Why was 737NG developed?
 

With all the MAX troubles, one question is still bothering me. Why Boeing developed 737NG instead of a clean sheet design? It sure looks like THAT was the point where trouble started. MAX's development was a catch-up race with A320neo, and they had to act fast. But what happened in early 1990s?

They were in the black with 757 and 767. 747-400 was selling well. Initial 777 development was behind them. But still they opted to facelift a model that already was too old. A320 was already flying and selling, so they couldn't have missed it, and they should've realized it's a strong competitor. And they sure had all the ability to develop the electronics bells and whistles they incorporated into 777. It was the time before the disastrous merger with MD, so no influence from there. WHY did they opt to put crutches on 737 "Classic" instead of a fully new machine?

G'Kar: Narns, humans, Centauri, we all do what we do for the same reason: because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I presume that otherwise Boeing did a bunch of cost estimates and internal proposals and had a large number of discussions with current and potential customers and decided to build what turned out to be the best selling passenger aircraft on the planet. So the next question is, why did those customers buy it? I look at SouthWest, a company that not only weathered spiking fuel prices but seemed to get stronger and think, they know what they are doing and they have been 100% 737s. I don't know how they decided that, but I expect they also did a large number of estimates. It's very possible that the economics behind the decision won't ever be public as it represents an obvious competitive advantage.

I'd have thought that 7,000+ sales was the answer to that question.

Obviously they made a lot of money out of the decision, and sold a lot of aeroplanes, but is it possible to know whether or not they expected the NG to be such a success?

My understanding of why Boeing decided to stay on the 737, is that some major players like SW and Ryanair did put a lot of pressure on Boeing NOT to develop a 797, simply to have one type in their fleet, and not two.

That could however be from around the time when Boeing decided to develop the Max, and not when they decided to develop the NG.

They did. They also flew without A/T and VNAV until late 2000s.

It was not that different compared to today. Boeing, having rested on their laurels, had missed the train and needed something asap to match the A320ceo which gained popularity with the airlines and proved more efficient, economical and modern than the 737 classic series.
Although doing well from a financial point of view, Boeing just did not have the time to come up with an entirely new design for the short/medium haul market. If they hadn‘t done the NG, they would have lost out big time in that market segment.
Back then there was word that the NG was a stop gap and the need to come up with a new design was very clear to Boeing.
But they got leapfrogged again by Airbus, who came up with the NEO ...

New- Type Certificate vrs Re-Birthing, via 'Grand-Fathering', e.g. the Bombardier journey on 'the' Dash............

Just sayin/kickin 'it' out there............

Merry XMas
Rgds
S28- BE

Re grandfathering - I haven't dug into it to look (and seek confirmation), but I was told a while back that if the 737 ng had modern door sizes (eg A320), then there would be one or two rows fewer in the cabin. That's 6-12 pax every sector for the life of the aircraft. That's a (theoretical) lot of $$$.

The buzzword from the modern school of business management is "value add" which is a term used by corporate flunkies who can't build anything new and simply steal other people's thunder. It's also endemic in the "information" age.

Isn't it just to modernise an existing successful aircraft? Digital PFDs and avionics brought into line with the rest of the Boeing line-up.

Much like what they're doing with the 777X - put 787 tech in there and a new wing and call it something slightly different?

Spot on Section28- BE, they produced the NG because the airlines wanted as little difference between the classic and the NG for crew and maintenance convenience as possible.
The FAA and other national authorities allowed them to do so, with very few changes, notably the one big change being the overwing exit changes demanded by the UK and EASA.
The MAX would never have been certified if it was a new type as it does not meet the latest requirements for certification, the same would be also for the NEO.
Maybe it is time to stop grandfather rights for aircraft that have major differences from the original type certificate.
Just a thought. :uhoh:

Hmmm.

"Don't stop building the 737, because we won't buy its successor (whatever it turns out to be)" is a pretty idle threat, when you think about it.

Just as the 737 NG was a reaction to the 320ceo...the MAX was a reaction to the 320neo....

BA had been focused on the 787, 748 and was not planning the NSA until 2030 and after the NMA....then the neo series caught them off guard.

Currently with the 321 XLR, I wonder if BA is serious about a re-hab of the 767...ie the 767XF a rehab 767-300 (right now a freighter...but....) https://www.flightglobal.com/program...134757.article

Sad but true...

There seemed to be an element of not wanting to build another conventional aluminium airplane back then. Recall the blended wing/body studies and artists’ impressions. Remember too the focus on composite construction. The 787 seems to have been an incremental step towards the future as we then understood it: a conventional configuration using new materials, and that was to be followed by an unconventional platform using those same new unconventional materials.

The 787 turned out to be too much too fast, and it sapped Boeing of all of its extra engineering talent and R&D money. That left it unable to do yet another clean sheet design while still being able to afford share buy-backs and other crazy boardroom hijinks. Faced with making money now v. making future money, the future lost. Hence the Max: A ‘66 Chevelle with Apple play.

so why the 737 Max? Greed. And lack of vision. And some hubris. All prosaic human failings that will become the stuff of the next MBa 101 text.

The main reason the NG did so well is that the NG plus A320ceo combined market over the last 20-odd years bought, what, 12,000 or more aircraft. And the NG and 320 were the only two games in town. McDonnell Douglas products were obviously on their last legs.

The driver behind the NG development was the same as that of the Max - the 320 was really scoring in North America. Northwest started it and United followed as key drivers, but early sales also to America West and Air Canada, and even to Pan Am and Braniff before these two went under, coupled with a very obvious forthcoming expected peak in replacing 3-crew/3-engine 727s, the traditional general-purpose workhorse of US carriers which would be coming to the end of their time, made Boeing feel the market was slipping from them. Probably quite rightly.

Why was the NG launched? To compete with the A320, which was taking sales from the 737 in both North America and Europe.

The Classic already had CFM56 engines, so fitting an updated model was no big deal. 61-inch fan on the NG compared to 60 on the Classic.

The big difference was the brand new wing, using aerodynamics from the 777. It's more efficient than the A320's. Plus, as said above, the 737 fuselage is "efficient", with a better ratio of seats to external area than the A320.

The excellent new wing allowed the launch of the -800, a 3m stretch on the -400. The resulting seat-mile costs measured up to the A320's and the rest is history.

More interesting is what was going on in the late 90s/early 2000s. Boeing was developing Project Yellowstone, consisting of the Y1, Y2, and Y3. The Y2 launched as the 787 and the Y1 was intended to replace the 737NG with a plastic jet using 787 tech. But single-aisle sales grew beyond what's possible to mass-produce in CFRP. Then Airbus just fitted next-gen engines to the A320 rather than develop a new, better airframe, knowing that Boeing couldn't do the same. Boeing tried anyway and the rest is... 🙁.