Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Talks About The 737NG Plus  
User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 4
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16289 times:

During the recent year or so as Boeing has pushed the 737RS further away untill 2017-2019 time frame. Because of this there have been more and more talks about an enhanced 737-700 called 737-700+ Both airlines and Boeing have been talking about this plane, without saying anything firm about what kind of upgrades they might introduce for the 737NG.

That is why I thought it would be a good idea to start a thread about what kind of updates Boeing might introduce on the 737NG. Already the 737NG delivered today are a much better performer than the ones delivered 10 years ago. Winglets, no "eye brows!" and carbon fiber brakes as well as some avionics upgrades make it a very competitive plane.

So what could Boeing do give the NG another update that will make it competitive for another 10-12 years. There have been loose talks updating the interior, introducing aerodynamic efficiencies developed for the P8 Poseidon. How much could they easily improve the aerodynamics and how much can they gain on this? Can they still make the structure lighter or is it as efficient as it can be? (Without developing a whole new airplane)

And what about the engines? CFM has an upgrade package that just has become available. The Leap-X will be ready in 2016 so I wonder how much CFM will invest in upgrading the current generation beyond what is currently being done.

With the launched Cseries coming online in 2013 Boeing should be pushing for an 737NG update.


Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29700 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 16073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With some airlines finding the trip costs between a 73G and 738 to be effectively identical, they are shifting their 73G slots to 738. Boeing likely doesn't care since the 738 brings in more money, but with the C series now looking to eventually threaten the 73G, I can see Boeing (and Airbus with the A319) looking to try and improve the model.

User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15957 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
With some airlines finding the trip costs between a 73G and 738 to be effectively identical, they are shifting their 73G slots to 738.

Yeah, can you imagine the complete orders for 738 has almost twice as many as the 73G. Things have changed since the 737 Classics  Smile

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
but with the C series now looking to eventually threaten the 73G, I can see Boeing (and Airbus with the A319) looking to try and improve the model.

They should indeed see if they can offer some improvements. Maybe the A318 and 736 would benefit from this as well. But what can they do?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 15845 times:

Boeing and airbus will be pushed out of the 737-6/700 and A318/319 segment unless they come up with a different aircraft that is less in common with the 737/A320. It needs to be smaller and lighter much like the CSeries.

As for updates maybe make the gear a little longer so CFM engines could be installed which alone would improve a lot


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 15567 times:

Obviously two areas where you would look to improve the 737NG would be weight and the engines.

Weight:

Replace some parts of the aircraft with composite materials, ala 787.

Engines: ?...



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineBWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15447 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
As for updates maybe make the gear a little longer so CFM engines could be installed which alone would improve a lot

Are you talking about the higher-thrust CFMs a la A340, or the LeapX?

If the former, I can't see that being good for fuel burn, unless you stretch it out to reduce the overall CASM... that seems like it would put it into the 738/9 territory. I can't see that happening.

If the latter, I would agree.



Regards, Brad Williams
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15335 times:

You can be certain that engineers at Boeing are looking at threads like this and if someone makes a good suggestion, it might just spark a trade study and end up on the plane.  Smile I love creative threads like this.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
introducing aerodynamic efficiencies developed for the P8 Poseidon. How much could they easily improve the aerodynamics and how much can they gain on this?

While there are aerodynamic efficiency imporovements made for the P8A, it has a lot to do with where that plane will fly. The P8A will not be climbing and cruising at 37,000ft. That plane has to be able to fly a few hundred feet above the ocean if it is chasing a submarine. The aero loads are very different.

Quoting OyKIE (Thread starter):
Can they still make the structure lighter or is it as efficient as it can be? (Without developing a whole new airplane)

Weight is always a major factor. There are always places where weight can be reduced. However changes often lead to weight increases in aviation. One thing the 737 has going for it is that it has a lot of carry over parts from the 60s that are perfectly capable, but if they were to be redesigned, might end up getting heavier due to stricter certification requirements.

[Edited 2008-08-02 13:49:27]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15229 times:



Quoting BWilliams (Reply 5):

I'm sorry I meant to type GTF but was looking at CMF when I typed it so that's what came out


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15222 times:



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Boeing and airbus will be pushed out of the 737-6/700 and A318/319 segment unless they come up with a different aircraft that is less in common with the 737/A320. It needs to be smaller and lighter much like the CSeries.

 checkmark 

Note below my post on C130ER versus B73G in the technical forum.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233398/

Note below an updated summary of estimated technical specifications:
C130ER B737-700
OEW 81,600 83,000
MTOW 139,000 153,000
MZFW 118,100 120,500
MSP 36,500 37,500 (Max. Structural Payload)
Range 2,950 3,000 (Max. Design Range in nm at 225 lb./passenger)

Let me present each aircraft under the assumption of a 2,200 nm (LAX-JFK) mission:
C130ER cargo 6,297 lbs, trip fuel burned 2,942 gallons.
B737 cargo 8,100 lbs, trip fuel burned 4,129 gallons.

C130ER burns less fuel for the trip, saving about $4,700 in fuel cost. This saving may be offset by the potential of additional passenger (10 Y seats) and cargo revenue (1,803 lbs) of 737-700 for this mission length. Again, it seems unlikely that the B737 can overcome the fuel savings of C130ER with additional seats/cargo.

The C130ER should save about $3.5 million in fuel costs over the B737-700.


User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 747 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 14534 times:

You know, when I think and hear the letter "C" paired up with the number "130" I think of that old smokey C-130 transport...

I've never heard of the C130, but I like the numbers on the fuel savings. How soon before they're at an airport near us?



Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14273 times:

I seem to recall that Boeing considered a CFRP wing and wingbox back in the 90s when they were doing trade studies for the 737NG. They obviously got left on the sidelines, but perhaps now might be the time to go back and revisit the idea if they will continue manufacturing the 737 for another 8-10 years. Airbus redesigned a number of wing structures in CFRP for the A340-500/600 which itself was a "half-generation" step up from the original A340.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14139 times:

737NG+ won't compete as well with A319GTF. Boeing may force Airbus's hand, which forces Boeing's hand to then go with 797, which then may force Airbus's hand to go full hog on the A320NG improvements beyond engines.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2229 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 14042 times:

Well since they are talking about a 737-700"Plus", do you think WN might play a vital role in this? or will a fleet of the 73NG Plus be considered a sub fleet?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAlangirvan From New Zealand, joined Nov 2000, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13851 times:

What do you see a Plus plane doing? 737NGs are expected to fly longer sectors than Classic 737s. With Leap56 or GTF engines the aircraft will still have to do multiple short sectors in one day - WN will want a plane that flies DAL-HOU and starts every time. This must be a bigger priority than coast to coast flights.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13274 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
737NG+ won't compete as well with A319GTF. Boeing may force Airbus's hand, which forces Boeing's hand to then go with 797, which then may force Airbus's hand to go full hog on the A320NG improvements beyond engines.

My calculations indicate the following for a 2,000 nm trip:
B73G 3,800 gallons fuel burn
B737NG 3,400 gallons
B797 3,100 gallons

C130ER 2,700 gallons.

I expect the 5-abreast C130ER(130 seats) to have a GSM(gallon seat mile) that is lower by about 6% than B797.

The 797, however, will gain a range advantage of about 800 nm over the C130ER; it will also be able to carry its max. structural payload to around 2,900 nm--again about 800 nm farther than the C130ER.

If Boeing plans to focus on the 175-275 seat range with its 797 series, then the shorter 797-700(140 seats) may not be a competitive aircraft against C130ER for routes less than 2,300 nm.


User currently offlineORDagent From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

I think one of the deciding factors for this iteration of the 737 is WN. When they order, they order BIG. They've been the launch customer before and why not now? I realize that right now isn't the best of times for even WN. However they need to look forward as the market will correct itself to be stable again.

User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12444 posts, RR: 100
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
but with the C series now looking to eventually threaten the 73G, I can see Boeing (and Airbus with the A319) looking to try and improve the model.

The C150, when/if it comes out, will be a tremendous threat. Fuel costs are too high to ignore the potential savings.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 4):
Engines: ?...

For the 737, there really isn't a great engine ready to go in. We're 5 years out to a new powerplant, so expect upgrades to the CFM-56.

The #1 change is likely to be an IBR compressor (integrated blade rotor) with minor improvements throughout the engine. There really is only a little fuel improvement left as long as the 60.5" fan diameter is kept.

Boeing and Airbus delaying their single isle launches is giving Bombardier a nice entry window. Now lets see what they make of it.

Lightsaber



I've posted how many times?!?
User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13139 times:

AA's CEO said he was waiting for a new technology type to start replacing its MD80's en-masse...for now, AA is just getting 738's while Boeing / Airbus come up with a new type...interesting. In my opinion, I guess AA has waited too long to replace its older MD80's. Too late especially with the price of jet fuel. I bet they regret it now.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 13002 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 16):
The C150, when/if it comes out, will be a tremendous threat. Fuel costs are too high to ignore the potential savings.

 checkmark 
The hypothetical C150ER(150 seats) burns 1,100 gallons less than the current B738(175) on a 2,000 nm trip while carrying about the same cargo.

However, the B798(B738 replacement) should close the gap nicely by burning only 400 gallons more than the C150ER, while carrying additional 25Y seats. That's about $65 additional fuel cost for each of the additional 25 seats.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9385 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11895 times:

I think people are reading too far into what the C series might be able to do. I know LAXDESI has posted numbers multiple times, but it isn't so clear that the C series beats the 737 by so far. Boeing isn't just sitting and watching a better plane be produced. Boeing always strives to produce the most efficient and cheapest to operate planes in the world that have the highest dispatch reliability and are the most comfortable.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21420 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 11763 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 14):
If Boeing plans to focus on the 175-275 seat range with its 797 series, then the shorter 797-700(140 seats) may not be a competitive aircraft against C130ER for routes less than 2,300 nm.

I don't see Boeing building a 140 seat aircraft. The smallest would be 149 seats (single class, 73G size), then 189 seats (738 size), then 239 seats (larger than a 752/739). The 738 and 757 replacements would be offered in transcon and TATL versions, and the 73G replecement in transcon and a possible lightened regional version with C-Series range and shorter wings, but I'm not sure how practical that would be.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5322 posts, RR: 30
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11631 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 8):
C130ER B737-700
OEW 81,600 83,000

Where are you getting these weights from? It strikes me as odd that the OEW of the CSeries is only 1400 pounds lighter than the 73G. What does the 736 weigh? Common ANet lore would lead us to believe that the 736, being a shrink, is way too heavy for it's role. With these numbers, it should be lighter than the CSeries. This would mean all these planes would need is taller gear and GTF engines and they would be at least as efficient as the CSeries.

So either the CSeries is relying almost exclusively on the engines for efficiency gains and will have, essentially, no weight advantage or the 737's, of any size, very tough to beat...over a decade after the NG's EIS.



What the...?
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11560 times:

It would be interesting to go along the lines of the 748. Keep the overall design the same but make improvements in weight, engines, avionics, (don't really need to change length), and most importantly allow for a GTF engine to be installed. This will minimize costs while allowing the 737 to remain competitive until the Y1 can be announced. Boeing will not screw up the Y1 just to get it out early, but they also won't let their best selling line get run out buy the competitors. but they need to act quickly so they can have a 737NG+ (wow that's going to get annoying)

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11560 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
It strikes me as odd that the OEW of the CSeries is only 1400 pounds lighter than the 73G.

Remember that C130ER is about 125 feet long, and the B73G is only 110 feet long. The fuselage width of C130ER is 11.44 feet, its 12.33 for B73G. The cabin area of C130ER is 4% larger than that of B73G.

For a detailed analysis, read my thread on C130ER versus B73G analysis in the technical forum.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/233398/


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3050 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 11491 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 17):
In my opinion, I guess AA has waited too long to replace its older MD80's. Too late especially with the price of jet fuel. I bet they regret it now.

Hmmm... only if the cost of fuel + maintenance on the paid-for MD-80s outweighs the cost of purchase price + (somewhat lesser) cost of fuel + (less initial) maintenance on brand new 738s.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
25 Post contains links LAXDESI : I have a new thread in the technical forum exploring the possibilty of a twin aisle NB replacement with staggered seating. This could replace 737/757/
26 JoeCanuck : How would the RS achieve superior burn? If only engines, then couldn't they also be fitted to the NG?
27 EA772LR : Isn't the fact that the GEnx/Trent1000's BPR is nearly double that of the CF6/PW4000/Trent500/700 that makes the new gen engines much more efficient?
28 Ikramerica : The engine is already part of the problem, and the GTF with a proper HBR fan would not fit no matter what Boeing tried. And while I think the 748 is
29 HercPPMX : HEY..... Lets Play Nice Here. Would It Be possible for boeing to save weight by redesigning the interior of the 737 to use more CFRP on the wall pane
30 Virtual : What exactly is "staggered seating"? Is there a diagram available anywhere to illustrate?
31 Post contains links HercPPMX : http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/ts_economy.html
32 Post contains links HercPPMX : http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/ts_economy.html
33 Post contains links Revelation : Unlike most of the rest of the legacies, AA didn't take a trip through bankruptcy to dump debt so it could be looking at a replacement plan sooner. I
34 CAL764 : From the site: "With seats pitched at 30" the window passenger can now get to the aisle without the middle and aisle passengers having to get out of
35 Ikramerica : Movie theater style seats, from what I understand.
36 CAL764 : Correct me if I'm wrong, but a per-seat-mile cost reduction of /- 24% is certainly enough to make any Boeing engineer to actively consider running yo
37 RoseFlyer : Or to think that they are unrealistic at this point in time. 24% is a huge gain.
38 LAXDESI : The 739RS GSM numbers are with staggered seating, and the numbers for 739ER are with conventional seating. Part of the 24% reduction is GSM is driven
39 XT6Wagon : I was looking at the numbers. The length to get 149 in WN configuration is so close to the floor length needed to match the 738 floor length that I t
40 Ikramerica : ??? The numbers I give are nominal, not specific to an airline. WN has 33-34" pitch, so they don't fit 149. But the 73G is a 149 seater, the 738 is a
41 DL767captain : But the 737 update would not be following the model of the 748, there isn't something bigger like the A380 competing against it or a 77W that could d
42 OyKIE : Thank you. Even though it is a quote from a series of articles where Boeing them self talks about an enhanced version of the current 737NG. That is t
43 BrightCedars : My opinion is that in the future A & B will come up with a family of narrow-body single aisle aircraft that span the 150-250 capacity, and forget abou
44 BooDog : This is what you will see in the 737NG; I don't see Boeing spending hundreds of millions of research dollars to bring out another 737. They will add
45 BlueSky1976 : My opinion: this is a smoke-and-mirrors tactic developed by Boeing sales team (read New Randy & Co.) in order to hurt potential customer interest in C
46 XT6Wagon : The 737 classic was built along side the NG for many years. The 737NG (or NG+) will be built along side the 737RS for many years when that happens. T
47 BlueSky1976 : Nowhere in my post I have suggested that 73G's production will be stopped the minute 737RS goes into production. I was referring strictly to this spe
48 Ikramerica : You can't raise the gear that much. Well, unless you had some sort of telescoping gear with a "normal extended" state in case of failure. We are talk
49 DL767captain : Yes there would be some redesign involved but if they are already making some changes to the 737 (depending on cost) it could be done. And it could a
50 Ikramerica : Well, why not just bring back the 757 then? Already raised up, can fit the larger engines. Offer a shorter one in 738 size with long range. Or some s
51 DL767captain : I think they would if they could get all the tooling back and set it back up. A revised 757 would sell great right now. I think that is what we will
52 Viscount724 : Assuming you define 2 years and 2 months as "many". The first NG was delivered December 17, 1997 and the last Classic was delivered February 25, 2000
53 EA772LR : It would need to have much more efficient engines, because with the 739ER and A321 able to operate 90% of all 757 routes, and do it much cheaper, the
54 DL767captain : The GTF engine on the 757 would be great. But we can wish for anything we want but in reality the 737NG+ will get some carbon fiber in areas, loose s
55 XT6Wagon : Weight reductions I think would be very interesting and exciting to the airlines. Just think how much happier Jetblue would have been if thier A320's
56 DL767captain : I agree it may not make current 737NG operators want to replace them but it would be a nice incentive for future orders as well as a nice gift to the
57 OyKIE : This might just be hundreds of millions of Dollar Airbus spends 100 million dollar on the A320 each year on engineering to make it more competitive.
58 Post contains links Keesje : Last week I sketched a 150 seat 6 abreast Cseries C130. http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...riesC130150seater.jpg?t=1217927523 Last month I did a C
59 DL767captain : They really need to remake the 717. Completely updated of course, to compete with the CSeriers and EJets (E170/190). The only one they could really b
60 EA772LR : But the problem with that is the 717 was a basically a glorified DC-9. It is definitely a great aircraft, but the airlines would never buy into a des
61 Art : Would the use of GLARE panels on the 737NG be worth considering?
62 RoseFlyer : I believe there were three 737 lines at that point and they transitioned 1 at first to the 737NG. Then the second converted once the first line was g
63 Post contains links and images Keesje : I think something new would be neccessary indeed. A year ago I took a look with Henry lam at a lower capasity / light short range Boeing / Embraer 15
64 XT6Wagon : Thats my guess, they seem to want to sell off Renton for the huge realestate $$$$$. On the other hand I would think that we would be hearing rumors o
65 RoseFlyer : Wow assembly halls in different parts of the world. It's challenging enough now with the two 737 production lines being only 500 feet apart from each
66 DL767captain : I totally agree, what I meant was maybe something smaller like the 717 (as compared to a 738) but a total clean sheet design. There is no aircraft wi
67 OyKIE : Could it be possible to have the 737RS put together in the same way that you put together the 737NG, so that ramping up production would be easier? I
68 RoseFlyer : Well the final assembly lines in Germany and France are for different planes, which is like how Boeing has final assembly in Renton and Everett. Fort
69 EA772LR : It would have been unbeatable for the 1200nm and less market of 120-145 seaters. The 717 wouldn't have had the range for longer A320 routes. The wing
70 OyKIE : Hamburg have just started final assembly on the A320 and Airbus would like to move all A320 production to Hamburg, and have the widebodies assembled
71 XT6Wagon : Production rate. It takes 3 lines to hit Boeings desired production rate at this time. I do not know how much if any "slack" is left for producing mo
72 RoseFlyer : What are you referring to? There are always issues with parts arriving on time and being correct. Having skilled mechanics knowing what they are doin
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...
Randy Talks About The 747-8! posted Tue Oct 17 2006 04:46:46 by Bringiton
AY Talks About The A350 posted Wed Jul 12 2006 04:30:08 by Manni
Boeing Talks About 787-10 At Asian Airshow posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:50:15 by OyKIE
A Question About The 737NG? posted Sat Feb 9 2002 05:33:28 by Mr AirNZ
Question About The Merger Talks & Liveries posted Sat Feb 16 2008 07:02:27 by B727fan
Alan Mulally Talks About Boeing. posted Fri Feb 8 2002 21:39:02 by Cruising
What About The Boeing 757-200ERX? posted Sun Dec 30 2001 20:25:39 by Aloha 737-200
What Will Boeing/Airbus Do About The Larger RJs? posted Thu Aug 23 2001 21:39:09 by 777236ER
What's Boeing About The 717? posted Tue Aug 3 1999 21:20:41 by 24291
Some Questions About The Boeing 707 posted Thu Jul 8 1999 18:58:06 by American MD-80