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" ?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Was the MAX 10 trailed as having a "better/fixed" MCAS ? I don't remember hearing that.

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).

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.

Is there a chance that Embraer will expand their range? I appreciate that it would not be a trivial exercise.

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

Thank you for the background info :ok:.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

These pax found them useful:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7ce8d93b5.jpeg

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