Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Most Of Us Will Be Flying 737s Rest Of Our Lives  
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Posted (2 years 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 22101 times:

I had this thought while reading the "UA to order 200+ new 737s" topic.

For anyone here over the age 40, assuming another 30 to 40 years still to live, it seems like we're going to be flying on 737s for the rest of our lives.

It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

162 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1117 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 19 hours ago) and read 22071 times:

Depending on how your define "most of us". If you are just referring to the domestic US market, make it explicit, because "most of the others" can have a totally different flying experience from you.


It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineFuzzman777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21968 times:

If not 737s, then regional jets for 3+ hours.

But I see what you mean- we have United's order, AA, Southwest, Alaska.......
That's why I want UA to keep A320s around for a while.

American pride I'm guessin.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21956 times:

I'm 20 and I do see this as a possibility. The 737 has proven over the years that it is the optimal aircraft. Plain and simple. Well done Boeing  


Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11973 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21930 times:

Really interesting concept - never thought of it that way, but probably true. There are a great many people alive today who were not alive when the first 737 took to the skies, and who, after living perfectly healthy and normal natural lives, will never live to see the day the last one is retired. That is pretty stunning to think about.

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

Or, looking at this from another angle, it is rather impressive - downright remarkable, in fact - that human beings all the way back in the mid 1960s were able to create the basic design for a platform so robust, so flexible, so adaptable, and so efficient that it its successive derivatives and versions have managed to stay entirely relevant and "modern" nearly five decades later. How many other pieces of technology as complex as a modern airliner have proven as capable of being successively upgraded so as to still be so competitive multiple decades after their inception?

Talk about an engineering marvel.

[Edited 2012-04-23 20:06:39]

User currently offlineairportugal310 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3717 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21831 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 1):
Depending on how your define "most of us". If you are just referring to the domestic US market, make it explicit, because "most of the others" can have a totally different flying experience from you.

Since UA would more than likely only fly these 737's within the US (99%+), its already implied that he is referring to the US market...There should be no need to make it explicit, as you put it.



I sell airplanes and airplane accessories
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21789 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

Depends on your perspective. I'm 31 and would give up valuable body parts to be able to see the skies in the days when the 707 was the mainstay of aviation. I suppose the evolutions we're seeing these days are a net positive, but at the same time, at least to these old-fashioned eyes, things are getting more bland. At least there's a visual difference between the 737 and the A320...I'm guessing that whatever new design that'll replace the Guppy will end up looking yet even more generic. At least the Guppy has some 707/727 DNA left in her fuselage...

Just my   ...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21713 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Or, looking at this from another angle, it is rather impressive - downright remarkable, in fact - that human beings all the way back in the mid 1960s were able to create the basic design for a platform so robust, so flexible, so adaptable, and so efficient that it its successive derivatives and versions have managed to stay entirely relevant and "modern" nearly five decades later.

True. The 707 didn't make it, the 727 didn't make it, the 747 isn't exactly flying off the shelf anymore, the 757 didn't make it, the 767 didn't make it, the 777 has yet to have enough time to run its course by what would be considered "conventional" program standards, and the 787 is still new. Nor does anything of Boeing's past domestic competitors remain relevant, even with hundreds of DC-9 derivatives still treading the skies, but not ever to be replaced by new aircraft of the same platform. (Unless, of course, the Comac ARJ really takes off.   )

The 747 may be the Queen of the Skies, but the 737 is certainly the King.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21576 times:

Kind of a sad thought. I was hoping, really hoping, that they could stick a 787-ish nose on the MAX, just as they're modifying the tail. The "face" of the 737 looks really dated. At least there's now the Sky interior to change it on the inside.


Funny thing is that I don't mind at all the thought of another 3 decades of 747s


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21576 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
There are a great many people alive today who were not alive when the first 737 took to the skies, and who, after living perfectly healthy and normal natural lives, will never live to see the day the last one is retired.

Not if they have a really good health insurance plan. With the progress that is being made in gene therapy, etc, peoples lives will be extended significantly.

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Or, looking at this from another angle, it is rather impressive - downright remarkable, in fact - that human beings all the way back in the mid 1960s were able to create the basic design for a platform so robust, so flexible, so adaptable, and so efficient that it its successive derivatives and versions have managed to stay entirely relevant and "modern" nearly five decades later.

The physics of flight were very well known in the mid-'60s. It isn't the aircraft but the engines that define the advancement. You just have to look at the 'latest & greatest' all new NB and it is perhaps only 10-15% better than the MAX or NEO.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 18 hours ago) and read 21563 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

Having just endured a six-hour transcon in the back of a UA 738, disappointing doesn't begin to describe it.

At this point I hope that the next innovation in air travel is general-anesthesia-on-demand, something like in the movies 2010: A Space Odyssey and Aliens, where the crew is put under and awakened when it arrives at the destination.

[Edited 2012-04-23 20:52:58]

User currently offlineUnited727 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 412 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 21494 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 8):
I was hoping, really hoping, that they could stick a 787-ish nose on the MAX, just as they're modifying the tail. The "face" of the 737 looks really dated.

Dated...something designed in the 1960's, dated?!?!?   

On track, Boeing did it with the 767-400 (777), what would it take to cut and paste the 787 FWD section on the 737, and make all of the flight decks standardized? I would only hope the 797 follows in that path of standardization as well.



Looking for the impossible way to save those dying breeds!!!!
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 21332 times:

Quoting B595 (Reply 10):

Having just endured a six-hour transcon in the back of a UA 738, disappointing doesn't begin to describe it.

At this point I hope that the next innovation in air travel is general-anesthesia-on-demand,

I've had my share of those flights as well - what an interesting innovation you propose!


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5839 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21202 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

The evolution masks a revolution. Compare the 737-200 with the 737-8 MAX and that becomes clear.

The 737-200 fits a mission profile closer to that of an ERJ190 than the MAX.

The MAX, eventually (with a MTOW and fuel capacity increase), is likely to fly routes over three times as long as those flown by the 737-200, while carrying over half again as many people.

The MAX will have engine technology four generations ahead of that on the 737-200, along with wing technology three generations ahead. It will burn under half as much fuel per passenger on a comparable short mission.

The MAX will have a cutting-edge glass cockpit (albeit one that masks some conventional flight controls).

The MAX can easily attain FL410 with a full payload if light on fuel, while the 737-200 struggled to its ceiling of FL350.

If Boeing had implemented all the changes at once, and added a new section 41, you would not be complaining.

[Edited 2012-04-23 21:58:36]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21201 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 12):
've had my share of those flights as well - what an interesting innovation you propose!

He's got a good point. I often figure out a way to get my hands on an Ambien before a long flight.

Even in F-class, it's a guilded cage.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21181 times:

It is an incredibly boring prospect.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7359 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What is the point of this thread and why is it in the wrong forum? I hate 737s and request my companies travel to route me around flying these stupid frames.   

User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21125 times:

Didn't AA order a bulk load of A320 NEOs at the show last year?

User currently offlineTigerguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21060 times:

Well, I guess this will be a way to balance things out for me. I really have nothing against either the A320 or the 737, but I've flown on 42 A320 family members thus far to just 11 737s.


Flying friendly for a while, but is that a widget I see in the rear-view mirror?
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21053 times:

Quoting fxramper (Reply 16):
What is the point of this thread and why is it in the wrong forum?

How is it in the wrong forum? Seems like a discussion of civil aviation to me...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 21040 times:

Next decade we'll see all-new narrowbody replacements (RJs and mainline) and it is too soon to say that they will have the same configuration as today's tube and wing design.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
The MAX will have a cutting-edge glass cockpit (albeit one that masks some conventional flight controls).

Some Interesting comments by Bill Voss, CEO of Flight Safety Foundation, at the Flight Safety Foundation Corporate Aviation Safety Seminar...

Quote:
Five years ago we passed the point where automation was there to back up pilots. Clearly today, the pilot is there to be the backup to the automation.This is simply a realistic assessment of the world today, except we are not training pilots to be backups to automation. We have to own up to the fact that we need develop new kinds of pilot training.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 20996 times:

I like the 739ER, and will probably really appreciate the 739MAX. I know that airlines never purchase a plane on asthestics...but man, wouldn't it be nice if we could just update the windscreen on the 737.... Wish there was something that could be done to the existing Section41 of the plane to make the windscreen interface nicer.... But it will never happen becuase there is no way you could justify the costs... But if wishes were fishes.


Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 16 hours ago) and read 20926 times:

Quoting fxramper (Reply 16):
I hate 737s and request my companies travel to route me around flying these stupid frames.

I wouldn't go that far.  

I do try to avoid them - mostly because they are so ubiquitous. I prefer a little variety and I know that I'll still get my annual dose of 737s even without trying.

But, coincidentally, I just booked HIJ-HND-HIJ this morning for dates in May. The ANA 787 flights (two a day) weren't at good times at all and I have squillions of JAL miles to use up so I'm going up on a 737 and coming back on an MD-90. Curiously, I found myself not feeling unhappy at the thought of 737 flight No.124. Apart from anything, the brand new JAL 737-800s are excellent inside.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 20831 times:

Hate to put the dampner on things here.

A lot of you will also be flying on A320's.

How about a bit of balance.


User currently offlinenethkt From Thailand, joined Apr 2001, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 20796 times:

I'm lucky to be born and live in Thailand.
Here in Asia, as long as your don't fly LCCs, chances are, you will like end up on a widebody aircraft.

Love the fact that I can fly domestic on 777s, 747s, 330s or even 340s and short haul intra Asia even with 380 SIN-HKG.

Life is good, you produce super expensive widebody airplanes, we use them to fly somewhere near  



Let's just blame it on yields.
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (2 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 21845 times:

The 737 will be the most succesful passenger aircraft ever, being in production for at least another 20 years. I believe there will never be anything like this, again, no car, no airplane nothing will ever be in production that long as the 737.....


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 21895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
The 737-200 fits a mission profile closer to that of an ERJ190 than the MAX.

Easter 1980: at the tender age of six I fly Norwegian carrier Braathens SAFE's B737-200Adv non-stop Oslo - Lanzarote, six hours(!) with a full load (package holiday flights are always 100% full). So already back then, the B737-200Adv offered what the B737-800 does today.

The B737-200 was a great plane, flew it many times on those long Norway - Canary Islands flights, always with Braathens SAFE, they were my favourite carrier.

Since three years ago, the B737 is my office. I'm an FA on the Classic as well as the NG, and they are fantastic machines, very durable and reliable. I like the nostalgic feel, as they look much the same as those B732s that sparked my interest in aviation. I get a bit bored with them at times, but then I just fly with someone else that has more variety or plane-spot when having turnarounds at big airports.

Well done, Boeing  



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 22186 times:

How much difference is there between the B737-100 and the B737MAX?.

My understanding is that the difference is pretty substantial.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 8 months 9 hours ago) and read 21565 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 23):
Hate to put the dampner on things here.

A lot of you will also be flying on A320's.

How about a bit of balance.

I dont think the original poster meant to imply we would ONLY be flying 737s... only that we would CONTINUE to fly 737s...
I suspect that everyone here recognizes the A320 Family is AS GOOD AS or BETTER THAN the 737 Family, and therefore will remain in service for AS LONG AS or LONGER THAN the 737 Family.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 29, posted (2 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 21223 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 28):
I suspect that everyone here recognizes the A320 Family is AS GOOD AS or BETTER THAN the 737 Family, and therefore will remain in service for AS LONG AS or LONGER THAN the 737 Family.

I like the 320 family plenty, but the 737 has a 20 year jump on them, and I don't see them sticking around 20 years longer than the 737. Again, no criticism of the 320 - it just got a later start.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineB2468 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 20271 times:

Hmm...although I prefer the aesthetics of the 737 over the 320, I think the 320 is going to be in the skies for a very, very long time, maybe even longer than the 737!

Just like Boeing with the 737, Airbus hit it out of the park with the 320, and with airlines moving to smaller aircraft for longer flights, the 320 is a very strong competitor.

Having both the 737 and 320 in the skies means Airbus and Boeing will continue to evolve and develop even more improvements and innovations...the latest are the 737MAX and 320NEO!

With the longetivity of the 737 and 320 that I hope to see, for some 21st century folks, they may be their only connections to 20th century aviation! While the 737 isn't my favorite aircraft on which to fly, I know that whenever I step on one, I am experiencing an aircraft that traces its ancestry to when my parents were children...a great piece of living American aviation history, and I firmly believe the 320 will be the same for European aviation history for quite a few generations to come.



Dash-8/ERJ/306/310/319/320/332/333/343/346/388/72S/731/732/733/734/73G/738/741/744/74E/752/762/763/77E/77W/DC9/D1C/M82
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 31, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 19873 times:

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 28):
Quoting bennett123 (Reply 23):
Hate to put the dampner on things here.

A lot of you will also be flying on A320's.

How about a bit of balance.
Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 28):
I dont think the original poster meant to imply we would ONLY be flying 737s... only that we would CONTINUE to fly 737s...



I agree, the OP did not imply that we will be flying exclusively on 737s, just that we will STILL be flying on 737s for decades to come.
I first flew on 737s in the very early 1970s, and it looks like I will be flying on them for the next 30 years. They are the "B-52" of recent commercial aviation as far as longivity. The last B-52H came off the line in 1962, and is still being used today.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 19810 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is an interesting concept. We'll certainly see 737s for another 30 years in Western markets. It is a surreal thought that the 737 will most likely serve the Western fleet for over 70 years...


Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
For anyone here over the age 40, assuming another 30 to 40 years still to live, it seems like we're going to be flying on 737s for the rest of our lives.

   Very interesting observation. As already noted, a remarkable fact.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineKFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3309 posts, RR: 30
Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 19291 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27):
How much difference is there between the B737-100 and the B737MAX?.

My understanding is that the difference is pretty substantial.

Very true.

But the basic platform from the start was so good that all it took was a few tweaks here and there to get it where it is today, not such that they ever needed to start over with a new platform when its course ran out...because it never did. That is its testament.



"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
User currently offlinetype-rated From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 34, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 18482 times:

To tell you the truth, I can't see much difference between flying on a 737 and an A319,A320. It seems the Airbuses are a little quieter. But for an aviation enthusiast, I can see how boring they are. No rocket like takeoffs, etc.

Quoting B595 (Reply 10):
At this point I hope that the next innovation in air travel is general-anesthesia-on-demand,

I like that idea, but would it be due to the boring aircraft or the abyssal service we have these days??


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12961 posts, RR: 25
Reply 35, posted (2 years 8 months 6 hours ago) and read 18139 times:

Quoting B2468 (Reply 32):
Hmm...although I prefer the aesthetics of the 737 over the 320, I think the 320 is going to be in the skies for a very, very long time, maybe even longer than the 737!

I'd imagine the ones that will be around the longest are the government VIP frames. They get very little use and are very well maintained, and governments tend to hang on to them for very long periods of time, and if they sell them, they tend to sell them to friendly governments. Second will be any military variants, such as the Navy P-8 that is based on the 737, for similar reasons.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17906 times:

I just don't understand why Boeing and Airbus put all the research and technology into the widebodies that are not selling as well as the narrowbodies.

How come the 737 and A320 only get updated instead of designing a brand new aircraft?

Quoting type-rated (Reply 37):

To tell you the truth, I can't see much difference between flying on a 737 and an A319,A320. It seems the Airbuses are a little quieter. But for an aviation enthusiast, I can see how boring they are. No rocket like takeoffs, etc.

What do you base this on? The A319 and A320 are just as capable as the 737s. The reason why you don't experience 'rocket like takeoffs' is because most if not all operators use flex takeoff thrust, because full thrust is rarely needed.

[Edited 2012-04-24 09:02:24]

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17833 times:

I agree, born into the age of Concorde and brought up watching BAC111s, Tridents, DC9s compete with newer 146s and noisy Tu134s. The B737 was old before I was born and yet it'll be with me 'til I die. The B747 is similar but the sheer monotony of B737s and A320 series is a step up.

All very lovely commercially but innovation is missing. Even the B787 *looks* very much like an advanced B767.
"I remember when this was all fields you know..."


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17629 times:

Quote:
Most Of Us Will Be Flying 737s Rest Of Our Lives

Interesting thread.

I am not sure how many a-netters we have from Himalaja but surely they would answer "most of us will be flying DHC 6 and Do 228 for the rest of our lives" due to the fact that production of these planes started again.

Definitely a compliment for these planes.


User currently offlineLHRXXXLHR From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17471 times:

Glad to see we made it to Reply 28 before this turned into a 737 vs. 320 borefest. Back to the point... After years of flying -300s, -400s and -500s I finally flew an ANZ -200 from Christchurch to Auckland in 1998. Not for nothing but I was supposed to fly an Air Florida -200 years before and my father recalls attempting to fly a People Express -100 (I'm not 100% sure about that one) as well. Both flights cancelled due to weather ...or bad management. It's a good plane and I will be happy to fly on (or operate) the 737 for a long time. Oh, and yes, the 320 is a fine aircraft, as well.

User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1408 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Fuzzman777 (Reply 2):

The Airbus A319/320'/321's might be with us in Abundance quite a while Espeially if the GTF is a Hit. And Boeing refuses to offer a choice. What we hope is that Pratt puts an option for the PW 4000 to Airbus for the A350. with GTF technology.
The A350 cabin and specs appears IMPRESSIVE and if it does 75% of what Airbus claims?? it will be REALLY impressive. the cockpit is" same ol same Ol'" but the CAbin?? That's pretty special. If the range is near what they claim, (which I doubt) they'll have a REALLY impressive airplane


User currently offlineB2468 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17026 times:

Quoting B2468,reply=33,posted Tue Apr 24 2012 22:38:39 your local time (1 hour 57 minutes 45 secs ago):
Hmm...although I prefer the aesthetics of the 737 over the 320, I think the 320 is going to be in the skies for a very, very long time, maybe even longer than the 737!

Just like Boeing with the 737, Airbus hit it out of the park with the 320, and with airlines moving to smaller aircraft for longer flights, the 320 is a very strong competitor.

Having both the 737 and 320 in the skies means Airbus and Boeing will continue to evolve and develop even more improvements and innovations...the latest are the 737MAX and 320NEO!

With the longetivity of the 737 and 320 that I hope to see, for some 21st century folks, they may be their only connections to 20th century aviation! While the 737 isn't my favorite aircraft on which to fly, I know that whenever I step on one, I am experiencing an aircraft that traces its ancestry to when my parents were children...a great piece of living American aviation history, and I firmly believe the 320 will be the same for European aviation history for quite a few generations to come.

Double post...weird...mods please delete.

Thanks.



Dash-8/ERJ/306/310/319/320/332/333/343/346/388/72S/731/732/733/734/73G/738/741/744/74E/752/762/763/77E/77W/DC9/D1C/M82
User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (2 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 17058 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 1):
Depending on how your define "most of us". If you are just referring to the domestic US market, make it explicit, because "most of the others" can have a totally different flying experience from you.

Hm. Plenty of 737s flying all over the world these days, and just yesterday on the flight line at BFI one could see 737s for airlines from Asia, the Middle East, Oceania, the United States, and South America. Just the last two weeks of deliveries included... Southwest, Lion, Thomson, Copa, Dalian Airlines, SAS, JAL Express, American, Transavia (I saw that delivery in person), Garuda, Hainan, TUIfly, TUI Nordic, Ryanair, United, Xiamen, Spicejet, and Ethiopian.

I'm pretty sure Spicejet, Dalian Airlines, Ethiopian, and Garuda don't fly to St. Louis.

Quoting nethkt (Reply 24):
Here in Asia, as long as your don't fly LCCs, chances are, you will like end up on a widebody aircraft.

And some of us really envy that!

I fly mainly on 737s as most of my flying is US domestic and the carrier I like most has an all 737 fleet (Alaska). I do also fairly regularly end up on an A32x or an E190, but it's rare to fly wide-body on domestic, extremely rare these days. It wasn't always that way though, and I remember 767 and DC10 domestic service. Unfortunately the United States is too vast and has too many small markets for an operation like what happens at SIN. It isn't any coincidence, I think, that China and Russia also have large numbers of narrow bodies for domestic operations. The difference with Asia is that the cities are larger and denser and there's lots of water and mountains, meaning more need for capacity even with a higher frequency model.

Truth to tell, how the plane feels - 737 vs. A320 - is mainly a matter of how the operator specs the interior. There's a big difference even between the same type depending on the interior. Try an AirTran 73G tracon and then fly back on an Alaska 737 or a UA 737. You'll know immediately which one you prefer (sorry, AirTran, I like you, but those are 3-hour seats, not 6-hour seats).

I greatly miss the 727, but I'm happy the 737 is still with us.


User currently offlinevegas005 From Switzerland, joined Mar 2005, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 16474 times:

One of the most boring aircraft ever invented to fly on......

User currently offlinetockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 16157 times:

not sure why people would fret about this. we may also be driving porche 911s for the rest of our lives. but to say that the first is anything like the latest would be a joke. the same can basically be said about the 737, only since it's a passneger aircraft, its evolution is in efficiency, safety, and longevity rather than in performance, horsepower, and handling.

[Edited 2012-04-24 10:56:19]

User currently offlinerichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4296 posts, RR: 6
Reply 45, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 15983 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Really interesting concept - never thought of it that way, but probably true. There are a great many people alive today who were not alive when the first 737 took to the skies, and who, after living perfectly healthy and normal natural lives, will never live to see the day the last one is retired. That is pretty stunning to think about.

It is pretty fascinating, yes, but is the B737 produced in 2020 anything like the B737 produced in 1967? The answer is no, of course, sort of like how today's Chevrolet Malibu is nothing like the car of the same name produced in the early 1980s. OK, maybe that's a bad analogy because the Malibu has been through several complete redesigns from the ground up, but the baby Boeing is quite different too. New engines, wings, cockpit, fuselage, tail, - ummmm, besides the basic diameter and a few other dimensions, what's left that is the same?

Still, the Boeing 737 was designed as a stop-gap model. Some gap that turned out to be!



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineasteriskceo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 489 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 8 months 4 hours ago) and read 15842 times:

I'm just thankful that I was born into a wealthy country that gives me the financial opportunity to fly, at all. Most people on the planet will never have the chance.

User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 15647 times:

Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 45):
not sure why people would fret about this. we may also be driving porche 911s for the rest of our lives.

I'm tired of the way that looks, too! But at least the 911 has had some face lifts along the way.

But point well taken that they are highly evolved machines compared to the originals


User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 8 months 3 hours ago) and read 14739 times:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 37):
I just don't understand why Boeing and Airbus put all the research and technology into the widebodies that are not selling as well as the narrowbodies.


You can't compare sales numbers of narrowbodies to widebodies. That's like saying sales of a bus aren't successful because they don't sell as many as Toyota does Corollas. Narrowbodies and widebodies serve two separate functions.

Just like a car manufacturer, the aircraft manufacturers make more money on their premium products, which in this case is the widebodies. The profit potential from selling 1,000 widebodies I'm guessing is more than selling probably even 2,000 narrowbodies. If A or B thought they were only going to sell only 1,000 A320/737 size of a frame, given their lower margins it might not be worth the investment, but if they thought they could sell 1,000+ widebodies, that's a pretty good success with their higher margins, especially when you consider only four families of widebodies (747, 767, 777, A330) have sold more than 1,000 frames.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 49, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 14622 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 23):
Hate to put the dampner on things here.

A lot of you will also be flying on A320's.

How about a bit of balance.

You are correct.

Quoting odwyerpw (Reply 28):
I dont think the original poster meant to imply we would ONLY be flying 737s... only that we would CONTINUE to fly 737s...

You are also correct.



Just to take this "evolution" vs "revolution" thing a bit further.... For the next 30 or 40 years, since we'll still be flying in 737s (and A320s) that means we'll still be flying at Mach 0.80 or so on many trips of 1500 to 3000 miles.

To the traveling public, that represents no improvement whatsoever in the "act" of flying.


User currently offlinetalisaman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 50, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 14501 times:

Well, where I am from we are stock with those Gulf stream regional Sardine cans CRJ-900/700 flown by DL,UA,AA.
Ok, AA uses 737 now from BNA to MIA/DFW. but BNA to ATL/HOU/IAD/JFK/ORD with DL/UA are all with the Sardine Cans.

So I hope they use some of those 737 for our ways too.


User currently offlineAirCalSNA From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 14373 times:

I'm not sure why the OP's proposition is surprising or troubling. The basic physical limits of subsonic flight were reached many decades ago, and all commercial aircraft today do basically the same thing. I would expect that we'll also be flying in A320's for the rest of our lives, along with 747's and 777's, at a minimum. And once you're inside and strapped into your seat, it really doesn't matter what the plane looks like on the outside.

User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 13858 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
For anyone here over the age 40, assuming another 30 to 40 years still to live, it seems like we're going to be flying on 737s for the rest of our lives.

Maybe. The 737Max is probably the last iteration of the venerable type. The 737 has shown its flexibility and the efficacy of the hanging two engine, low wing design that most modern mainline aircraft emulate but it has some limitations. It is too low to the ground, a concession to the era when more airports used airstairs. This prevents the installation of optimally sized bypass fans, a key element for fuel efficiency. Its ovoid fuselage profile also makes the cabin narrower than its chief competitor, the A320 series.

Those factors may indicate that production will not last for 20 more years. While there will almost certainly be 737s still flying 40 years from now, I doubt that they will be a majority of many fleets then. Fuel prices are likely to continue to climb and if the increase accelerates, there will be more pressure to retire the 737 and move to the next generation of aircraft.


User currently offlineScottishDavie From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 188 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 8 months 2 hours ago) and read 13512 times:

Strangely I can't remember exactly when I last flew on a 737. I think it was probably about 8 years ago when I flew FRA-EDI with LH. Since then it's been A320 family (U2, 4U, BA, BD, LH, AB), various CRJs (LH Regional), ARJs (BA Cityflier), E170s (BA Cityflier again) plus the odd Do328 and Q400 throw in for good measure.

As reply 2 points out, the flying experience is likely to be different outside the US domestic market.


User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 13401 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 53):
Those factors may indicate that production will not last for 20 more years. While there will almost certainly be 737s still flying 40 years from now, I doubt that they will be a majority of many fleets then. Fuel prices are likely to continue to climb and if the increase accelerates, there will be more pressure to retire the 737 and move to the next generation of aircraft.

Even this will take a lot of time though. You can't replace the 737 overnight. If we move to a next generation due to higher fuel prices, I do hope we move to something entirely different and new. another 10-15% more efficient fuel burn will change nothing. That's a different discussion though.

It is amazing how fast progress was in the first half of the 20th century. We went from nothing to Wright (still the biggest step), pistons, jets, non-stop TATL, mach 2 and in the 1960s some bright fellow designed the 737. It's impressive that 50 years later there is still no need for a new frame, it is a testimony to a thoroughly solid design. Bit boring though  

That all said, I'm happy that the 737 and the A320 survived and not the DC9/MD80 family. I know I'm hurting a lot of people now, but for me that nose is visually very unattractive.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 13221 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 50):
Just to take this "evolution" vs "revolution" thing a bit further.... For the next 30 or 40 years, since we'll still be flying in 737s (and A320s) that means we'll still be flying at Mach 0.80 or so on many trips of 1500 to 3000 miles.

To the traveling public, that represents no improvement whatsoever in the "act" of flying.

You're correct; OTOH, as AirCalSNA pointed out, aircraft design is essentially at the physical limits of subsonic flight...and, even if the NIMBY's/environmentalists would allow supersonic commercial flight over land, who would be willing to pay for it?



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 56, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 13184 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
Most Of Us Will Be Flying 737s Rest Of Our Lives

Fine with me! I love the airplane!   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 12877 times:

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 44):
One of the most boring aircraft ever invented to fly on......

Not much difference in flying in today's aircraft. All of the exciting airplanes to fly are gone....Concorde, 707, 727, Convair 880, Constellation, Convair 580.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (2 years 8 months 1 hour ago) and read 12879 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 50):
Just to take this "evolution" vs "revolution" thing a bit further.... For the next 30 or 40 years, since we'll still be flying in 737s (and A320s) that means we'll still be flying at Mach 0.80 or so on many trips of 1500 to 3000 miles.

To the traveling public, that represents no improvement whatsoever in the "act" of flying.


I respectfully disagree. By that logic, my car is no improvement over a Ford Model T since they are fundamentally identical (four wheels and a gasoline motor). Never mind the fact that my car is faster, is much more efficient (twice the mileage while weighing nearly three times as much), is FAR more comfortable, is quieter, carries more cargo, and has a service life multiple times longer.

I believe the term "revolutionary" gets thrown around way too much as a marketing scheme. If you really want to get picky about it, nothing about flying has been revolutionary since the first passenger air travel nearly 100 years ago. Sure, things have improved immensely since then, but flying in 2012 is very much the same principle as flying was 100 years ago. Until the early 1900's, however, humans had been stuck on the ground for thousands of years. For the last 100 years, there have been no "revolutionary" advances in transportation quite like the change from ground based transportation to flight.

In the future, the "revolution" will not be an improvement in "flying" per se. Humans already know how to fly. The only "improvements" we can make is flying faster, more efficient, and more comfortable, which we already largely know how to do; it's just a matter of economics. The "revolution" will be something entirely new (teleportation, etc.). A revolution of that nature will truly be a revolution just like flying was compared to other forms of transportation.

In my opinion, in the future, the future of physical transportation will be greatly influenced by a reduction in the actual need to be transported (at least people) via the internet, advances in telecommunications, etc. It's already happening.

In the meantime, long live the 737. Call me the odd one out here, but I personally think the 738 with winglets is one of the most beautiful airliners in the sky.

[Edited 2012-04-24 13:32:49]


SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineHighflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 697 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10895 times:

The original Boeing 737 concept was a short range aircraft to feed traffic from small cities to the hubs. As a result the 737 classic had one of the slowest cruise Mach numbers of any passenger jet, roughly .73 to .745. When Boeing went to the next-gen they increased the optimal cruise Maach out to around .78 despite the aircraft being used on longer and longer city pairs.

Now that the 737 is being used on routes in excess of 2,500 nm (as in HNL to the mainland U.S. as an example) one would think Boeing could spend some R&D computer and wind tunnel money to come up a cost-effective .85 Mach wing on that Boeing 737Max.


User currently offlineAlnicocunife From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10659 times:

Not much has happened with trains either. Steel wheels on steel tracks powered by energy to move people and stuff for 200 years.

Installing the 757 cockpit section on the 737 MAX would go a long way to "modernizing" the look. But it will still be a 1950's 707 fuselage.


User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 61, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10660 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
Really interesting concept - never thought of it that way, but probably true. There are a great many people alive today who were not alive when the first 737 took to the skies, and who, after living perfectly healthy and normal natural lives, will never live to see the day the last one is retired. That is pretty stunning to think about.

And, how many airplane factories built in 1940 are running at full capacity in 2012? The Boeing Renton facility has produced: 1 PBB, 1,119 B-29s, 943 C-97s, 1 367-80, 1,013 707/720/C-137/E-3/E-6/E-8s, 820 C-135s, 1,831 727s, 1,050 757s and 7,071+ 737s (less 271 produced at Plant 2), plus some hydrofoils. That is 13,578+ airframes (and the count increases about 1.33 per day).


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 62, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10372 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting vegas005 (Reply 44):
One of the most boring aircraft ever invented to fly on......

Probably why it made money.   

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 53):
Those factors may indicate that production will not last for 20 more years. While there will almost certainly be 737s still flying 40 years from now, I doubt that they will be a majority of many fleets then. Fuel prices are likely to continue to climb and if the increase accelerates, there will be more pressure to retire the 737 and move to the next generation of aircraft.

I would agree with that. The MAX will make money, but there is too much technology ready. The first test will be the C-series vs. the 737MAX and A320NEO. If the C-series gets traction, its lighter weight will put pressure. Now the 737MAX will be able to adapt by the longer lengths having lower CASM than the C-series. But eventually, someone will put out a CFRP wing on an updated aircraft with future engines. (e.g., composite high turbine). I see Boeing making a decent ROI on the MAX. I do not see it being the 'generational airframe' of the 732/733/737NG.

The MAX is the 4th true generation of the 737. It will be the last. It will sell, but not for two decades. But that still means 40 years left of flying of the 737.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 59):
In my opinion, in the future, the future of physical transportation will be greatly influenced by a reduction in the actual need to be transported (at least people) via the internet, advances in telecommunications, etc. It's already happening.

Which then makes flying optional. Something to be enjoyed.

But the need to fly won't go away. Face to face business is that much more efficient. Its a question of the fraction of GNP. If you want to argue the number of miles flown will drop per unit of GNP? Ok, I 100% agree. But as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, India, and others enter the standard of living of the Western world, it will require face to face services

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 63, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10370 times:

Quoting Alnicocunife (Reply 61):
But it will still be a 1950's 707 fuselage.

Yes and no. Depends on the section. You cannot put a 707 nose on a 737, I don't think. It won't fit.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 64, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10195 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 53):
Its ovoid fuselage profile also makes the cabin narrower than its chief competitor, the A320 series.

While it may look ovoid, the fuselage cross-section isn't. The fuselage cross-section is a double bubble. The Dash 8, for example, has a true ovoid cross-section.

Quoting SuperCaravelle (Reply 55):
You can't replace the 737 overnight. If we move to a next generation due to higher fuel prices, I do hope we move to something entirely different and new. another 10-15% more efficient fuel burn will change nothing. That's a different discussion though.

MIT's D8 design (738 replacement) for NASA's N+3 is feasible... though with a low probability of being adapted. The fuel savings were calculated to reach 70% but an aluminum structure AND current technology would still provide fuel savings of 50% (so why wait, uh?) ...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/453735main_mit_d8-5_1600x1200_1600-1200.jpg

And for shorter haul there is Boeing's Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research, or SUGAR.Of their five concepts the prefered concept is the "SUGAR Volt"... a twin-engine with hybrid propulsion technology that would provide up to 88% fuel efficiency over existing models...

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/454150main_boeing_sugar_original_full.jpg

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 59):
The only "improvements" we can make is flying faster, more efficient, and more comfortable, which we already largely know how to do; it's just a matter of economics.

Seems pretty basic to me so I don't understand all the 'romanticizing' of the 737 design that is going on. I guess that few realize that a circular fuselage is the most efficient pressure vessel (one doesn't see too many square coke cans, do they?)

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 63):
The first test will be the C-series vs. the 737MAX and A320NEO. If the C-series gets traction, its lighter weight will put pressure.

Just one of the problems, it would appear, is that there are very few exclusive CSeries vs 737-7MAX or A319NEO contests. In other words, there are very few carriers that fly only ~130-seat aircraft. And that is the only arena where the CSeries has an opportunity for gaining any real 'traction'.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 65, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10119 times:

My second flight was on a B737 from DUB to BRS, (EI in 1974), my latest was WW in 2008, (MAD to LGW).

I hope to get a few more in before they start to disappear.


User currently onlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 66, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 10010 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.



True to a point. However, upon checking out the new 737-800 (WN) with the "Sky Interior" actually puts the novelty back into this venerable old bird.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 737 never really took off until the advent of the 737-300 series. At least into the early 80's airlines such as DL, Eastern and National the 737 was conspicuously absent from their fleets. Sometimes it's an evolution that causes the revolution. There are fates worse than perpetual 737 flying.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9366 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 65):
And for shorter haul there is Boeing's Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research

I love those designs and I hope someone ambitious builds them. Its is in a way sad that the 737 MAX and A320NEO are all we can expect on most Transcons for 25 years. They are good planes but the rate of change and improvement is just too slow. We barely get roomy seats and free internet on planes now and I don't see that changing either.

Bottom line is that there is a fuel cost problem and there is a duopoly in the design and manufacturing area. I hope an innovative new company comes to the fore and changes things dramatically. I think the key will be to get off oil as a fuel or to dramatically increase the power extracted from fossil fuels. They are only 60 % effeicient now I think.


User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2328 posts, RR: 9
Reply 68, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9309 times:

Quoting B595 (Reply 10):
At this point I hope that the next innovation in air travel is general-anesthesia-on-demand, something like in the movies 2010: A Space Odyssey and Aliens, where the crew is put under and awakened when it arrives at the destination.

I would pay for that !!! 4 or more hours on a SA plans is torture

Quoting columba (Reply 25):
I believe there will never be anything like this, again, no car, no airplane nothing will ever be in production that long as the 737.....

The VW Beetle?

Regards
TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinecontrails From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9282 times:

Doesn't sound bad to me. I've flown on worse planes than the 737 - a few were much worse.


Flying Colors Forever!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 70, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9175 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 68):
Bottom line is that there is a fuel cost problem and there is a duopoly in the design and manufacturing area.

I would add that there is also still too much airline competition. However, even when fuel costs were much, much lower you didn't see any appreciable increase in paying pax for more biz class seating or enhanced economy seating.

So the real 'bottom line' is that the majority of us are just too cheap to pay for comfort on airliners.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineWROORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 972 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8360 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
It's a bit disappointing that the pace of innovation seems to have slowed to the point where we're only seeing "evolutionary" changes instead of "revolutionary" changes.

Some would argue that 737 classic and 737 max are not quite the same aircraft.


User currently offlineChazPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8103 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 1):
Depending on how your define "most of us". If you are just referring to the domestic US market, make it explicit, because "most of the others" can have a totally different flying experience from you.

Here, here! Those of us living in Asia find that we fly any single aisle a/c a minority of the time.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 73, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 8059 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 67):
Correct me if I'm wrong but the 737 never really took off until the advent of the 737-300 series.

OK. You're wrong.  

The 737-200 was what put it on the map.

991 x 737-200 were built

(1113 x 737-300)


User currently onlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 74, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7865 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 74):
OK. You're wrong.

The 737-200 was what put it on the map.

I remember UA as the launch customer beginning in 1968. Who else in the United States flew the 737 1 and 200's?



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 75, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7664 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 75):
Who else in the United States flew the 737 1 and 200's?

The famous PeoplExpress.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 76, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7601 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 75):
Who else in the United States flew the 737 1 and 200's?

AS did, but the -200QC.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineboeingorbust From Canada, joined Oct 2011, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7483 times:

Seems (to me at least) that the 737 has been the backbone of a lot of airlines. Also that it continues to be a cost effective, reliable option for carriers. The days when aircraft like the Concorde or VC-10 were being developed, they were developed with specific routes in mind. For example the VC-10 was first up for a massive BOAC order and received government pressure yet in the end BOAC turned to the 707. At that point the VC-10 was geared towards routes to Africa and the Super was developed. The concorde did exactly as she was designed to even though she never really had good yields as far as I know. These were times when aviation was glamourous and flying somewhere was a big deal and I think that manufacturers designed around this and airlines planned for that kind of mentality. Also, fuel wasn't at the skyrocket costs airlines see now. Now I think we see more of a bus service in the skies. I hate to think of it like that but it's the unfortunate truth of it all. Designers designing aircraft with minimum weight and cost saving ideas and airlines using the same aircraft to save costs on training as well as using the aircraft that have the efficiency to perform various routes with their given range. I'm not saying for a minute that fuel wasn't an expensive cost to airlines or that they didn't care about costs but I think now it's focused on so much more than it was then. The mindset has changed and provided Boeing with an oppertunity to provide the 737 throughout the years as a reliable fuel efficient backbone to a lot of airlines around the world.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 78, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7435 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 75):
Who else in the United States flew the 737 1 and 200's?

None flew the -100 but the -200...?

AirCal
Air Florida
Aloha
Delta
Frontier
Itel Air (who?!)
MarkAir (who?!)
Midway
PACE
Pacific Southwest
Souhwest
United
US Airways (i.e. Piedmont, I think)
Western
Wien Air Alaska


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 79, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7427 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 79):
None flew the -100 but the -200...?

AirCal
Air Florida
Aloha
Delta
Frontier
Itel Air (who?!)
MarkAir (who?!)
Midway
PACE
Pacific Southwest
Souhwest
United
US Airways (i.e. Piedmont, I think)
Western
Wien Air Alaska

You forgot AS. The 732's came from Wien Air Alaska. AS was the last U.S. 732 operator, AFAIK.....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineeurobiker3 From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7277 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 79):

Air California flew 2 737-100s for many years. I believe they were both ex Aloha airplanes and one of them held the high cycles record at the time.
As a mechanic for Air California, I remember one fateful night when the mechanic in the left seat did not turn tightly enough to the right while taxiing away from the gate on the way to the hangar. The right wing hit a catering truck and damaged the wing tip. Both of us got five days off without pay!
If I remember correctly, they were N471GB and N472GB.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 81, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7265 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 80):
You forgot AS. The 732's came from Wien Air Alaska.

Could well be. I was just going by the Boeing O&D data.

But now that I look at the 737-200C (which I'd overlooked), I see that Alaska did buy three direct from Boeing.

Quoting eurobiker3 (Reply 81):
Air California flew 2 737-100s for many years. I believe they were both ex Aloha airplanes and one of them held the high cycles record at the time.

I wonder where Aloha got them from. Only 30 were built and none delivered to the US. Ex-Lufthansa, maybe?


User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7179 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 35):
I like that idea, but would it be due to the boring aircraft or the abyssal service we have these days??

Well, neither of those things. I was alluding to the poor standard of comfort in the usual economy-class seating arrangement of the 737 (or A320, or 757, ....). Over 100 years of aviation innovation and the best we can do for the average traveler is cram them into a 17.2" x 31" space. It's better than not being able to fly at all, but it's still disappointing that this will be the standard for the foreseeable future, absent a disruptive innovation.

And just for the record, I don't find the 737 (or A320,....) boring. Give it the right paint scheme (like the one I saw on a BBJ a few weeks ago) and it's one of the most beautiful machines in the world.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 83, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7114 times:

Quoting B595 (Reply 83):
Well, neither of those things. I was alluding to the poor standard of comfort in the usual economy-class seating arrangement of the 737 (or A320, or 757, ....). Over 100 years of aviation innovation and the best we can do for the average traveler is cram them into a 17.2" x 31" space. It's better than not being able to fly at all, but it's still disappointing that this will be the standard for the foreseeable future, absent a disruptive innovation.

Its the best for what pax want to pay... don't blame the airlines. No one is stopping anyone from flying first class.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 84, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7068 times:

I've flown on 737s operated by 35 airlines. Every version except the -100 and -600. I'd love to get on a -600 but I doubt if I ever will.  

The first was a Britannia -200 in 1985. I've been on them every year since except 1988, 1997 and 2007. One hundred and twenty-three in total and I hope there are many more to come.

The oldest was N9009U (UA) - the 24th off the line and built in 1968! I flew it (CLT-ORD) thirty years after it was built. The youngest 737 I've been on (an Air Berlin 737-800) was built in 2011. So that makes 43 years between the oldest and youngest planes I've been on. Assuming I can hang on for another six years, I should be able to fly on a 2018 model, thus making it 50 years between the youngest and newest.

That's rather astonishing.  Wow!


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 85, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7066 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 74):
I remember UA as the launch customer beginning in 1968.

It was actually Lufthansa. If I remember correctly LH was looking for a replacement for their Vickers Viscount for domestic flights.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © S. M. Reeves



User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 86, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7048 times:

Put another way, there may already be people who have spent their entire working lives from apprentice to retirement doing nothing but building 737s.

                      Wow!         


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2840 posts, RR: 25
Reply 87, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6990 times:

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 65):
My second flight was on a B737 from DUB to BRS, (EI in 1974), my latest was WW in 2008, (MAD to LGW).

Inspired by bennet123's post I was trying to find out my numbers but no chance to beat PM's numbers.

Quoting PM (Reply 84):
I've flown on 737s operated by 35 airlines.

1.) PA from FRA to TXL, somewhere in the early 80s
2.) LH
3.) Sun Express
4.) TAROM
5.) CSA
6.) Hapag Lloyd
7.) TUIFly
8.) TACA
9.) Continental
10.) Ryanair (only once, please don't tell anybody)
11.) Air Berlin
12.) Air China
13.) El Al
14.) Egypt Air
15.) KLM
16.) THY
17.) Anadolu Jet

but I have no doubt that this list will keep on growing.


User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 83):
Its the best for what pax want to pay... don't blame the airlines.

I'm not blaming the airlines. They can only work within the constraints dictated by science and economics.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 83):
No one is stopping anyone from flying first class.


You are implicitly assuming that the average person has the money to fly first class but elects not to. I don't buy that assumption. Not when the average net worth of a person in the U.S. aged 35-44 (45-54) is $51k ($98k). Hard financial reality means that a responsible person can't spend 3-6% of their net worth on a $3000 first class transcon ticket.

Fact is, the cost of comfortable air travel remains beyond the financial means of the vast majority of the populace. By this measure, the pace of innovation has been disappointing.

Other measures of progress are safety, efficiency, and reliability. You won't find any argument from me here. The changes in these measures over the past 100 years are remarkable and a huge success of innovation.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 544 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6973 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 78):
None flew the -100 but the -200...?

AirCal
Air Florida
Aloha
Delta
Frontier
Itel Air (who?!)
MarkAir (who?!)
Midway
PACE
Pacific Southwest
Souhwest
United
US Airways (i.e. Piedmont, I think)
Western
Wien Air Alaska

Another one to add to that list was AA...they ran the ex-AirCal 737-2A4's on intra-California routes in the late '80's and early '90's. I flew on them a number of times before AA got rid of them and brought in the Super-80's; I recall being very excited the first time I saw a nice-looking Super-80 instead of the boring ol' 737...if only I knew then what I know now  I remember the first time I was on an AA 737-200 at age 7 or 8 or so, sitting behind the wing...I saw the spoilers pop up and the reverse thrust buckets deploy on landing and thought the plane was falling apart   

Strangely enough, WN's early SJC-SoCal (LAX and BUR) flights were also on 737-200's and I didn't have reason to fly out of California at that time, so my first "newer generation" 737 flight wasn't until recently. I flew on an FCO to MXP in June 2008; can't remember which variant, though, so the first "definite" newer-generation 737 I flew on was WN SFO-LAX in July 2008.

I still have never taken a flight on any 737 variant that was longer than an hour...except for flying LHR-KBP-LHR on a BA A320, the only narrow-body type I've been on a "long" flight on were 757's. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of the "baby Boeing" being trans-con capable  eek  Big grin

[Edited 2012-04-25 00:47:04]


ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 90, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6921 times:

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 87):
1.) PA from FRA to TXL, somewhere in the early 80s
2.) LH
3.) Sun Express
4.) TAROM
5.) CSA
6.) Hapag Lloyd
7.) TUIFly
8.) TACA
9.) Continental
10.) Ryanair (only once, please don't tell anybody)
11.) Air Berlin
12.) Air China
13.) El Al
14.) Egypt Air
15.) KLM
16.) THY
17.) Anadolu Jet

I find it remarkable how little overlap there is between our lists. Mine is:

Aer Lingus (300,400)
Aerolineas Argentinas (200)
Air Berlin (800)
Air China (300)
Air Europe (400)
Air France (500)
Air Tanzania (200)
All Nippon (500, 700, 800)
Ansett (300)
Bahamasair (200)
Britannia (200)
British Airtours (200)
British Airways (200, 400, 500)
China Airlines (800)
Dan-Air (300)
Delta (200)
easyJet (300)
JAL (800)
Jet Airways (700)
Kenya Airways (200, 300)
KLM (300, 400, 800, 900)
Lauda (800)
Lufthansa (200, 300, 400, 500)
Maersk (500)
Malev (400)
Malaysia (400)
Olympic (200)
Piedmont (200)
Sabena (300, 400, 500)
SAA (800)
SAS (700, 800)
Thai (400)
Turkish (800)
United (200)
US Airways (400)


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 91, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6866 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 78):
None flew the -100 but the -200...?

I always thought CO operated the -100?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 92, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6859 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 91):
I always thought CO operated the -100?

They perhaps did but they are not listed by Boeing as an original customer.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 93, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6863 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 92):
They perhaps did but they are not listed by Boeing as an original customer.

According to this:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/Boeing_737-100
CO did fly them, but obviously not new. I need to do more searching when I get free time



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinevoodoo From Niue, joined Mar 2001, 2101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6822 times:

If it has been mentioned it slipped past me....:
America West flew the -100.
http://youtu.be/pruuYtDQ5UA



` Yeaah! Baade 152! Trabi of the Sky! '
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6931 posts, RR: 12
Reply 95, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6745 times:

I've flown commercially around 40 times, but never on a 737. Lots of A32S and regional jets, however. Only twice on any Boeing, in fact, a 747.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 96, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 64):
is that there are very few exclusive CSeries vs 737-7MAX or A319NEO contests. In other words, there are very few carriers that fly only ~130-seat aircraft. And that is the only arena where the CSeries has an opportunity for gaining any real 'traction'.

Expand that to the C-series has the opportunity where the 130 seat fleet is large enough to justify a split fleet (a la 733 and 757). The C-series has a tough row to hoe. But once established, there is a large enough market available. Oh, the 737 and A320 will fight it out in a market 5X to 6X larger, but there is a market.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 97, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6481 times:

Quoting B595 (Reply 88):
You are implicitly assuming that the average person has the money to fly first class but elects not to.

We have seen repeatedly that the majority of pax have invariably gone for the lowest airfare over comfort. One example, FR.

Quoting B595 (Reply 88):
Fact is, the cost of comfortable air travel remains beyond the financial means of the vast majority of the populace. By this measure, the pace of innovation has been disappointing.

It is simply because the majority of pax don't want to pay for more comfortable air travel. When airlines have tried to increase seat pitch, for example, pax wouldn't pay for it. If there was a market for a more comfortable economy airlines would cater to it.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
Expand that to the C-series has the opportunity where the 130 seat fleet is large enough to justify a split fleet (a la 733 and 757).

How many airlines have such a split fleet?

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 96):
The C-series has a tough row to hoe. But once established, there is a large enough market available. Oh, the 737 and A320 will fight it out in a market 5X to 6X larger, but there is a market.

BBD's current market 'strategy'... an inch deep but a mile wide.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2477 posts, RR: 24
Reply 98, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 84):

I've flown on 737s operated by 35 airlines. Every version except the -100 and -600. I'd love to get on a -600 but I doubt if I ever will.

Just come to Scandinavia again.. at least you can catch the -600 here.. I had the chance to fly on one from CPH to ARN last October.. awesome! 


User currently online2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6438 times:

If CM had Sky interior B737-700ER flying transatlantic, yes transatlantic PTY-MAD, I'd not mind flying with them.
It's a question of seat pitch, configuration and sometimes what kind of Business class the aircraft has, however not everybody thinks this way.
The B737 will stay a lot longer, it has proven to be a reliable aircraft.



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6433 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 91):
I always thought CO operated the -100?
Quoting PM (Reply 92):
They perhaps did but they are not listed by Boeing as an original customer.

These -100s were inherited from PeoplExpress after it was bought by Continental.

I believe the only US airlines to fly the -100 were CO/People, AirCal/AA, and America West. There aren't many -100s so it's easy to keep track of them.

The only customers to receive new-build 737-100s were Lufthansa (22), MSA (Malaysia-Singapore Airlines) (5), and Avianca (2). The first frame, built as a 737-130, was never sold to a customer but was leased/opf to NASA and now lives at the museum of flight in Seattle.

All of the -100s except for that one have been scrapped now, with one possible exception. For a long time one of Faucett peru's 737-100s was stored at Lima, Peru, in horrible condition. With no photos on A.net since 2004, I think it may have been broken up by now, but it's possible it's still somewhere at LIM.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 85):
It was actually Lufthansa. If I remember correctly LH was looking for a replacement for their Vickers Viscount for domestic flights.

LH was the launch customer for the -100. UA was the launch customer for the -200.

Southwest and USAir were the launch customers for the -300.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

Quoting Cargolex (Reply 100):
I believe the only US airlines to fly the -100 were CO/People, AirCal/AA, and America West. There aren't many -100s so it's easy to keep track of them.

Air Florida also flew some, ex-SQ.


User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 102, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6394 times:

Yes, that's correct, Air Florida as well. All five of the Ex-MSA birds plus one ex-Avianca (1 month short term lease from AirCal). Good catch.

User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 103, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 86):
Put another way, there may already be people who have spent their entire working lives from apprentice to retirement doing nothing but building 737s.

I knew a flutter engineer at Boeing Wichita who did flutter analysis on the B-52 on his first day of work out of college, and was doing it the last day before he retired.

Quoting columba (Reply 25):
I believe there will never be anything like this, again, no car, no airplane nothing will ever be in production that long as the 737.....

Cessna has been building the 172 Skyhawk since 1956, with virtually no changes other than avionics. They did not deliver any between 1987 and 1996. Over 48,000 172s have been built since 1955, and is still in production in Independence, KS.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 104, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 97):
How many airlines have such a split fleet?

In the past UA, DL, LH, and others. If it makes enough sense.


Right now Bombardier has to prove their concept. I do not expect many, if any, sales until the C-series has proven itself in service. If it delivers as promised, it will sell. The challenge is to prove promise is met.

And then stretch the C-series.   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 105, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6303 times:

Quoting voodoo (Reply 94):
America West flew the -100.

I thought they flew the -200 and not the -100. Did they ever have any -200's?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2858 posts, RR: 48
Reply 106, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6272 times:

Quoting N62NA (Thread starter):
For anyone here over the age 40, assuming another 30 to 40 years still to live, it seems like we're going to be flying on 737s for the rest of our lives.

Without question the most disheartening thread ever.

You are right, of course. Hopefully I won't have to retire off of it, though that would definitely increase my chances of opting for early retirement.


User currently offlinesurface From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6156 times:

Hi,

I was reading some of the comments here on how beautiful the 737 is (especially the latest versions) and also someone commented how nice it would have been if they took some of the 787 design elements and incorporated them into a future 737.

I do a lot of 3D modeling of airplanes as it allows me to then observe them from different angles on the screen. Few months ago saw a 787 for the firs time and it was so incredibly slick and clean, it looked like a rendering even in real life. So I thought along the same lines as some of the posts here - what would it be to have very slick 737, in the typical say 738-739 proportions, with the iconic low stance and engines, but with the nose, wings and tail to be close copy of the 787....

Recently did some modeling and thought it is interesting to look at it. After reading here, thought maybe some of you would also enjoy to see this virtual concept. Here it is just in white:

Boeing 737-E rendering


Here with few decals to make it little bit more colorful:

Boeing 737-E JAL Rendering


Boeing 737-E JAL rear rendering


Cheers.

 


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6030 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 107):
Recently did some modeling and thought it is interesting to look at it.

Yes! That's a beautiful plane and exactly what my fantasy of what the MAX should have looked like.
Nice work!


User currently onlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 109, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6016 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 75):
The famous PeoplExpress.



But, it seemed at least from the original deliveries (1968) it took at least a good 5 to 10 years before you really saw 737's in the skies. (At least from my perspective out of BWI.) The big carriers at that time Eastern and Allegheny did not fly them at least well into the 70's. Eastern never flew them.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 110, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6020 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 107):

I see you kept the "smashed" engine inlet! That is awesome!   Thanks for sharing!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 111, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 97):
If there was a market for a more comfortable economy airlines would cater to it.

VX and B6 are both doing pretty well in the U.S. right now and they are based exactly around that business model. Some of us would gladly pay $10 extra to not be treated like dirt on flights.

I *WILL NOT* fly any of the "legacies" when one of these carriers offers service to my destination.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 112, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
In the past UA, DL, LH, and others. If it makes enough sense.

Yes, in the past. However, there are none now... and the 757 is increasingly being replaced with... another 737 (or A32X).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
Right now Bombardier has to prove their concept. I do not expect many, if any, sales until the C-series has proven itself in service. If it delivers as promised, it will sell. The challenge is to prove promise is met.

I believe that it is more than just proving their concept (I honestly don't think that anyone doesn't believe that the CSeries will live up to specs) as so many market factors enter into the purchase decision... many of which are out of BBD's control.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 104):
And then stretch the C-series.

In hindsight, BBD missed the 'sweet spot' of the market. Trending is +150-seat aircraft due to a variety of reasons... and that isn't going to change much.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 111):
VX and B6 are both doing pretty well in the U.S. right now and they are based exactly around that business model. Some of us would gladly pay $10 extra to not be treated like dirt on flights.

Yes, B6 is indeed doing pretty well (BTW, I have likened flying the E-jets economy as a "scaled downed" biz class due to the 18" seats and 4-abreast seating) and VX offers a very nice product... though it will be interesting to see how big VX can grow. WN offers 34" pitch on most of their seats. I really don't understand the "comfort complaint". There is only so much that can be done for a set pirce point. I am sure that if more people were preapared to pay for "E+", for example, that kind of seating would be more widespread.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinesurface From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 113, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5929 times:

Glad some of you like it! Thought these are the right forums to share some of these. Hope this is not too much "off topic" in here.

Yes, kept the "smashed" engines as when I tried it with "normal" engines and there is nothing left that tells you this is a 737   but to add some more fanciness, made the back of the engine to look like the 787 engines and I just realized you can't see it well from those view posted above, so here is a side view with those details:

Boeing 737-E JAL side view rendering


Also the rear 3/4 from high up looks quite nice, spreading wings like a giant bird, here it is:

Boeing 737-E JAL rear 3/4 rendering


Cheers everyone!


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 114, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5805 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 107):
Recently did some modeling and thought it is interesting to look at it.

That is terrific. Congratulations!


User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 97):
It is simply because the majority of pax don't want to pay for more comfortable air travel. When airlines have tried to increase seat pitch, for example, pax wouldn't pay for it. If there was a market for a more comfortable economy airlines would cater to it.
Quoting planemaker (Reply 112):
I really don't understand the "comfort complaint". There is only so much that can be done for a set pirce point.

You claim that it's a matter of willingness to pay, I claim that it's a matter of ability to pay.

I don't think I'm alone when I say I was hoping our scientific and economic apparatus would achieve lower price points than we actually see. Really, wasn't the average person supposed to have personal flying cars in the driveway by now?   It's sour medicine to be instilled with those kind of expectations as a kid and then have to settle for being crammed into a 17.2" x 31" space.


User currently onlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5540 posts, RR: 13
Reply 116, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

I love that others have noticed the "smashed engine" look. However, the 737-600's and newer have revised nacelles that at least from a front view look less "smashed." The 737-300 and 400's were the big offenders in ugly looking engines. Of course this was done due to the plane's low ground clearance.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 117, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 112):
Yes, B6 is indeed doing pretty well (BTW, I have likened flying the E-jets economy as a "scaled downed" biz class due to the 18" seats and 4-abreast seating) and VX offers a very nice product... though it will be interesting to see how big VX can grow. WN offers 34" pitch on most of their seats. I really don't understand the "comfort complaint". There is only so much that can be done for a set pirce point. I am sure that if more people were preapared to pay for "E+", for example, that kind of seating would be more widespread.

Honestly, I have rarely felt cramped in an airline seat on a flight shorter than 6 hours. The issue is boredom.


User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2469 posts, RR: 3
Reply 118, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5467 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 105):
I thought they flew the -200 and not the -100.

America West flew both the -100 and -200. Do a search on 737-100 and America West in the photo database.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © JetPix



They flew N701AW, 702AW, 703AW, 708AW, and 709AW.
http://www.psa-history.org/awa/73s.php



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 7000 posts, RR: 63
Reply 119, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5407 times:

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 118):
America West flew both the -100

Ex-which airline?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 120, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 119):
Ex-which airline?

A bunch of -130s that were ex-SQ and a handful of -112s that were ex-QH but originally delivered to SQ/ML (not sure which it was at that precise point in time, as it was around the MH/SQ split).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 121, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5297 times:

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 7):
but the 737 is certainly the King.

I would say the worker...


Come on, todays 737 only loosely resemble the 737-100 - Boeing could have given them another name with as good reasons as they kept the magic 737.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 122, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

Ah! I should be so lucky  
I fly out of BOS and 737's are definitelly not hugely common here. The last time I was on a 737 was well over a year ago when I flew WN out of MHT. I can't remember the last time I was on a 737 out of BOS. BOS's largest airlines operate predominantly A320's, regional jets, and 757s (B6, DL, US, UA).


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3996 posts, RR: 12
Reply 123, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5194 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 109):
Eastern never flew them.

Neither did TWA.
Neither did Northwest.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 120):
A bunch of -130s that were ex-SQ

The -130s are ex-LH. I believe that only LH and SQ ordered the 100 variant, not many were built. The ex-LH 100s went to People Express.

It may be true that we will be flying 737s for the rest of our lives (till at least the mid 30s) but one thing is sure: I will always fondly remember the 727 for the rest of my life.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 124, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 123):
The -130s are ex-LH. I believe that only LH and SQ ordered the 100 variant, not many were built. The ex-LH 100s went to People Express.

Correct - my error - ex-LH, and they came directly from LH. The -112s were ex-SQ or ex-ML but spent some time with QH in between. LH leased some of the -130s out, but they had their D- registrations up until HP acquired them.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 125, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting B595 (Reply 115):
You claim that it's a matter of willingness to pay, I claim that it's a matter of ability to pay.

It isn't a matter of my claiming. Look at the success of FR... the largest inter-Europe carrier. Look at WN... the largest domestic carrier. AA cancelled MRTC, etc, etc. Look at how if an airline raises its fares by just even $5 that it quickly backs down if other carriers don't also increase their fares as well. Conversely, if one airline drops their fares... all do.

The facts are that flying is a commodity and the most people (DocLightning being one of the exceptions) don't care about having an extra 2" of legroom... if they have to pay for it... or being stuck in the middle seat... etc, etc, etc.

Quoting B595 (Reply 115):
I don't think I'm alone when I say I was hoping our scientific and economic apparatus would achieve lower price points than we actually see.

There is two points.

First, it is impossible to achieve even lower price points when fuel is very close to 40% of your costs... and there is nothing that can be done about it. When all the other 'fixed' costs are added it is still really amazing how cheap it is to fly.

Second, as pointed out, again and again people go for the lowest fare over comfort. People should be flocking to B6 & VX because they have the most comfortable fleets.

Quoting B595 (Reply 115):
Really, wasn't the average person supposed to have personal flying cars in the driveway by now?

Well... if you have a spare $200k you can next year.

Quoting B595 (Reply 115):
It's sour medicine to be instilled with those kind of expectations as a kid and then have to settle for being crammed into a 17.2" x 31" space.

Fly B6 or VX. The B6 E-jets are the most comfortable economy seats... 18.25" wide in 2+2 arrangement with 33" of pitch (Even More Space has 38").

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 117):
Honestly, I have rarely felt cramped in an airline seat on a flight shorter than 6 hours. The issue is boredom.

At 6'2" and stuck in a middle seat (17" width & 31" pitch & limited recline) with girth challenged pax on each side I have a few times even for short flights.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 126, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4966 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 125):
It isn't a matter of my claiming. Look at the success of FR... the largest inter-Europe carrier. Look at WN... the largest domestic carrier. AA cancelled MRTC, etc, etc. Look at how if an airline raises its fares by just even $5 that it quickly backs down if other carriers don't also increase their fares as well. Conversely, if one airline drops their fares... all do.

The facts are that flying is a commodity and the most people (DocLightning being one of the exceptions) don't care about having an extra 2" of legroom... if they have to pay for it... or being stuck in the middle seat... etc, etc, etc.

I don't buy it and your own assesment is contradicting. WN is the largest domestic carrier and they have a larger pitch than most. FR doesn't fly 5 hour segments in Europe. 90% of their segments are around 2 hours so they can get away with a 30" pitch which is about what you'll find in the US on a transcon flight. Ouch!
So it's not that people aren't willing to pay for it. It's airlines that aren't providing that option. I fly UA and have yet to see an empty Y+ cabin on UA. Heck, on most flights you can't find an empty Y+ seat on UA. So the argument that people aren't willing to pay more is wrong IMO. It's the race for marketshare (and to the bottom), that is driving the tight seating, not what customers are willing to pay for.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 127, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 126):
WN is the largest domestic carrier and they have a larger pitch than most.

By only 1" typically and unless you have long legs it is not going to make any appreciable difference. On the other hand, most people would prefer not to have "cattle car" boarding and not have much choice of being stuck in the middle seat.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 126):
FR doesn't fly 5 hour segments in Europe. 90% of their segments are around 2 hours so they can get away with a 30" pitch which is about what you'll find in the US on a transcon flight.

Actually, the flight length breakdown is fairly similar between Europe and the US. WN's average flight length is 1 hr 55 min.

Min transcon pitch with the majors is at least 31" and often it is 32" depending upon aircraft.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 126):
So the argument that people aren't willing to pay more is wrong IMO. It's the race for marketshare (and to the bottom), that is driving the tight seating, not what customers are willing to pay for.

No it is not. If pax were willing to pay for more comfort every airline would be increasing comfort to generate more revenue. It is as simple as that. UA would be increasing the size of their Y+ cabin and other airlines would be adopting them... but they aren't.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4921 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 113):

Why didn't you copyright your work, sir?? If Boeing adapts that model, you'll lose the rights to it.....

Quoting CitationJet (Reply 118):
America West flew both the -100 and -200.

When was the last -100 phased out at HP?

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 116):
I love that others have noticed the "smashed engine" look. However, the 737-600's and newer have revised nacelles that at least from a front view look less "smashed."

I LOVE the smashed engine inlet on all the models -300 thru -900ER.   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesurface From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 129, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4876 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 128):
Why didn't you copyright your work, sir?? If Boeing adapts that model, you'll lose the rights to it.....

I just don't think there is anything to copyright. It is their 78 fuselage, wings, tail, combined with heir 73 "smashed" engines. Simply changed little bit the proportions so it all looks like made to be together but that is it. I highly doubt Boeing can not arrive to similar geometry/proportions on their own. As someone said here, a similar look/configuration would only make sense for a future successor/evolution of the 73. But it will be too funny if they put together something similar in the many years to come. Then we can all look back at this thread and smile - "as first seen way ahead of its time on airliners.net!"  

I just make these and then put them on a full wall projector at home, sit down with a glass on the opposite side of the room and it feels this thing is alive and flying.... like when you go to cinema and sit on the first row, ha! Can see only portion of the scene at a time, the rest is blurred and it feels you are "in"  


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12961 posts, RR: 25
Reply 130, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4860 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 129):
73 "smashed" engines

Sometimes referred to as the "hamster pouch" look..



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 131, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4862 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 129):
I highly doubt Boeing can not arrive to similar geometry/proportions on their own. As someone said here, a similar look/configuration would only make sense for a future successor/evolution of the 73.

I've been highlighting some of the NASA N+3 studies in this thread and your post reminded me of Northrop's design submission for a ~2030 airliner (737 replacement)...




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 132, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4838 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 129):

Well, okay. I like what you did. You could of done it in AS colors! :-P

Quoting planemaker (Reply 131):

That looks more like an Airbus design than Northrop. The tail and engines gives it away. LOL!



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 133, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4806 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 132):
That looks more like an Airbus design than Northrop. The tail and engines gives it away. LOL!

Take a look at what Northrop was evaluating before they decided on that final configuration...





Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 134, posted (2 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 4748 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 127):
No it is not. If pax were willing to pay for more comfort every airline would be increasing comfort to generate more revenue. It is as simple as that. UA would be increasing the size of their Y+ cabin and other airlines would be adopting them... but they aren't.

But they are. United is extending Y+ to CO. Delta introduced Economy Comfort last year and AA is introducing "main cabin extra" next year.
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...american-airlines-offers-more.html

Quoting planemaker (Reply 127):
By only 1" typically and unless you have long legs it is not going to make any appreciable difference. On the other hand, most people would prefer not to have "cattle car" boarding and not have much choice of being stuck in the middle seat.

But 1-2" is what started this discussion in the first place. You pointed out that FR's 1" less than the average is an indication that people aren't willing to pay for space. But you dismiss the opposite as a fact. Interesting.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 135, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4688 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 112):
However, there are none now...

??? If one considers the E-jets, there are plenty. We just now have an aircraft worth splitting a fleet prior to the C-series. But look at the SSJ. Customers waited to see if all promises were met and they weren't. (e.g., engine TSFC miss).

Quoting planemaker (Reply 112):
I honestly don't think that anyone doesn't believe that the CSeries will live up to specs

Anyone with a billion dollars to spend on them is going to have a healthy skepticism. This is the time in a market when airlines freeze their orders and wait to see promises delivered. Most aircraft at EIS have 'teething issues.' Look at the 737-100 or the A320-100. Neither had spotless EIS but both went on to sell extremely well. Or more directly the Q400. I could name more (741, 757 w/Pratts, A300 had its issues, CR700, E190, etc.)

Its not just fuel burn. Dispatch reliability will matter as much. Not to mention maintenance costs. I haven't ever seen a customer believe anyone will fully deliver.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 112):
Trending is +150-seat aircraft due to a variety of reasons... and that isn't going to change much.

There hasn't been a competitive offering in the size range since the MD-80 and that was competitive in a low fuel price area. If the CS300 delivers a 15% lower cost per flight than the 73G/A319 there will definitively be an economic benefit to a split fleet.

Either Embraer or Bombardier had the opportunity. Bombardier too the risk.
System testing is starting on the C-series:
http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/16...simulations-underway-for-bomb.html

No doubt the 737 will sell circles around the C-series. So will the A320NEO. It will be interesting to see how C-series orders are by the 2nd year of production.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinesurface From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 26 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4678 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 132):
Well, okay. I like what you did. You could of done it in AS colors! :-P


AS k and you shall receive:

 
737-E AS rendering


737-E AS rendering


Hey, planemaker, here is also our entry to the contest! It would not matter, but she looks good in the same sky!

737-E AS rendering in sky


User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 137, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4666 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 134):
But they are. United is extending Y+ to CO. Delta introduced Economy Comfort last year and AA is introducing "main cabin extra" next year.


Yes, but for years and years it was United only. I don't really count CO trying to sell exit rows as a special extra space seats. and things like that.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 138, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 134):
But they are. United is extending Y+ to CO. Delta introduced Economy Comfort last year and AA is introducing "main cabin extra" next year.

First, let's be clear... I didn't say everyone (I even noted DocLightening as one who would pay more)... I said the majority - and the facts bear that out.

Second, put the extra (variable) legroom that they are offering into context:

Very few, if any of the pax, actually end up paying for the seats... as AA says, AAdvantage Gold members will get those seats at no extra cost through the end of 2013. Its AAdvantage Platinum and Executive Platinum members and full-fare passengers will get it for free. And DL, if you purchased a full-fare Economy class ticket, you’ll get complimentary access to the new seats... and FREE for Diamond/ Platinum/ Gold Medallion, and Y, B & M fares.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5939 posts, RR: 5
Reply 139, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

I did a rough calculation and figured that if the 797 or i737 or whatever it will be called EIS in 2025 and the final frame is built that year, then - assuming it has a 25 year operational life - it will be retired in 2050. At that point I will be 60. BUT the 737 had been built for over 20 years before I was born. Quite remarkable really!

Quoting columba (Reply 25):
The 737 will be the most succesful passenger aircraft ever, being in production for at least another 20 years. I believe there will never be anything like this, again, no car, no airplane nothing will ever be in production that long as the 737.....

The only comparable piece of machinery which I can think of off the top of my head is the Volkswagen Golf. It has been in production since time immemorial and will continue to be built long into the future.

Each new model is an evolution of the one which came before, meaning that if you line up pictures of each model in chronological order you can actually see the progression over time whereas if you put a 1975 build next to a 2010 then obviously you wouldn't think it was the same car.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 91):
I always thought CO operated the -100?

Aah, so I'm not going mad! I was sure I flew a CO 731 in 1998 EWR-CHS but in the end I decided it must have been a 200 since I couldn't find any information about CO ever operating the 100.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 111):
VX and B6 are both doing pretty well in the U.S. right now and they are based exactly around that business model. Some of us would gladly pay $10 extra to not be treated like dirt on flights.

The irony of the stuffed up industry we see today!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 140, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4654 times:

Quoting surface (Reply 136):

That is amazing! I wished I could order a framed print!  



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 141, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4626 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 135):
??? If one considers the E-jets, there are plenty. We just now have an aircraft worth splitting a fleet prior to the C-series.

Not plenty... only a few. Furthermore, as in AC's situation, the 100-seater was combined with the 70-seater... which I have pointed out is EMB's strength in defending (or attacking) the CSeries from the low end. EMB has a 4-member family from 70-110 seats that allow airlines to mix and match.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 135):
Anyone with a billion dollars to spend on them is going to have a healthy skepticism. This is the time in a market when airlines freeze their orders and wait to see promises delivered. Most aircraft at EIS have 'teething issues.

Don't misunderstand me... I am in no way hinting that the CSeries EIS will be trouble free. I have posted quite a bit about BBD's EIS problems - not only on the Q400 and CRJ1000 but also the CRJ700 & CRJ900. The point I was making is that the CSeries will (eventually) meet spec. But unlike the NEO and MAX - which will also have their "teething issues", there isn't a line up to buy the CSeries... because the issues, as I have previously discussed on various threads, are much more than just about "0-60 & MPG" performance.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 135):
If the CS300 delivers a 15% lower cost per flight than the 73G/A319 there will definitively be an economic benefit to a split fleet.

Forget about the 73G & A319... it is up against the MAX and NEO. As I pointed out in my previous response, there are many, many issues beyond "0-60 & MPG". You might enjoy reading this article which explores some of the issues...

Quote:
Many years ago when still at the helm of Embraer, Maurício Botelho was asked about his appetite to go head to head with the industry's "big two" in the mainline jet sector. "Occasionally I come up against Airbus and Boeing today in campaigns with the E-Jet," he said. "And when I do, I start to miss my old foe Bombardier."

Botelho's point was simple: when "playing with the big boys", the ferocity of competition goes up by an order of magnitude to a point where the pressure can lead to burst blood vessels. And the events of the past 12 months have clearly illustrated that when Airbus and Boeing enter the fray, prisoners aren't taken alive.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-the-old-order-fights-back-369921/

Quoting surface (Reply 136):


Hey, planemaker, here is also our entry to the contest! It would not matter, but she looks good in the same sky!

Really, very nice renderings!!!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 142, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4625 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 123):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 120):
A bunch of -130s that were ex-SQ

The -130s are ex-LH. I believe that only LH and SQ ordered the 100 variant, not many were built. The ex-LH 100s went to People Express.

SQ didn't exist when the 731s were ordered. The 5 731s were ordered by MSA (Malaysia-Singapore Airlines) in 1967, 5 years before MSA was split into MH and SQ in 1972. I believe all 5 731s went to Air Florida after SQ disposed of them.

Avianca was the other original 731 customer. They ordered 2.


User currently offlineCargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 143, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 139):
The only comparable piece of machinery which I can think of off the top of my head is the Volkswagen Golf. It has been in production since time immemorial and will continue to be built long into the future.

Each new model is an evolution of the one which came before, meaning that if you line up pictures of each model in chronological order you can actually see the progression over time whereas if you put a 1975 build next to a 2010 then obviously you wouldn't think it was the same car.

I don't think that's really comparable, as the golf has been completely redesigned, tires to top, several times. Some generations borrow bits from the previous one (particularly the current Golf) but there's zero relationship between the Mk1/Mk2 Golfs and the Golf you can buy today in mechanical terms other than that they have four wheels and and an engine and a golf name on the boot.

They looks similar in concept, but in fact, are basically unrelated after a generation or two. They redesign the entire unibody, the engines might carry over from one to the next but rarely through more than two generations.

You can buy the Golf 1 in South Africa, but in analogous terms, you can't buy a new-build 737-200 anywhere.

A more apt analogy would be the Morgan four-wheeler. Basically it's pretty similar in concept to what it's always been, but there's not that much relation between the modern Morgan Aero 8 and the 1936 Morgan 4-4 other than the shape (and even then, it's pushing it).

The longest lived automobiles - VW Beetle, Citroen 2CV, Renault R4, Mercedes G-wagen, they didn't evolve as much in design as the 737 has from the 731 to the 737-900ER, and that's because to evolve to that extent in a car, you just redesign it - but that's a much more difficult proposition with an airplane, and much, much more costly.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1741 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 127):
By only 1" typically and unless you have long legs it is not going to make any appreciable difference. On the other hand, most people would prefer not to have "cattle car" boarding and not have much choice of being stuck in the middle seat.

Typically an airline charges 50-100% more for 10-=25% more realestate. My suspician is that they don't want economy to be comfortable and take away from business and first class. I will always be willing to pay 20% more for 10% more space on a plane. SW and JetBlue are the only airlines offering it where I occasionally fly.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 145, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 144):
Typically an airline charges 50-100% more for 10-=25% more realestate. My suspician is that they don't want economy to be comfortable and take away from business and first class. I will always be willing to pay 20% more for 10% more space on a plane.

There really isn't a "typical"... just look at all the variable fare buckets in economy where airlines charge not just 100% more but several times more from the lowest Y fare to full Y fare for the exact same real estate.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 146, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 141):
which I have pointed out is EMB's strength in defending (or attacking) the CSeries from the low end. EMB has a 4-member family from 70-110 seats that allow airlines to mix and match.

EMB has done an excellent job with their family. There is still an opportunity for Bombardier.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 141):
I have posted quite a bit about BBD's EIS problems - not only on the Q400 and CRJ1000 but also the CRJ700 & CRJ900.

   Which I believe they must prove before sales increase. But with the NEO and I would bet soon MAX backlogs, there will be sales campaigns Bombardier will win.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 141):
there isn't a line up to buy the CSeries... because the issues, as I have previously discussed on various threads, are much more than just about "0-60 & MPG" performance.

Agreed. For example GE/Boeing will be able to provide much better 'commercial terms' than Bombardier. It is about more than MPG performance in the short run. In the long run, the base airframe economics are very important.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 141):
Forget about the 73G & A319... it is up against the MAX and NEO.

Eventually we shall. But the MAX/NEO will only provide cost per flight numbers about 5% to 7% less than their OEO options. While you note the MPG numbers don't always sell, if Bombardier delivers we will see a LCC go with the type and take care of the cost advantage to 'buy' market share.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineB595 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2009, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 125):
First, it is impossible to achieve even lower price points when fuel is very close to 40% of your costs... and there is nothing that can be done about it.

At least we agree on the root-cause of the problem. We as a civilization have failed thus far to develop a suitable alternative to scarce fossil fuel.

The market failures you cite don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that people are unwilling to pay; These failures could happen either 1) because of unwillingness to pay, or 2) inability to pay.

What is a representative difference between a business class fare and an economy class fare? If we assume it's $500, and that the average flyer takes 10 trips a year, then he would have to fork out $5000 more disposable income to upgrade to business over the course of the year. I don't think the average flyer has an extra $5000 of unallocated disposable income laying around. Hence he simply can't buy the upgrade. It's not a matter of him having the money and being unwilling to pay; Rather, he doesn't have the money, period. The price point is too high, because of our failure to crack the fossil-fuel problem.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 125):
Well... if you have a spare $200k you can next year.

I don't think the -average- person has a spare $200k. Maybe in 20 years the price level will be low enough for the average person to have one. But that will still be 50 years later than I was promised as a kid  .


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 148, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
EMB has done an excellent job with their family. There is still an opportunity for Bombardier.

There is an opportunity...but how big is it. Conceptually, as many people assert, there is but when one drills down to look at actual opportunities there are not too many.

Marketing wise, BBD has been all over the map. When the NCA was first announced and then "re-announced" (as the CSeries) it was marketed as the F100, DC-9, AVRO, MD80, 737 Classic replacement. That opportunity has largely evaporated. Then BBD said that leasing companies were the target market. Since that has failed to materialize they are now onto the 'mile wide, inch deep' sales approach.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
Which I believe they must prove before sales increase. But with the NEO and I would bet soon MAX backlogs, there will be sales campaigns Bombardier will win.

But you run up against bad timing... and that is just one of the issues that isn't discussed in the article. As you say, BBD has to prove the CSeries 'works' after EIS for a period of time. Depending upon actual EIS and "teething", we are looking at anywhere from 2015 (if all goes well) to possibly 2016 or perhaps 2017 if things don't go so well.

So... what sales campaigns can BBD win with that timeline? By then how many more 737NGs & MAXs and A32Xs & NEOs... and E190 & 195s will have been delivered and/or ordered?

Moreover, with NEO's and then MAX's starting to EIS at the end of that time frame, NG's and OEO's that are coming off lease will be very attractively priced.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
Agreed. For example GE/Boeing will be able to provide much better 'commercial terms' than Bombardier. It is about more than MPG performance in the short run. In the long run, the base airframe economics are very important.

Look at the deal that Airbus & GE pulled off with Republic. Not to mention that GE on its own (and through GECAS) will be headhunting to limit GTF penetration. As the article says, they take no prisoners alive. The 'majors' can bundle a deal (including WBs into the mix) that coupled with fleet commonality benefits would make any marginal airframe economics advantage inconsequential.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 146):
Eventually we shall. But the MAX/NEO will only provide cost per flight numbers about 5% to 7% less than their OEO options. While you note the MPG numbers don't always sell, if Bombardier delivers we will see a LCC go with the type and take care of the cost advantage to 'buy' market share.

First, as mentioned earlier, the sweet spot is +150-seat. So, why are airlines going to buy a stub fleet of CS300s when they already have all A or B NB's?

Second, virtually all LCC's either have or are moving to +150-seat aircraft. Again, conceptually it sounds good what you propose but when you look at any of the LCC's there aren't really any candidates.

Quoting B595 (Reply 147):
At least we agree on the root-cause of the problem. We as a civilization have failed thus far to develop a suitable alternative to scarce fossil fuel.

With natural gas prices being so incredibly low, Boeing just released an update to their NASA N+3 study and have come up with a "N+4" Sugar "FREEZE" concept which uses LPG stored in a forward and rear fuse tanks. EIS would be around 2040. Now that would take care of the fuel pricing issue!!

Quoting B595 (Reply 147):
What is a representative difference between a business class fare and an economy class fare?

But we don't even have to talk about F vs Y fares. When fuel costs were significantly lower AA's MRTC failed because not enough people were even prepared to pay the marginal cost difference.

Quoting B595 (Reply 147):
It's not a matter of him having the money and being unwilling to pay; Rather, he doesn't have the money, period.

Again, it has been proven that not enough people are prepared to pay for the extra comfort.

Quoting B595 (Reply 147):
I don't think the -average- person has a spare $200k.

I agree... and I said that in jest. I think that the market for the Terrafugia is exceedingly small and is more of a novelty item (like those cars that turn into a boats).



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 149, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 144):
Typically an airline charges 50-100% more for 10-=25% more realestate. My suspician is that they don't want economy to be comfortable and take away from business and first class. I will always be willing to pay 20% more for 10% more space on a plane. SW and JetBlue are the only airlines offering it where I occasionally fly.

Now you're limiting yourself to the US only   In Europe for example, a "domestic" J seat is no more comfortable or has any more leg room than a Y seat. Again, the reason they can get away with it is because the typical flight segment over is much shorter than it is here.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 145):
There really isn't a "typical"... just look at all the variable fare buckets in economy where airlines charge not just 100% more but several times more from the lowest Y fare to full Y fare for the exact same real estate.

I agree with you here. That proves that there are plenty of passnegers willing to pay more than the lowest possible fare, considering the high LF that airlines are experiencing. I still content that the race for market share is what drives the cramped seating in Y, and not passengers' willingness to pay an extra few bucks.
Where I fly from (BOS and MHT), WN is never the lowest fare option. Never. Logically, they don't charge for bags and offer more leg room, even if it's just 1". And they are usually the most profitable airline around. So what does that tell you? To me it tells me that if marketed and packaged correctly, a better product can actually bring you greater profits.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 150, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4060 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 149):
That proves that there are plenty of passnegers willing to pay more than the lowest possible fare, considering the high LF that airlines are experiencing.

It proves that as soon as one bucket fills up the fares go up.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 149):
I still content that the race for market share is what drives the cramped seating in Y, and not passengers' willingness to pay an extra few bucks.

It isn't about market share... it is about profitability.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 149):
Where I fly from (BOS and MHT), WN is never the lowest fare option. Never.

It certainly is the lowest at some point on the fare spectrum.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 149):
So what does that tell you? To me it tells me that if marketed and packaged correctly, a better product can actually bring you greater profits.

You are looking at a very incomplete picture. Many factors are part of the fare purchase decision and the prime one is the lowest fare... it has repeatedly been demonstrated. AA's MRTC and all the 'premium airlines' that have failed have clearly shown this fact.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25999 posts, RR: 22
Reply 151, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 149):
In Europe for example, a "domestic" J seat is no more comfortable or has any more leg room than a Y seat.

Not always true. For example, on KL 737s all rows in front of the overwing exits have about 2 more inches of seat pitch. Those are the rows that can be used for business class when the curtain is as far back as possible. However, on most flights the majority of those rows are part of the Y cabin. I always choose a Y seat on a KL 737 in one of those forward rows to benefit from the extra legroom.

And while the seat itself may be the same, having an empty seat next to you is another advantage. On a short flight I actually prefer the Y seat with the middle seat empty than the US domestic type of F class seat with all seats occuped. You have plenty of elbow room and can use the middle seat for newspapers/magazines//jackets etc. And it lets you use the meal tray in the middle seat for drinks.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 152, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 150):
It isn't about market share... it is about profitability.

The race to markeshare is what drove airlines in the US to years and years of unprofitable results. Flying passengers for below cost to keep them from flying with the competition. To do that you need to squeeze as many seats as possible in each airplane. Even today the profits are not coming from selling seats but from selling ancillary services. Remove the fuel surcharges and checked baggage fees and so on, and there won't be a single proftable legagy carrier in the US. Why? Because they're not charging enough for the seats.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1741 posts, RR: 1
Reply 153, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 152):
The race to markeshare is what drove airlines in the US to years and years of unprofitable results. Flying passengers for below cost to keep them from flying with the competition. To do that you need to squeeze as many seats as possible in each airplane. Even today the profits are not coming from selling seats but from selling ancillary services. Remove the fuel surcharges and checked baggage fees and so on, and there won't be a single proftable legagy carrier in the US. Why? Because they're not charging enough for the seats.

pray tell, how do Southwest and JetBlue fit into this analysis



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 154, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 152):
The race to markeshare is what drove airlines in the US to years and years of unprofitable results.

No it is not. If sending out "unprofitable" flights just to get market share was the objective, then they would have done things like AA's MRTC... and they sure wouldn't have substituted RJs for mainline jets, etc, etc.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8657 posts, RR: 10
Reply 155, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 153):
pray tell, how do Southwest and JetBlue fit into this analysis

They are low cost carriers. Do I need to explain the difference? They are also not chasing market share, they're chasing profits first. Market share has come at the expense of the failing legacy carriers.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 154):
No it is not. If sending out "unprofitable" flights just to get market share was the objective, then they would have done things like AA's MRTC... and they sure wouldn't have substituted RJs for mainline jets, etc, etc.

No because that means raising fares and shrinking the size of your marketshare. Quality has a price. Quantity has a lower price.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20336 posts, RR: 59
Reply 156, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3249 times:

The CEO of IndiGo made a very astute comment: He said that the market dictates what fare he will be able to sell for a seat. He cannot control the fares. He can only control his costs.

He can, of course, influence the market by pushing fares up a bit and seeing if competitors match, but that's all he can do.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 157, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3147 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 155):
No because that means raising fares and shrinking the size of your marketshare. Quality has a price. Quantity has a lower price.

Airlines seats are a "perishable commodity" and it isn't like selling widgets. Read "Airline Economics 101" and you'll begin to understand that raising fares has network wide implications. In short, following your prescription will put an airline out of business.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 156):
He can, of course, influence the market by pushing fares up a bit and seeing if competitors match, but that's all he can do.

All things being equal in a market.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2129 posts, RR: 22
Reply 158, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3073 times:

Just calculated my own 737 flights. After 1,945 flights total 345 are on 737's, on 45 different carriers. Like PM, I have not flown -100's and 600's. 747's came second in running totals at 289.

Most 737 flights came in USA. Now like many people in Asia is mostly wide bodies. Up to May 18th my flight schedule runs like this:
KE772, MU320, MU320, KE772, SQ333, SQ380, SQ333, SQ333, SQ333, SQ77W, SQ77W, CA332, CA757. Not one 737!!

I miss USA, but not for service quality!!


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13529 posts, RR: 100
Reply 159, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
There is an opportunity...but how big is it. Conceptually, as many people assert, there is but when one drills down to look at actual opportunities there are not too many.

I think the market for the C-series is about 4,000 frames over 20 years.

Note: I believe the market will be about 28k narrowbody frames. When has the CMO not under-predicted the market over long time frames?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cmo/

I'm going to be curious if the TATL CS100 has a really large market. I'm doubtful, but that could be enough to keep the line going until it gains traction... There are certainly more sales campains underway. I'd love to know all of the airlines.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
Then BBD said that leasing companies were the target market. Since that has failed to materialize they are now onto the 'mile wide, inch deep' sales approach.

Bombardier has not had a very effective sales campaign. However, the design for leasing companies will pay off in the long run.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
So... what sales campaigns can BBD win with that timeline? By then how many more 737NGs & MAXs and A32Xs & NEOs... and E190 & 195s will have been delivered and/or ordered?

If I had that crystal ball, I would be an executive for Boeing or Airbus! There will always be more orders. Some years a few, some years thousands. I could see winning a sub-fleet for DL and LH among others. As I already noted, Bombardier is in a smaller market than Airbus and Boeing. I expect Airbus and Boeing to split a market of about 24k airframes. Maybe subtract 1k or so for the C919/MS21. Compare this to a market of 4k to be split by Bombardier and a re-engines E-190/195 and ???.

The OP of this thread has a point, we'll be flying 737s for a long time.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
Look at the deal that Airbus & GE pulled off with Republic. Not to mention that GE on its own (and through GECAS) will be headhunting to limit GTF penetration.

I have no doubt GE and Boeing will pull off many deals. However, the GTF has done surprisingly well on the A320NEO. For example, with Indigo and GoAir in India. GoAir is interesting as they were a CFM customer on the A320.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
First, as mentioned earlier, the sweet spot is +150-seat. So, why are airlines going to buy a stub fleet of CS300s when they already have all A or B NB's?

No argument on the sweet spot. But Boeing still offers a 737-7MAX and Airbus the A319NEO. Why? There is a market. Who? We'll see. We could speculate and most likely have many incorrect guesses. Leasors are hesitant to adopt a frame until there are 20+ airlines interested. Bombardier is on track to get their by EIS. They have a good design concept for low maintenance and low fuel burn.

I think we can agree that the 737 will outsell the C-series. That isn't the same as you assert that no one will split their fleets or that no one will order the type.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 148):
Second, virtually all LCC's either have or are moving to +150-seat aircraft. Again, conceptually it sounds good what you propose but when you look at any of the LCC's there aren't really any candidates.

While the recent A320NEO orders in India reduce the candidate pool, there are still candidates. For example, US:
EasyJet Evaulating A320neo, B737 Max & CSeries (by LGWflyer Feb 6 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6437 posts, RR: 34
Reply 160, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
I think the market for the C-series is about 4,000 frames over 20 years.

That is a theoretical market (or "conceptual" as I phrased it). Much like BBD missing out on the Classics, DC9, F100, etc, replacement market the actual market opportunity is a fraction of that.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
I'm going to be curious if the TATL CS100 has a really large market. I'm doubtful, but that could be enough to keep the line going until it gains traction... There are certainly more sales campains underway. I'd love to know all of the airlines.

London-NYC is really the only TATL route that would have a sustained market... and BA basically have that sewn up.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
Bombardier has not had a very effective sales campaign. However, the design for leasing companies will pay off in the long run.

Considering what BBD is up against I don't think that they really could have done anything much different.

Of course, it sure doesn't help when GECAS will not only not buy your product, on the one hand, but will aggressively try to torpedo it with the other!

BTW, how long is "in the long run". If, as you say, not to expect significant airline orders until ~20 months after EIS, that might be running into the start of early all-new NB conceptual designs from A & B.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
There will always be more orders. Some years a few, some years thousands. I could see winning a sub-fleet for DL and LH among others.

Again, theoretically, yes... but from a practical perspective, no. For example, on several LH Classic replacement threads posters were adamant (some vociferous) that the CSeries would be LH's Classics replacement but they are not. Likewise, many posters believed that WN were the perfect candidate to order CSeries... and on paper it looked "good" but in reality the CSeries never had a chance.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
Compare this to a market of 4k to be split by Bombardier and a re-engines E-190/195 and ???.

As pointed out in previous postings, the 4K is not 'really' 4k as there is, for most contests, a divided market... regional and mainline and the CSeries has only a single foot in each market versus EMB (with 4 in the regional) and both A & B (with 3 in the mainline).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
I have no doubt GE and Boeing will pull off many deals. However, the GTF has done surprisingly well on the A320NEO. For example, with Indigo and GoAir in India. GoAir is interesting as they were a CFM customer on the A320.

That is getting into a different 'cat fight'... GE vs PW on the NEO. That is very different than CSeries (PW) vs NEO (with GE vs PW)... AND... MAX (GE).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
No argument on the sweet spot. But Boeing still offers a 737-7MAX and Airbus the A319NEO. Why? There is a market. Who? We'll see. We could speculate and most likely have many incorrect guesses.

For the most part, the sub 150-seat market is "shrinking". For example, WN is buying 738s while Classics leave the fleet... but when they do need to replace an old 73G... eventually... they will buy a MAX 737-7 because starting a small stub fleet of CSeries makes no economic sense.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
Leasors are hesitant to adopt a frame until there are 20+ airlines interested. Bombardier is on track to get their by EIS. They have a good design concept for low maintenance and low fuel burn.

Again, looking at it from a theoretical basis it sound good (nothing at all wrong with the 'good design concept') but the market reality is different as the Flight Global article points out. To get 20+ airlines interested one needs a magic ball... not a crystal ball.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
I think we can agree that the 737 will outsell the C-series. That isn't the same as you assert that no one will split their fleets or that no one will order the type.

I never say that no one will ever split their fleet or that no one will ever order the type. What I do say that it has to make economic sense and thus far just about every purchasing factor lines up against the CSeries. From the timing, to purchase price, to bulldog competitors, to financing, to late NGs & OEOs coming off lease, etc, etc, etc.

On a side note, another factor that could lessen the CSeries main selling point is if oil prices drop in the next few years as some oil industry analysts are speculating due to increased production the oil sands north of the border (and XL pipeline) and fracking south (and in other parts of the world as the technology is introduced... Exxon and Russia just signed a major fracking deal).

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 159):
While the recent A320NEO orders in India reduce the candidate pool, there are still candidates. For example, US:
EasyJet Evaulating A320neo, B737 Max & CSer