Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 737 Replacements: Fat Boy And Little Boy  
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16323 times:

An article from the Times (UK). Boeing is in talks with customers to ascertain what they want in a 737 replacement and confirms that it will be a composite fuselage. The rumored 2-fuselage approach is still very much alive:

Quote:
The 737 is on its ninth variation, but, at heart, is more than 40 years old. It is also under pressure from Airbus’s newer A320, and Boeing has decided that the 737 needs an overhaul.

The Times understands that two early prototypes have been drawn up: a wider, twin-aisle version and a shorter, single-aisle jet. These have been dubbed Fat Boy and Little Boy.

There remains a big market for smaller city-hopper flights and Boeing is unlikely to leave this to Airbus or Bombardier and Embraer, which have traditionally built sub100 seat aircraft. A second, shorter 737 with up to 150 seats could therefore be launched to fill this gap.

Doug McVitie, of Arran Aero-space, said of the 737: “Airlines love this plane and Boeing has to keep that interest.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ors/engineering/article1499824.ece

102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16285 times:

In business terms Boeing are in such an INCREDIBLY strong position. Positive cash flow assured for years, all-composite fuselage technology close to being proven out, every existing and 'under-development' model selling well, R & D resources soon to be freed up as the 787 moves into the assembly/testing stage.......

Even if they could solve the 'political interference' problem tomorrow, what on EARTH can Airbus do from here?

[Edited 2007-03-12 05:02:37]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineWestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16246 times:

I can't wait for this program to reach the production stage! It would be great to see Boeing advance another step ahead of it's competitors. This will give Boeing a strong edge against Airbus, who would be stupid to try to advance their 150-200 seat products, in the state that they are in.

Will This Aircraft look anything like the 737 has in the past, and up till now, or will it be completely revamped?

Cheers
Carson



Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1962 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16214 times:

Quote:
Mr McNerney has also confirmed that the new 737, which will appear in the middle of the next decade,...

Assuming Boeing is on time any slips by Airbus could result in it arriving about the same time are the currently planned A350.

*Please note both are best/worst case assumptions and not any comment of expectation of said events.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16161 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
Even if they could solve the 'political interference' problem tomorrow, what on EARTH can Airbus do from here?

I'm still hesitant to the idea of two fuselage diameters, but I will admit that a two-family approach to replacing the 737NG would put a tremendous burden on Airbus. They either scrap the A320 and follow Boeing or they risk being cornered into a substantially smaller piece of the market. I see NO way around that much...

If the 777 and 787 were the one-two punch, this sort of 737NG replacement could be punches three, four, five, and six.

Quoting WestJetYQQ (Reply 2):
Will This Aircraft look anything like the 737 has in the past, and up till now, or will it be completely revamped?

If Boeing proceeds with the two-family replacement, the 737 heritage will almost certainly be abandoned.

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
An article from the Times (UK). Boeing is in talks with customers to ascertain what they want in a 737 replacement and confirms that it will be a composite fuselage. The rumored 2-fuselage approach is still very much alive:

The temp of news emerging about the 737 replacement, while still limited in detail, would suggest that Boeing is actively engaged in pre-launch studies and evaluations. I will place my hot-sports opinion now: no later than 2014, Southwest Airlines will be operating a new-generation of short-haul aircraft.  Wink


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15986 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
I'm still hesitant to the idea of two fuselage diameters, but I will admit that a two-family approach to replacing the 737NG would put a tremendous burden on Airbus. They either scrap the A320 and follow Boeing or they risk being cornered into a substantially smaller piece of the market. I see NO way around that much...

I could see a 2 fuse / 2 or 3 wing setup with common cockpit, APU, etc being a formidable seller. The 5 across small diameter fuse could cover the 120-170 pax range, with the smallest wing for short range, the middle wing for long range, and the large wing for very long range. The larger diameter (6 abreast and wider aisle) would use the middle and large wing to cover the 150 - 220 range of the current 737-800, 900 and 757 models.

The first model launched would be the one that WN wants. However, EIS for the full range of models would be over like 6 years. I could see also that the initial model overlay may be such that the 737 could remain in production if say the new models straddle the 737-700 or -800


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12323 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15922 times:

Since Bombardier have a lot of experience in the field of short haul, small airliners, wouldn't it make sense for Boeing and Bombardier to work together on Bombardier's new C-series aircraft? This seems to be around the size of Boeing's proposed "little boy" model.

I'm sure that mutual co-operation could make this a very successful aircraft, with Boeing providing a cockpit design which would give the type commonality with existing (and planned) Boeing models.

(In any case, do Boeing and Bombardier not have some relationship; I thought Boeing had bought de Havilland Canada a few years ago; I don't follow Canadian aviation that closely, so I'm not clear how Bombardier came into the picture. I always associate them with Dublin buses!)


User currently offlineBWIA 772 From Barbados, joined May 2002, 2200 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15892 times:

Can any of you remember sometime ago Boeing applying for a patent on a twin ailse jet under 200 seats. Check the following link

[Edited 2007-03-12 07:31:40]


Eagles Soar!
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1962 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 15873 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
(In any case, do Boeing and Bombardier not have some relationship; I thought Boeing had bought de Havilland Canada a few years ago; I don't follow Canadian aviation that closely, so I'm not clear how Bombardier came into the picture. I always associate them with Dublin buses!)

Boeing sold DeHaviland to Bombardier.


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15827 times:

Quoting BoomBoom (Thread starter):
These have been dubbed Fat Boy and Little Boy.

For accuracy's sake, shouldn't this be "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."?


Regards,

Hamlet69  profile 



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 429 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15767 times:

So 18 months from now Boeing is openly promoting the new B797 family. The B787 is in service and Boeing has resources freed up to devote to what will arguably be its most important offering for the next two decades or so. Airlines start lining up to buy this new aircraft - and B737 and A320 sales go soft as the world's airlines move on to new technology. What is Airbus to do - suggest reengining the A320? They will still have 5 years worth of A350XWB development to digest - adding one or two more projects would seem unrealistic. Why does it already seem that the A350 fiasco is going to repeat itself? Airbus seems to be playing the airliner game like my brother plays chess - thinking only of the current move.

User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15729 times:

One might note it took 4 years 1 month for boeing to go from a board decision to do the 737NG, to delivering the first 737NG to WN.

I'm expecting the 737RS to arrive no later than 2012 for WN, and as such will soundly beat the A350 program on EIS. More importantly given the lack of info on just what the A320E really entails and gives the customers... The 737RS might just match or beat it on being officially announced.


User currently offlineMakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 15638 times:

I wonder if I can get any royalties for suggesting this approach six months ago....

http://www.airliners.net/discussions...d=3001997&s=MakeMinesLAX#ID3001997


User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2530 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15612 times:

I think some of you may be missing the point. Boeing has two different ideas going around - the twin aisle and the single aisle - but I doubt they would go ahead and make both at the same time. They are just two different ideas circulating to see which one the airlines like best. My money would be on the twin aisle in shorter and longer versions to cover most of the segments already covered by the current 737. But with a new fuselage diameter, new length, new engines, and new systems and avionics, it won't be a new 737, but rather a new plane to fill the 737's (large) niche.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15557 times:

Based on past history - 737-6 and A-318 - I don't think a single width fuse would be very efficient, could they use the same wings? If one a/c is shorter, would not a seperate wing set be more efficient, than a larger wing essentially "downsized" for a shorter a/c? Probably better to have two seperate a/c as masters in their own domain rather than a jack of all trades, one fuse width for 2x2x2 seating - fat and "longer" and another smaller "shorter" 2x2 with wings optimized for each, could the same engine work for both?

User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15550 times:

Quoting HAL (Reply 13):
I think some of you may be missing the point. Boeing has two different ideas going around - the twin aisle and the single aisle

Boeings problem is that WN will want a 149 seat at 32-33" pitch single class arrangement, as will most of the other current 737-800 customers. They will also want it to go as far into the gap between the current 737 and 787, so it would not surprise me if they push it as far as 249 seats in a reasonable pitch. That alone is a huge huge range to cover. However there is the sub 737-800 market, which is where a second frame at 5 abreast comes in. replaces all the people who only have a 737-700 because the 737-600 is retarded, and the MD-80/DC-9 has as of yet no real replacement. So its not a case of they are thinking of one or the other, but how big should the big one be, and if they should make a DC-9/MD-80 replacement with some commonality to it


User currently offlineAxio From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15465 times:

Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 9):
For accuracy's sake, shouldn't this be "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."?

Well spotted.....
I'm not sure naming aircraft after atomic bombs is the greatest marketing strategy out there....



Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3901 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15309 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 15):
Boeings problem is that WN will want a 149 seat at 32-33" pitch single class arrangement, as will most of the other current 737-800 customers.

Just a small point, WN operate the 737-700, not the -800. The -800 fits 189 at the max. Im not sure many operators operate teh 737-700 because the 736 is a "retarded" aircraft. The market that boeing would be targeting with the five abrest would be sub-700, not sub -800.

Two wings and two diameters could really make sense, Boeing will have seen the success that Embraer is having on the 70-100 seat market with its E-Jets. What is also quite clear is that as that a single platform will not be able to repace the DC-9 AND the 757 in one go. Just a few short years ago the 757 would not have needed a successor, beacuse the 737-900ER would have done just fine, but with the move of 757s to trans cons and t/a routes the 757 WILL need replacement.

Maybe two wings might just do the trick?



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15241 times:

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 17):
Just a small point, WN operate the 737-700, not the -800. The -800 fits 189 at the max. Im not sure many operators operate teh 737-700 because the 736 is a "retarded" aircraft. The market that boeing would be targeting with the five abrest would be sub-700, not sub -800.

I'm very sure WN will be going for a larger aircraft than the 737-700 with the 737RS. 149Y gives them the same crew requirements, but 12 more paying seats. Lower trip costs than their current 737's mean the up size does NOT hurt them when loads are low like some of the routes. More over WN will have 737-300, 500, and 700 for a long while to come, so Its not like they won't have a couple decades to phase out the older and smaller planes. Though I bet the 500's leave ASAP along with the oldest of the 300's.

The fact that many if not most who operate both the 737-700 and 737-800 opt for only the 800 in later orders is telling where the 737 is best sized at.


User currently offlinePEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15239 times:

Quoting Axio (Reply 16):
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 9):
For accuracy's sake, shouldn't this be "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."?

Well spotted.....
I'm not sure naming aircraft after atomic bombs is the greatest marketing strategy out there....

Especially if you have a large Japanese market on the table  Yeah sure



Peet7G
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15232 times:

Two different fuselages isn't that going to make development more costly and complex. The one tube fuselage seems to work with most aircraft designs why change or are there in reality going to offer two clearly different aircraft like 7x7 and 7y7.

User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15199 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 20):
two clearly different aircraft like 7x7 and 7y7.

yes, you can offer two different aircraft that however have massive commonality. The major structures may be different, but sharing engine family, APU's, interior fittings, cockpits, and other major hardware makes it far cheaper to design, build, and operate the two compared to two completely different aircraft.

Think 757/767, but pushed even farther for commonality from just type rating to actual parts content


User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 15169 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 21):
yes, you can offer two different aircraft that however have massive commonality.

Is there a danger here of Boeing creating a new category of jet between thw regionals and the 150-170 market, could we see more piloting issues here. Where would the little boy fit lets call the new cat "remain" regional/main then the pilots can decide to move or "remain" where they are. ooops now we have a terminorogy problem, HOUSTON, HOUSTON!


User currently offlineTsnamm From United States of America, joined May 2005, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15025 times:

Quoting Axio (Reply 16):
I'm not sure naming aircraft after atomic bombs is the greatest marketing strategy out there....



Quoting PEET7G (Reply 19):
Especially if you have a large Japanese market on the table

Bingo...I think new monikers are needed immediately! Besides the fact the connection of a plane being a bomb( literally and figuratively).


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6681 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 14966 times:

Quoting Axio (Reply 16):
I'm not sure naming aircraft after atomic bombs is the greatest marketing strategy out there....

They might just be figuring on blowing the competition away.
Actually, when you consider that the 787 is larger than the 767 this leaves 3 models to be replaced; the 737, 757, and 767. I can easily see how they would do better with 2 diameters to cover this range.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
25 LH452 : I recently read that Boeing had postponed the planned introduction of the 737RS to 2015/16. This puts a Boeing intro at about the same time as Airbus.
26 XT6Wagon : no there was some wild speculation about the timing, but boeing said 'when the engines are ready' and GE shortly after said definitely by 2012. The G
27 ATCGOD : Which is why I thought for sure they'd postpone the A350. It's a short term fix with long term consequences just to be "competitive". They should hav
28 Tangowhisky : It seems plausible. Do you have the source of this statement?
29 FriendlySkies : This sounds like a new 757/767 project, perhaps with even more commonality. Boeing would have an almost unbeatable line up with a narrowbody with 100-
30 SEPilot : Yes, I think they would. It would be kind of weird to have two different widths share the ame designation.
31 KSUpilot : This could be a good approach for Boeing. The smaller model would be quite similar to the An-148 (a very nice aircraft that could be a hit if it were
32 AirFrnt : Don't assume that Airbus is out by any stretch of the imagination. Political interference has a benefit, it opens up the coffers of the governments i
33 Tangowhisky : Good point. Add to the list CO and possibly DL who have older 737s. Across the pond, LH needs to replace its 737 Classics and A300s. BA will eventual
34 DAYflyer : Especially with JAPANESE customers like JAL, ANA, etc... Yes, they will retire these first and place an order of 100 or so to cover it.
35 1337Delta764 : Actually, DL has retired their older 737s, the 737-200s and 737-300s. However, Delta will be looking towards a replacement for their MD-88s, MD-90s,
36 KSUpilot : And further down the road, AirTran will want to replace their 717 and 737 fleet. Fat Boy and Little Boy will work perfectly for them.
37 Kbdude : Is it possible for BOEING to EIS the 737RS by say... 2013? can we speculate possiblities? Program anouncement? late 2008? Industrial launch? Mid 2009
38 Stitch : Probably. But will sufficient advances be on hand to make it worth EISing it that early?
39 DfwRevolution : That would require a board decision in the next twelve months, which seems highly unlikely unless Boeing reveals the 737RS program in the next few mo
40 Kbdude : I agree. Engines hold the key to EIS. . However, just imagine the pressure that would put on BOEING's NB competitors to match a similar EIS or fear l
41 Post contains images Areopagus : Maybe they would get some positive attention if they took the anti-nuclear route and called it the "No Bikini Atoll".
42 Tangowhisky : I believe that many 737 Classic (backlog) orders were converted to NGs when the NGs were launched. The same could be done here. In fact, I would not
43 Silentbob : Or pander to pop culture and call them fat bastard and mini-me
44 Post contains images Planemaker : No, the CSeries will be "old tech" compared to the 737 replacement. And BBD is an integrator... just like Boeing - so they compete, not complement ea
45 JAAlbert : I agree. Airbus will do what ever it takes to stay in the game. The 320 is Airbus' bread and butter and has a huge following of avid fans. Many of th
46 Silentbob : Thanks for the clarification, I was not aware the OPG's role.
47 Atmx2000 : Well, it could be problematic if Boeing is working with Japanese suppliers like on the 787, but it should be said that there is no large Japanese mar
48 Post contains images DfwRevolution : I did? I think you have me confused with someone else.
49 BoomBoom : Looks like a Can they match the technology of a monolithic composite fuselage barrel, instead of sticking composite panels on an aluminum frame? They
50 Osiris30 : I think that was me arguing with DFW... and I wouldn't say 'drying up'... more like vaporized LOL. But that's not to say that Boeing hasn't possibly
51 Post contains images Planemaker : Vaporized??? 2003 - 197 2004 - 152 2005 - 574 2006 - 733
52 KYAir : Neither AA nor DL will replace all that needs replacing in the next few years. It will no doubt take at a minimum 12-15 years (and that's from the da
53 Planemaker : No one has said, nor is saying, "in the next few years." Why 12-15 years for fewer than 300 Mad Dogs????
54 Rheinbote : My crystal ball suggests first flight in the first half of 2013. In the light of a prospective 350-1000, something has to be done towards a 777 repla
55 KYAir : My "in the next few years" comment was directed at the estimate (within this thread) of the 737 replacement being in service by 2012-2013. 5 to 6 yea
56 Planemaker : But Boeing is saying 2014-15. Nevertheless, AA does not need "12-15 years" since AA said that they are not waiting for the 737 replacement and AA cou
57 Post contains images Osiris30 : 2007 - in the low teens (IIRC) for the first 2 months.. from 733 to on pace for 60 is vaporized.. Funny I say one thing the Airbus nuts kill me, I sa
58 SirOmega : Atomic bombs to drop on Airbus perhaps.. Anyways, I wonder if the break for the big and little airframes was at 150 seats, if WN would go with the 150
59 XT6Wagon : I think one has been made. Now its time to talk to customers ASAP to get feedback on the basic ideas and get them locked in. Then before the end of t
60 Post contains images Planemaker : Nothing to do with one manufacturer or the other... orders are never streaming at a constant rate... 2 months does not a year make, so vaporized is a
61 Tangowhisky : Why was AA not a taker on the C Series? BBD would have loved to have AA as a customer to help launch the program. Had BBD signed them up in say 2005,
62 DfwRevolution : Tap the brakes. Boeing did not sell one single, solitary 777 or 787 during January 2006 - February 2006. By the end of the year, Boeing sold 77 777 a
63 Tugger : Because at 30 per year that would be a cost of let say $2 billion (WAG of $65 million/copy) per year for 10 years. I dunno but that sounds like a goo
64 Planemaker : Aside from the fact that 2005 was too early in the CSeries development for AA to contemplate placing an order, the CSeries went up to only 130 seats
65 Tugger : If you have two fuse it will the the wider one that deterimines where the cut is: What is the shortest viable version they can make of the wider one.
66 Post contains images Tugger : Well I must admit that I am assuming there will be growth. The way your post read (to me at least) it seemed you were suggesting they would do it all
67 Post contains images Glideslope : You are wise grasshopper.
68 Tangowhisky : Perhaps due to handling qualities this may be required. But I would expect that there will be commonality in controls, indications, etc. to the 777,
69 XT6Wagon : You place it exactly where WN tells you too. They want quick turn times and maximum hours in the air per day, so 149Y with their larger pitch is wher
70 Post contains images Osiris30 : True and please don't take that as an absolute statement that 737 sales will not show up this year. But the first couple of months have been truly di
71 1337Delta764 : If I were Boeing, here is what I would offer: 797 - Narrowbody fuselage in a 5-abreast (2-3) configuration: 797-7 - Replacement for the 717 and 737-60
72 DfwRevolution : Then don't make statements like you made. For the n-th time: totally irrelevant. January and February are slow months for the 737NG and nothing more.
73 Osiris30 : I'm going to do what the forum suggests and take the high-road here. I would however suggest that you aren't the 'king of the forums' and I'm entitle
74 XT6Wagon : I disagree, while i think composite barrels will make it so that one cross section can be used effectively for a larger range of sizes, in the end, y
75 Airbus3801 : Do not be so quick to underestimate Airbus' inability to respond to a new A/C. Everyone thought when Airbus was doing wonderful that it could spell th
76 Osiris30 : Who is everyone? I'm intrigued by this. I think most folks on a.net other than die-hard A or B supporters would argue the two aircraft are fairly com
77 Tangowhisky : If you said that 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, I would agree. In this day and age of being green, pushing the efficiency envelope, especially to c
78 Ken777 : I would be very surprised if Boeing hasn't been talking to the major 737 customers for quite a while. I'd bet that shortly after Boeing started takin
79 Post contains images Atmx2000 : The problem is the small delta in OEW between the 736 and the 737 IMO, combined with a sizable drop in MTOW. Without a bigger decrease in OEW, operat
80 Atmx2000 : The danger for Airbus is that a substantially more capable 737 replacement could make airlines unwilling to take A320s at current prices, lest they b
81 XT6Wagon : no doubt, I think that is phase one... where WN and some others with big checkbooks "talk AT Boeing" as it were. They send in what they want, and ask
82 Silentbob : I think Airbus will announce something to try and take the sting away but actually having the resources available to offer essentially two new aircra
83 Lemurs : The big Y1 question, to my mind, is how do you get the distributed manufacturing up to those kinds of output levels reliably. It's one thing to be fly
84 Post contains images Airbus3801 : I mean the terms of sales with anew 737 not in technical/performance aspects. By the way, 1,000th post on A.net
85 Osiris30 : Well the reality of the situation is, Boeing could make something 50x better than the 320 and the 320 would still sell because Boeing couldn't make e
86 Post contains images Tugger : I still believe that WN will want just one type but I don't see how Boeing will be able to do that with just one design. Without any true knowledge o
87 Post contains images Planemaker : How many narrowbodies do you think that Airbus or Boeing are pumping out a month... already!! No it isn't. As noted above, Boeing is already producin
88 Lemurs : You're not following me here. Boeing will push to product Y1 with the same kind of large-part distributed manufacturing process in use now for the 78
89 Tangowhisky : It's simple. Let's get back to Southwest's fundementals: "keep the CASMs down" and "avoid operational complexity". Southwest keeps its CASMs low not
90 Planemaker : I am... but you are incorrect about current 737 production and future Y1 production. FYI, that already exists on the 737 with the entire fuse deliver
91 N1120A : Newer? The 737NG is a newer aircraft than the A320. The A320 had to catch up to it for Avionics. The 737NG's wing is more advanced. The 737NG's engin
92 Revelation : Isn't this what Airbus is doing with A320 now? Wings from England, tail from Spain and France, fuse from Germany, nose from France, all being put tog
93 Pygmalion : Who needs a Beluga.... the 737 or similar height Y1 will fit in a 747SCF by only simply a swing tail to a 747F. the solution is already flying and ea
94 XT6Wagon : Problem is that I've gone over why they WILL NOT remain with the 137seat format with the 737RS. It boils down to the 149Y configuration is what they
95 Ken777 : Part of that problem may be solved when Boeing sits down to negotiate new union contracts. The union side of that table will be very aware of the 787
96 JayinKitsap : Some thoughts: The current 737 lines will still run for many years, I would expect at least 5 years after the EIS of the 737RS. Currently there are 4
97 XT6Wagon : with composite construction they can do it with just a bit more cross section than the A320. Which is why I think they will do it. Certainly the fact
98 Planemaker : Did you look at the 737's current supplier breakdown? There is no way that Boeing will be bringing that structures work back in-house. But it won't b
99 XT6Wagon : yah, I was mostly trying to say that If WN asked for something as stupid as a twin aisle 737-700, Boeing would likely refuse unless the inital order
100 BoomBoom : As I understand, the current 737 fuselage just barely fits under bridges when it travels by rail, so if they go with a taller fuselage it may not be
101 XT6Wagon : its actuary the width, used to be 2 or 3 bridges where they would have to "walk" the train through with people watching the cars as any problems with
102 Planemaker : While perhaps not optimal, a twin aisle 73G relaplacement is not really what one can call "something stupid." Besides, as pointed out earlier by some
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA And The 737 Fleet posted Wed Dec 27 2006 11:45:50 by Solnabo
CO And The B-737 posted Mon Dec 18 2006 15:41:04 by Jetskipper
Midway #1 And The 737-200 posted Mon May 15 2006 15:21:10 by 7E72004
The New US Airways And The 737-400s posted Thu Mar 9 2006 19:43:41 by United777ORD
Vaporware Order - Lion Air And The 737 posted Wed Jan 4 2006 20:56:42 by Clickhappy
FL And Wendys Create A Drive-thru For The 737 posted Tue Nov 15 2005 03:54:50 by Nosedive
Fat People And The Law posted Mon Nov 7 2005 20:56:21 by Pope
Gmtv / Helios And The Future Of The 737 posted Tue Aug 16 2005 20:02:57 by Goinv
Southampton And The 737? posted Mon Apr 11 2005 12:22:19 by Vsa340
UA And The 737-700 posted Fri Nov 19 2004 22:00:08 by United4EverDEN