10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
i think Orion UK had the 1000th 737?
who had the 737th?
who had the 737th?
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.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can it really go on for another 10 - 15 years, let’s see who ups the anti next.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ??
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 ??
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.
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 ??
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.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.