BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2010 posts, RR: 1 Posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
The structure of the 737NG family is apparently heavier than the 737Classics, and while their economy is better accross the range, the -600 suffers poor economics compared to it's cousin the 737-500.
So Boeing is lacking a viable aircraft in the ~100-120 seatcategory, WITH transcon range. The 717 does well to, what, 1500nm?
Either way, we hear about SAS being unhappy with their 736s, as they are barely cheaper to operate, but haul about 40 less pax, then the 73G.
To fill the gap, has Boeing considered, or is there even a feasible way, to alter the structure of, remove some compents, or just generally cut some weight from the 736 to make it a more viable ~110 seat aircraft?
Just curious what the prospects would be for a 736Lite?
BWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2201 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2433 times:
I am not an expert but buddy it seems that if boeing really wants to compete they either need to make a 717 with the range or bring back the 735 into production slap on a new interior upgrade electronics give it new engines if they are any and u have ur 736 lite. However is the market that lucrative to allow boeing to make money.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
I suspect you'd more likely see an updated 737-500 -- updated in regards to engine and avionics, but largely just the good old -500 airframe.
That would save you significant weight.
However, it's not clear that anyone will order such a plane. Given what appear to be outstanding economics on the EMB-190/195 series aircraft, I just don't see an order emerging for the smaller 737. The economics of commonality don't outweigh the operating economics except, perhaps, for small operators, and those are the folks far more likely to buy a couple of used -500's than be the launch customer for the 737-550
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 44
Reply 3, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
I don't think the market for a the B737-600 is that lucrative to allow Boeing to invest in much improvements. The B737-600 has booked only 76 orders until now! The B737-600 is definitely a shrink too far....
Brons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
They didn't make that many 735's either. Clearly, this is a market that should be left to the 717. However, if they were really hell bent on having a marketable 737 in the 100 seat range, they should slap the 500 wing back on there. It won't happen though, too expensive for too little return.
I'm not convinced of the need for a 100 seater with transcon range. The economics just don't make sense, even with the new larger RJ's. CASM will be high as compared to the 73G and 738.
Regarding the 100 seat market, maybe, as some have noted, they should have snapped up the F/D 728 when it was going for fire-sale prices.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
Beltwaybandit From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
I do not think any manufacturer has a lot of "fat" in their designs. It is SO competitive and every penny counts.
I think that the 6-across fuselage and the basic hardware needed to support it, create inefficiencies as they get shorter and shorter. You still need the whole landing gear, the whole cockpit, tail structure, wings. Cutting out a fuselage plug just doesn't reduce weight enough. The long 'n' skinnies (EMB 190 and 717) are really in there sweet spot with 100-110 seats.