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 19th Mar 2018, 11:28
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,645
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 12:12
  #42 (permalink)  

Uncle Pete
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Frodsham Cheshire
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can remember when the UK holiday airline Orion Airways, now defunct, took delivery of the 737th aircraft.

That was a long time ago!
MaximumPete is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 14:21
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Arizona
Age: 77
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Boeing said the 737 Max version is the fastest-selling airplane in its history, with more than 4,300 orders from 93 customers worldwide."
Niner Lima Charlie is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 14:40
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Compared with 6,025 for the A320neo family
oldchina is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 18:32
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Highway1
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.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 18:56
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,645
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Highway1
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.
WHBM is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 21:38
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 449
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
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 ?
JPJP is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 22:10
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by JPJP
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 22:11
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
er340790 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 22:55
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,377
Received 168 Likes on 84 Posts
Originally Posted by 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!
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.

Last edited by tdracer; 20th Mar 2018 at 01:22. Reason: fixed typo
tdracer is online now  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:02
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
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.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:24
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
drawing on the C series for technological ideas
can end up with two aircraft families
No argument with either of those propositions, in fact they are probably just stating the obvious, but that's rather different from

Originally Posted by JPJP
choose to use the CS as a next generation to replace the A320
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 12:43
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: closer to hell
Age: 52
Posts: 914
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by oldchina
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.
troppo is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 21:38
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 21:58
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 23:34
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,801
Received 198 Likes on 91 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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 ?
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 13:11
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
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.
SeenItAll is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 13:19
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 22:00
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cooperplace
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.


Originally Posted by cooperplace
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.
A Squared is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 10:18
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A Squared
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.
FlightlessParrot 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.