10,000th 737 delivered to SW - Guinness record
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.
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.
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.
That was McDonnell Douglas' attitude in the 1980s to the warmed-over DC9 and DC10 they introduced then - and look where that got them.
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 ?
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!
Or is the MAX really a 752 in disguise???
Nice job!
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
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.
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.
can end up with two aircraft families
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.
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.
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.
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
The 737 will be looking very old by then I suspect
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.
Who are these "people" of whom you speak ?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Well, no, if Boeing did that, the Airlines would turn them into 4 and 3 configuration, if they could.