|
Originally Posted by Fat Dog
(Post 10647393)
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.
That's not the fault of the aircraft or the engine - blame the bean counters at your operator. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10647405)
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. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10647405)
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. Individual experiences may vary, of course. |
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... |
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. |
Originally Posted by cxorcist
(Post 10649336)
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. |
-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.
|
Originally Posted by cxorcist
(Post 10649996)
-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher.
|
Originally Posted by CargoOne
(Post 10649913)
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.
|
-800 has better seat economics than 320ceo. That’s why residual values on the -800 are so much higher. |
Originally Posted by Torquelink
(Post 10650180)
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.
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!!! |
The Mods have shelved 737 MAX comments for now for 'hamster wheel' reasons.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.