Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record

Old 18th Mar 2018, 07:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by llondel
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?
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 10:36
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Discorde is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 10:56
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 463
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
cooperplace is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 11:33
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,483
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
I think that all Boeing narrow bodies have the same fuselage diameter as the 707
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 11:59
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And not forgetting the cockpit ergonomics from the 1950's
CaptainSensible is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 13:38
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 839
Received 35 Likes on 20 Posts
i think Orion UK had the 1000th 737?

who had the 737th?
rog747 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 13:48
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London,England
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Max Angle is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 14:14
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by rog747
i think Orion UK had the 1000th 737?

who had the 737th?
Line number 1000 went to Delta and number 737 to Orion.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 15:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Highway1 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 15:46
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,645
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
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 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 16:05
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,645
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 21:46
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
EIFFS is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 22:03
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,377
Received 168 Likes on 84 Posts
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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 22:19
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
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.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 22:46
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,645
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by EIFFS
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 23:00
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 ??
EIFFS is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 23:04
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Highway1 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 00:21
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,377
Received 168 Likes on 84 Posts
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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 00:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
OK , I appreciate your response. Thank you, sir. And enjoy your retirement!
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 01:29
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
vapilot2004 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.