Why was 737NG developed?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Fat Dog

I agree. I have plenty of time in both and from a pilots POV the -700 is miles better. Frankly the -800 is a bit of a dog.

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

[Fat Dog]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

I’m not talking about thrust/weight. I’m talking about the fact it doesn’t have ridiculously high approach speeds and tail strike issues on rotation due to the fact it’s too long. The -700 is the aircraft the NG should have been; the bean counters turned it into the -800.

[AviatorDave]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Not sure I understand the 'a bit of a dog' comment. IF your operator selected the max available rating for the model, the -800 has a slightly better thrust/weight ratio than the -700 (the max thrust is limited on the -700 due to the ability of the tail to counteract the thrust induced pitch-up - it's also limited on the -800 for the same reason, but not as much due to the longer fuselage). However a lower thrust rating means lower costs to the operator, so some operators will select a lower thrust rating than what's available.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator.

On the paper. Flying the -800 with a full Y189 load of typical fat tourists and and all their luggage on 26K engines was much less fun than driving the -700 with somewhat average loads and 24K engines.
Individual experiences may vary, of course.

[cxorcist]

Without reading all the above, the 737-800 has been kicking the tail off the 320ceo forever. It has more range and better seat economics. The 320 will always be more spacious than the 737 internally, but the economics haven’t been better than the NG until the NEO came onto the scene.

The higher height under the wing of the 320 was better situated for the new generation of big fan engines. Even with those, the 320neo isn’t great, although the 321NEO clearly is. Boeing, in response, went cheap and is stuffing big fans under the 737 wings, which required a major slung forward pylon change (trailing link gear for the -10) and this ridiculous MCAS system which was obviously under engineered.

Cost cutting obviously has caught up with Boeing. It’s sad because all the signs were there during the 787 and 747-8 programs. It’s sad that greed has now cost lives. Perhaps they will learn for 777X, NMA, NSA...

[krismiler]

Airbus and Boeing both wanted to put off the expense of developing a brand new aircraft for as long as possible. Who ever got the new type on the market first would have a winner on their hands but the cost would have been astronomical and sales of the current type would have been affected as buyers held off and waited for the latest offering.

Incremental improvements were made to the present types but the difference was that Airbus had a much more modern basic platform which was able to accept modifications and Boeing had a 60 year old design which wasn't.

[CargoOne]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

Without reading all the above, the 737-800 has been kicking the tail off the 320ceo forever. It has more range and better seat economics. The 320 will always be more spacious than the 737 internally, but the economics haven’t been better than the NG until the NEO came onto the scene.

Your statement is simply not true. There was 5150 x 737-800 produced vs 5750 x A320 (just 320 excluding 319/321). If -800 would have a better economics it will for sure sell in a much larger numbers compared to A320. In reality both types have advantages and disadvantages against each other but all in all they are just about the same the cost wise. For example you are correct regarding better payload/range of -800 but then just as a wild guess only 0.1% of -800 departures are calling for the range/payload which A320 cannot do.

[cxorcist]

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by cxorcist

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

But not as high as they once were!

[AviatorDave]

Originally Posted by CargoOne

Your statement is simply not true. There was 5150 x 737-800 produced vs 5750 x A320 (just 320 excluding 319/321). If -800 would have a better economics it will for sure sell in a much larger numbers compared to A320. In reality both types have advantages and disadvantages against each other but all in all they are just about the same the cost wise. For example you are correct regarding better payload/range of -800 but then just as a wild guess only 0.1% of -800 departures are calling for the range/payload which A320 cannot do.

To add to this: apart from the numbers game which might slightly favor the -800, the A320 appears to be more popular with pax (and pilots, but that doesn't matter for business).

[Torquelink]

-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.

And one engine option rather than two: airlines like the choice on the A320 but most investors / lessors like the fact that all 738s are broadly similar: great help in remarketing.

[cxorcist]

Originally Posted by Torquelink

And one engine option rather than two: airlines like the choice on the A320 but most investors / lessors like the fact that all 738s are broadly similar: great help in remarketing.

Loving how y’all equivocate about why and how 738 kicks the tail off 320ceo. Big picture... it’s a slightly bigger plane (from a seating perspective) with better economics and more range. To compete, the 320ceo was sold very cheaply, although the opposite is true of the maintenance and parts which are quite expensive. To add insult to injury, the 737NG is produced at less cost than 320, so the margins are much higher from sales.

This is why Airbus jumped at launching NEO, arguably prematurely because production started so much later. Airbus forced a response from Boeing, which we now know as the MAX disaster. Perhaps Boeing would have been better off going straight to NSA, but that’s 20/20 hindsight. We would be singing a different tune had the MCAS nightmare not occurred. Cost cutting caught up with Boeing, and now the advantage is to Airbus, at least in the narrowbody market.

The MAX will fly again and the sales will occur. The problem is the lost market share, especially to A321. If it were up to me, Boeing would launch NMA ASAP to counter A321NEO and NSA shortly thereafter. It’s going to cost a lot of money, but Boeing has painted itself into a corner with its corporate greed. Shame on Boeing!!!

[Nil by mouth]

The Mods have shelved 737 MAX comments for now for 'hamster wheel' reasons.