih projected down from the bottom of the overhead, near the reading lights and F/A call buttons. I'm of average height and had to duck down to read the numbers, they weren't visible from a normal upright stance in the aisle. I remember thinking that it was kind of a stupid design. I guess other people thought so as I haven't seen that particular "feature" in a decade or 2. Interesting to see that Boeing has managed to essentially duplicate the problem, in their own special way.

[AviatorDave]

Surely seat selection is up to the airline not Boeing? - if AA want harder and smaller seats with a reduced pitch, then it doesnt matter if it is a 737, A320 or Concorde, the aircraft manufacturer doesn't get a say.

True, but if Boeing offers an aircraft with economics that mandate such measures to make the plane perform good enough in the face of the competition, airlines will have a hard time trying to keep the comfort level unchanged.
IMHO the fault is only partly with Boeing customers.

[KenV]

True, but if Boeing offers an aircraft with economics that mandate such measures to make the plane perform good enough in the face of the competition....."If"? 737 has marginally better operating economics (about 2%) than A320, so it was a customer decision not forced upon them by the manufacturer.

[KenV]

That's not unlike the problem I saw the first few times I flew on an Airbus. It's been long enough that I don't really recall what type or what airline, but on boarding there were no row numbers visible as I was walking down the aisle. For whatever reason, the row and seat numbers were labeled on this little octagonal or hexagonal projection whcih projected down from the bottom of the overhead, near the reading lights and F/A call buttons. I'm of average height and had to duck down to read the numbers, they weren't visible from a normal upright stance in the aisle. I remember thinking that it was kind of a stupid design. I guess other people thought so as I haven't seen that particular "feature" in a decade or 2. Interesting to see that Boeing has managed to essentially duplicate the problem, in their own special way.Boeing has switched to the "drop down" style overhead bins because it is a more efficient design that provides about 50% greater bin volume. Can't speak for Europe, but in the USA passengers are taking more and more luggage aboard as "carry-on" rather then "checked" baggage (especially when carriers charge extra for checked baggage), so bin volume is very important to the passengers. The down side is that seating numbers are difficult to see during boarding when the bins are open and down.

[WHBM]

The down side is that seating numbers are difficult to see during boarding when the bins are open and down.
I suppose that duplicating the seat numbers from the PSU onto the bin units top rail has not occurred to anyone at Seattle ...

[Smott999]

Re downward-opening bins - is that also a safety feature, i.e. Designed to stop luggage braining passengers if bins pop open in flight? Curious.

[KenV]

I suppose that duplicating the seat numbers from the PSU onto the bin units top rail has not occurred to anyone at Seattle ...Could idea! The problem is that airlines are opposed to that. The top rail is a decorative item interchangeable to many locations in the cabin. If the seat/row numbers are located on those rails interchangeability goes away which the airlines are loathe to do.

Re downward-opening bins - is that also a safety feature, i.e. Designed to stop luggage braining passengers if bins pop open in flight? Curious. No. When down/open the bins don't extend downward enough to strike a seated passenger. And when up/closed there is actually considerably more headroom in the aisle. Open bins do make it slightly harder for passengers to move from the aisle to the middle or window seat during boarding. The latches are quite strong and designed not to open during a crash, and when up/closed provide quite a bit more headroom for the middle and aisle seats and the aisle itself, so evacuation is improved.

https://designthebottomline.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/737_dwg_crop.jpg?w=798

[oldchina]

Standing room: someone is bullsh!tting:


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/30/a4/60/30a46085a4a0f44d15f34d60e2f33003.jpg (https://www.google.fr/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiH9ZT4xqXaAhULa8AKHQHyA_0QjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F6579484453577010 6%2F&psig=AOvVaw0krDDR7W74i8WlQeM_SYTG&ust=1523100666234729)

[rog747]

http://www.british-caledonian.com/images/PBowell002.jpg

[KenV]

Standing room: someone is bullsh!tting:


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/30/a4/60/30a46085a4a0f44d15f34d60e2f33003.jpg (https://www.google.fr/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiH9ZT4xqXaAhULa8AKHQHyA_0QjRx6BAgAEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.com%2Fpin%2F6579484453577010 6%2F&psig=AOvVaw0krDDR7W74i8WlQeM_SYTG&ust=1523100666234729)
Now look closely at those old 707 overhead bins. How big are they? Then remember that back in the day it was quite rare to have any significant carry-on baggage. The elite "jet setters" who flew back then simply did not go around carrying their own luggage. The highly regulated world of "jet-setting" back then is totally different than the de-regulated "air travel" of today. Consider the very name of the manufacturer that now produces about half of those narrow body/single aisle jets: AirBUS. A bus is what the "great unwashed" ride in, not elites. It's a different world. With deregulation air travel has dropped to the lowest common denominator that achieves the lowest possible cost.

So no, no bullsh!t. Just look at the pictures. The difference in the bins is quite obvious and 707 and 737 have essentially the same cross section.

And separately look at the top rail above the second set of bins in the picture. Most of the bins have that tiny top rail located quite high above the aisle. Putting row/seat numbers up there may not be such a good idea after all, assuming the airlines would even allow Boeing to do so. That top rail is designed to be interchangeable with the top rails at many different locations in the cabin. Put row/seat numbers on them and interchangeability goes away, which most airlines are vehemently opposed to.
http://addisababaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ethiopian-Boeing737-Sky-Interior.jpg

[oldchina]

KenV
How right you are. Remember the era of the "Wake me for meals" seatback pins?
That's from a time when there wasn't a row of screaming kids behind to keep you awake.

[Heathrow Harry]

Yes - it's true - we have given up on service and gone to a bus model - but we all pay a lot less (http://www.nomadwallet.com/travel-airfare-then-now-cheaper-better/)


Air Travel Then and Now | Nomad Wallet (http://www.nomadwallet.com/travel-airfare-then-now-cheaper-better/)

Air Travel Then and Now (Pssttt… It’s Cheaper and Better Now)

Only one out of five people had ever flown back then.

Flight ticket prices: then and now

Since 1974, airfares have dropped by about 50 percent (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/02/how-airline-ticket-prices-fell-50-in-30-years-and-why-nobody-noticed/273506/).

Consider this: in 1934, for the privilege of flying on one of TWA’s first transcontinental flights from Newark to Glendale, you’d have to pay $160. That sounds like a bargain, but — if we adjust that amount for inflation — it’s about $2,700 in today’s dollars. And that’s a one-way fare on a flight that made three stops along the way.

Airfare price case study: New York – London through the years

In 1950: a round-trip New York – London airfare would set you back $500 for an off-season ticket or $675 at all other times. Again, those fares sound fine, but they actually translate into $4,700 (off-season) or $6,300 (on-season) after adjusting for inflation.

In the 1970s: you’d have to pay $550 to fly the same route. This fare would only cost $3,200 today.

In 2013: At the peak of holiday season, you could get a return ticket on the same route for about $1,100 on British Airways — fees and taxes included.

But what about service?

I hear people say all the time that air travel used to be better. Flight attendants were actually nice; we had food; we had leg room; we didn’t have to pay extra fees; we didn’t have to go through strict security screening, etc. Thanks to the airfare regulations, airlines in the past didn’t have to compete in pricing and knew that they would certainly turn a profit. That’s why flying came with the best services. Among them (http://gizmodo.com/5987350/scenes-from-when-flying-was-still-civilized):


Lounge and observation area.
Actual tables and wicker chairs.
Silverware and crystal.
A portable altar (!) on Sunday flights in case you missed church to get on the plane.
A vanity table and chair in the lavatory.
Toiletries you could actually steal from the lavatories, like individually wrapped bar soaps.

So it’s true that some things used to be better back then. But you also had to pay a high premium to fly.

The truth is: you can still get great service today if you’re willing to pay a premium

If you want great in-flight service, you can always spring for business class or first class. (Let’s not discuss the security hassles because, arguably, they’re there for a good reason.)

[oldchina]

35 years ago I would pay £500 for a return ticket UK to the far east.
Last year I paid 500 euros.

[Paolo]

I'm an airbus man....but this is some achievement !!! Well done Boeing..............

[hunbet]

"Putting row/seat numbers up there may not be such a good idea"

The seat numbers are on a clip on removable part.

The airlines re-configure airplanes according to the season.

[KenV]

The seat numbers are on a clip on removable part.That might work. For some airlines. If the airline wanted it Boeing would be very happy to deliver.

The airlines re-configure airplanes according to the season.Some do. Many don't. Again, the decision of where and how to afix row/seat numbers is an airline decision, not a Boeing/Airbus decision. If you have an issue with the decision, take it up with the airline, not the manufacturer.