Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing could cancel the 737 MAX 10

Old 9th Jul 2022, 08:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
Wasn't the MAX 10 supposed to contribute most of the technical updates for the rest of the family?
This is something, floating around my brain, too. IIRC, the dino MAX versions got their certification reinstated, because of the promise to upgrade these versions to the additional security features intended for the MAX 10, within a timely time-frame. Maybe, this got "forgotten" ?
WideScreen is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 09:00
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,610
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 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.
WHBM is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 09:58
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,445
Received 73 Likes on 40 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
......- 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......
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?
Uplinker is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 11:54
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,389
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.
vilas is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 13:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by vilas
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.........
Unfortunately, the 757 was scaled down from and did share with the 767, and as such far too heavy to scale down again, without effectively creating a new design. Forget the 757, there are real reasons, it was stopped.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 13:42
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,745
Received 178 Likes on 85 Posts
Originally Posted by WideScreen
This is something, floating around my brain, too. IIRC, the dino MAX versions got their certification reinstated, because of the promise to upgrade these versions to the additional security features intended for the MAX 10, within a timely time-frame.
Was the MAX 10 trailed as having a "better/fixed" MCAS ? I don't remember hearing that.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 19:27
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,301
Received 136 Likes on 67 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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?
Short answer is "it's not that simple". The original EICAS (757/767) was certified essential (that's why the flight deck of the 757/767 had all those indicator lights - to back up EICAS if it failed). However to meet the current requirement, EICAS has to certified critical. Hence everything has to be redundant and the s/w "Level A" - that's expensive - real expensive. While they could use some of the basic architecture of an existing EICAS, it has to be customized for all the various I/O (both hardware and software) - which are quite a bit different on the 737 relative to anything else currently in production. A billion dollars would be on the low end - I'd expect it to be closer to two billion just for the development costs.

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).
tdracer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2022, 21:11
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 956
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If the MAX 10 was cancelled, could that make room for the “new mid range aircraft” the informal ‘57 replacement? Although Airbus have that market locked up with the A321LR XLR.
Dannyboy39 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 01:49
  #29 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,097
Received 57 Likes on 47 Posts
Is there a chance that Embraer will expand their range? I appreciate that it would not be a trivial exercise.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 02:54
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,108
Received 129 Likes on 56 Posts
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

Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 11th Jul 2022 at 16:31.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 13:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,445
Received 73 Likes on 40 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
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).
Thank you for the background info .

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.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 14:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
...... 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.......
Actually, there are piles of cash: The money Boeing used for their shares buy back actions, just reintroduce these shares. It'll dilute on the currently outstanding shares, though alas, there aren't many options, if Boeing wants to survive in the commercial airplane industry (I am not sure about that, though, everything shows, Boeing just wants to cash in on the current sales/production, without new developments).
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 14:47
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
...... 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.
Hmmm, I am not sure, whether Musk's boundless and baseless opportunistic behavior would be better than the current (and recent past) Boeing board/managements.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 17:02
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The middle
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 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 ?
excrab is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 19:05
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by excrab
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 ?
That's the same kind of reasoning, why you could perfectly fly without (E)GPWS, or drive cars without seatbelts, etc. It's called progress, and with progress you need to set deadlines, otherwise, everybody will find reasons, a feature is not needed for them, despite the feature bottom line giving advantages. And, this stuff should have been there, a long time ago, though Boeing managed to get away with it, because of the history certification, etc.

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.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 19:37
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,388
Received 11 Likes on 4 Posts
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?
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 22:06
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,355
Received 68 Likes on 31 Posts
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.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 22:20
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 1,550
Received 98 Likes on 53 Posts
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.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 22:30
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,610
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
Who wants or needs slide/rafts?
For a start, all the 738 pax whose aircraft has gone off the end of the runway into the water.

I'll start a list ...
WHBM is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2022, 22:46
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 223
Received 12 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by meleagertoo
Who wants or needs slide/rafts?
These pax found them useful:



For some strange reason when I read your post, the phrase ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ came to mind.
Bleve 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.