Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders just why Boeing chief David Calhoun has come out with this comment that the Max 10 will be scrapped if things don't get changed, just days before Farnborough, when various possible orders for it are (were) already being trailed for being placed there. What a turn-off for potential customers, any resulting positive PR in the media would immediately in paragraph two have a comment that Boeing has just said it could be scrapped.
......- it'll cost well north of a $Billion to implement an EICAS system into the 737, plus recurring costs. If Boeing sells 500 MAX 10s, then they need to make an extra $2 million plus per aircraft just to pay for EICAS. Given Boeing might make a total profit on a 737 MAX sale of between $1 million and $2 million per aircraft, it simply doesn't make economic sense to produce the MAX 10 with EICAS. Better to save the money and devote it to a proper 737 replacement somewhere down the line......
Because one imagines they can use the EICAS equipment already developed for other Boeings - reprogrammed for the '73. Or is it not that simple - would all the cabled hydro-mechanical flight control system need to be changed as well?
Ultimately though, the 737 airframe is a design cul-de-sac: old mechanical technology, small and cramped. Short main gear legs etc etc. It's had its day.
Time for a blank sheet of paper and start a new design. Or: could the 787 design be shrinked down to 737 size and economics?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all started with Boeing giving new lease of life to the 737 with NG series instead of the 757 which led to Max and subsequent disasters. B757 could have been shortened to make smaller version equivalent of 737 800/900 or Max 8/9/10, fitted with any engine they want. It would have been better aircraft than lengthened airbuses. Any customer loss would have been recovered in next 10 years. If they abandon the Max10 it's not something that will be missed. It brings with it extendable undercarriage which will have another NNC "In case the gear doesn't extend then:
1. xxxxx
2. xxxxx
Or like the MCAS find it out yourself.
1. xxxxx
2. xxxxx
Or like the MCAS find it out yourself.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all started with Boeing giving new lease of life to the 737 with NG series instead of the 757 which led to Max and subsequent disasters. B757 could have been shortened to make smaller version equivalent of 737 800/900 or Max 8/9/10, fitted with any engine they want.........
Is EICAS essential, and is that cost for its certification, or the whole package?
Because one imagines they can use the EICAS equipment already developed for other Boeings - reprogrammed for the '73. Or is it not that simple - would all the cabled hydro-mechanical flight control system need to be changed as well?
Ultimately though, the 737 airframe is a design cul-de-sac: old mechanical technology, small and cramped. Short main gear legs etc etc. It's had its day.
Time for a blank sheet of paper and start a new design. Or: could the 787 design be shrinked down to 737 size and economics?
Because one imagines they can use the EICAS equipment already developed for other Boeings - reprogrammed for the '73. Or is it not that simple - would all the cabled hydro-mechanical flight control system need to be changed as well?
Ultimately though, the 737 airframe is a design cul-de-sac: old mechanical technology, small and cramped. Short main gear legs etc etc. It's had its day.
Time for a blank sheet of paper and start a new design. Or: could the 787 design be shrinked down to 737 size and economics?
As for shrinking the 787 - that's a non-starter for the airframe, although they could use much of the avionics architecture. But any 737 replacement airframe would have to be all new (it might end up with a composite wing, but Boeing has already determined that for a smaller, shorter range aircraft the higher production costs of a composite fuselage simply don't justify it over more conventional aluminum. Given the oceans of red ink Boeing has experienced in the last several years, there simply is no cash available for a new aircraft development - that cupboard is bare and will stay that way for many years.
So, unless you like the idea of Airbus having a complete monopoly on the single aisle market for the next decade, you'd better hope Boeing get's its act together (and soon).
The 737 family is really down to only one viable model the dash 8. The A220 will take over all 737-7 orders and the 321 series virtually all the dash 9 and 10 future orders
The only way Boeing can sell the airplane is at a steep discount and they will never come close to recouping the 18 Billion they had to spend to deal with the fallout from the MAX crashes
The only way Boeing can sell the airplane is at a steep discount and they will never come close to recouping the 18 Billion they had to spend to deal with the fallout from the MAX crashes
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 11th Jul 2022 at 16:31.
Short answer is "it's not that simple"...............Given the oceans of red ink Boeing has experienced in the last several years, there simply is no cash available for a new aircraft development - that cupboard is bare and will stay that way for many years.
So, unless you like the idea of Airbus having a complete monopoly on the single aisle market for the next decade, you'd better hope Boeing get's its act together (and soon).
So, unless you like the idea of Airbus having a complete monopoly on the single aisle market for the next decade, you'd better hope Boeing get's its act together (and soon).
.I don't know how big finance works; Presumably a company cannot take out the equivalent of a mortgage to fund development of a new airliner that will lead to strong sales? They would have already done this if they could, I guess.
Personally, (having flown a range of turbo-props and conventional jets, including the 737 Classic), I am more than happy with Airbus FBW, which, economics aside, is an order of magnitude improvement over the '73 - not only the airframe and systems but even things like the size and space of the cockpit, and the big windshields. The only thing I would have changed would be to link the side-sticks, with a mechanical inter-link, easily disconnect-able, so PM on either side can see PF's inputs more easily.
But ultimately, having no competition is not healthy in the long run. I wonder if Mr Musk might be interested in re-vamping Boeing, and designing a real contender airliner, combining Boeings know-how and Space X's abilities? He has the money to fund development - especially if he doesn't buy Twitter.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I must have a somewhat simplistic view compared with everyone else on this forum. I’ve been flying the 737 for sixteen years, first the 500, then 300 then 800 then the Max8. If something goes wrong a light comes on in front of us, we look up, see what’s happening, then either carry out the memory drills, or action the QRH, or both. If that’s safe with 178 passengers why isn’t it safe with 204. Or if it’s not safe with 204 why aren’t the 737 variants already flying being grounded ?
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I must have a somewhat simplistic view compared with everyone else on this forum. I’ve been flying the 737 for sixteen years, first the 500, then 300 then 800 then the Max8. If something goes wrong a light comes on in front of us, we look up, see what’s happening, then either carry out the memory drills, or action the QRH, or both. If that’s safe with 178 passengers why isn’t it safe with 204. Or if it’s not safe with 204 why aren’t the 737 variants already flying being grounded ?
And, there are many more reasons, a 737 should be just outright history (the fuselage breakup tendency with accidents, the cockpit overhead panels falling down on the pilots, to give some examples). A classic car is a beauty, though from a safety POV a nightmare.
Previous to MCAS, Congress waiving anything for Boeing was a given. Would you put your signature on this waiver knowing what the culture and quality control standards are like in Boeing right now?
Excrab you would have to fly something newer to understand how really primitive the 737 is. A friend described it as an ergonomic slum 33 years ago, and it hasn’t improved much. The overhead panel is a 60’s throwback, the instrument panel mid 80’s.
The basic fuselage is a 50’s design with 50’s doors and escape slides (NOT slide rafts). The cabin, galleys and toilets are all cramped as is the flight deck. It's too low, baggage has to be loaded by hand instead of containerised. It is loud. Really loud.
The 737 is a tarted up 60’s plane built with 50’s know-how and design thinking. Someone compared old to new cars. You can still drive around in a ‘63 Impala but I wouldn’t let my kids drive one. Same thing applies here.
I have flown aeroplanes made in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. All good in their day, but their day has passed.
The basic fuselage is a 50’s design with 50’s doors and escape slides (NOT slide rafts). The cabin, galleys and toilets are all cramped as is the flight deck. It's too low, baggage has to be loaded by hand instead of containerised. It is loud. Really loud.
The 737 is a tarted up 60’s plane built with 50’s know-how and design thinking. Someone compared old to new cars. You can still drive around in a ‘63 Impala but I wouldn’t let my kids drive one. Same thing applies here.
I have flown aeroplanes made in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. All good in their day, but their day has passed.
Austro whatever you are, I simply do not recognise your description of the 737 as any recent variant that I have flown, and neither will anyone else. You seem to be fulminating about it simply because you don't regard it as the latest trendy piffle on the block.
Your car comparison is simply childish and utterly absurd.
What comparable airbus is containerised? Why would anyone want it to be? What's the difference between Airbus and boeing overhead switchgear? Looks? Who wants or needs slide/rafts?
Loud? By what measure?
A ridiculously lightweight, facile and fact-free condemnation.
Your car comparison is simply childish and utterly absurd.
What comparable airbus is containerised? Why would anyone want it to be? What's the difference between Airbus and boeing overhead switchgear? Looks? Who wants or needs slide/rafts?
Loud? By what measure?
A ridiculously lightweight, facile and fact-free condemnation.
