Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 737 MAX Specs Released  
User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2473 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28634 times:

Just watch a video presenting the Boeing 737 MAX specs:

http://youtu.be/4Fo9D1CBGZA

Main points from the video:

1) MAX 7 will have an increased MTOW of 5000lb and a range increase of 400nm with 126 pax

2) MAX 8 will have an increased MTOW of 7000lb and a range increase of 540nm with 162 pax

3) MAX 9 will have the same MTOW increase of 7000lb and increase of 540nm with 180 pax, also noted during the presentation of the MAX 9 was the talk of it being the 757 replacement EXCEPT on long haul duties.

The video also includes comparisons to the A320neo series

So basically heres what the figures are for the MAX aircraft compared to the NG:


737-700
MTOW: 154,400 lb
Range: 3,400nm

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

737-800
MTOW: 174,200lb
Range: 3,080nm

737 Max 8
MTOW: 181,200lb
Range: 3,620nm

737-900ER
MTOW:187,700lb
Range: 3055nm

737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm

Wingspan: 35.9m
Height: 12.5m
Cruise speed: M0.79
Length 33.6m (737 Max 7)
39.5m (737 Max 8)
42.1m (737 Max 9)

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...arnborough-boeing-defines-the.html

[Edited 2012-07-11 20:31:48]


Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7752 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 28605 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm

Woah, there you go. Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes (as in from the New England coast to Western euro?)



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlineboeing773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28550 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):

It could happen, but it would be pushing it. JFK-LHR is 3451 Miles, so they would have some chance of accomplishing it, but with winds and everything who knows.



Work Hard, Fly Right.
User currently offlineBreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 1669 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28489 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes

I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.



I'm tired of the A vs. B sniping. Neither make planes that shed wings randomly!
User currently offlinerailker From Canada, joined Aug 2006, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28407 times:

Also, as mentioned on the other thread, there's a size difference too as compared to NG winglets -- about 1'7" taller from top to bottom. It's only an inch higher than the NG winglets on the top portion, the rest of the height is made up by that bottom fin.

My question relates to what Boeing states about these ... the 737NG winglet installation as a retrofit means, according to http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm , 480 pounds of weight for the set; including wing mods and the winglets themselves. Yet on the new MAX winglets, the quote on the page says, "... This makes the system more efficient without adding more weight."


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2666 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28294 times:

The 752 has a stated range of 3900 NM. TXL-EWR is 3458 NM or 88.7% or stated range.

So, if 88,7% is used, TATL could be possible. However, CO had trouble westbound, especially in Winter.

However, the 73G would have a 88% range of 3014 miles and I don't think anyone with a standard 73G has scheduled routes like EWR-DUB, well under 3014 NM at 2774 NM.

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm
88.7% would be 3369 nm
EWR-HAM is 3323 NM

737 Max 8
MTOW: 181,200lb
Range: 3,620nm
88.7% would be 3209 nm
BRU-EWR is 3198 nm

737 Max 9
MTOW: 194,700lb
Range: 3,595nm
88.7% would be 3187 nm
AMS-EWR is 3177 NM

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Thread starter):
737-700
MTOW: 154,400 lb
Range: 3,400nm

737 Max 7
MTOW: 159,400lb
Range: 3,800nm

Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 28289 times:

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way.


User currently offlinetravelhound From Australia, joined May 2008, 942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 27905 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.

I think the extra range is obtained by the engines being more fuel efficient and an increase in MTOW, so they planes can tank more fuel.

I stand corrected if not!

It would be interesting to compare the 737MAX range numbers with the corresponding A320NEO numbers.

[Edited 2012-07-11 22:00:34]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10105 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 27808 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range?

I thought Boeing had stated that the SFC improvement would be in the 10% - 12% range..

Rgds


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10105 posts, RR: 97
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 27800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 6):
The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way

The R/P charts that I have seen in the ACAP's seem to say "no wind"..

Rgds


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 27750 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
Interesting that the 737 MAX 7 does not have a 15% gain in range (the 8 and 9 are over 15%). If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range? I guess the added MTOW would allow more payload and that would lower the range gain.

Boeing claims the 737-8 is 13% more efficient than the 737-800, not 15%. That number likely varies a bit for the 737-7 and 737-9, but to my knowledge they have only released a number for the 737-8.

The reason the 737-8 and 737-9 range gain looks different than the 737-7 is because the 737-8 and 737-9 max range are both on the fuel volume limit at full pax and bags. The 737-7 max range is on the MTOW limit at full pax and bags. This is also true for the 737 NG models. If the 737-7 does not gain as much range as the 737-8 and 737-9, it is because Boeing chose not to move the 737-7 MTOW out that far... probably because no customers identified this as range capability that was critical to them.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 27726 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
The R/P charts that I have seen in the ACAP's seem to say "no wind"..

I'd need to see what you are referencing. Regardless, all Boeing ranges which are made public as a part of a marketing message are shown worst direction with 85% annual winds.


User currently offlineaklrno From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 27508 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 1):
Do you think that some airlines may use this on TATL routes

I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.

He said in the video that the new 737 is NOT a replacement for the TATL 757. I guess we should believe him.


User currently onlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27352 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5):
If the engines are 15% more efficient, wouldn't you get 15% more range?

I thought Boeing had stated that the SFC improvement would be in the 10% - 12% range..

Rgds

The engines may be 15% more efficient, but there are losses in terms of added weight and aerodynamics. So the net gain is / was quoted at 13%.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10105 posts, RR: 97
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27315 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 11):
I'd need to see what you are referencing.

It's the standard ACAP documents that Boeing publishes. On their website...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/737.htm

All the charts show "Standard day, zero wind".
Using the range of 3 080Nm shown in the OP, it gives a zero fuel weight of about 126 000lb, for the non-wingletted aircraft.
Section 2 of the same document gives a "spec" OEW of 91 300 lb, which would give a "spec" payload of 34 700lb or 15.8 tonnes.
Which (to me at least) sounds in the ballpark for the 162 passengers quoted in the OP

I'm not sure exactly what the improvement generated by the winglets is, but if I assume 5% better fuel burn overall on a sector of that length, then I guess the still-air range at that 126 000lb zero fuel weight would be 3 230Nm for the wingletted 737-800.

Obviously, like all ACAP's, the real-world dry operating weight will be higher than 91 300lb

How a 3 230 Nm range with that 34 700lb payload at "spec" OEW (not airline specific DOW) in still-air (given my 5% assumed adder for the winglets) translates into 3 080Nm in the marketing blurb with "85% annual winds" is a different question  

Rgds

[Edited 2012-07-11 23:54:13]

User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27256 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
Which (to me at least) sounds in the ballpark for the 162 passengers as quoted in the OP

It's close. Narrow bodies are generically quoted at 200 lbs/pax, so 32,400 lbs.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10105 posts, RR: 97
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 27239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
I guess the still-air range at that 126 000lb zero fuel weight would be 3 230Nm for the wingletted 737-800.

Afterthought..
And if we add the extra 540Nm quoted in the OP to this, gives a still-air range of 3 770Nm at "spec" OEW plus 162 pax.

Which is remarkably similar to the 3 750Nm still-air being quoted for the A320neo
Which, I'm guessing is at "spec" weight with 150 pax.
And which, I believe is at an MTOW 1t up on the current heaviest version - i.o.w. 79 tonnes, or 174 000lb)

Rgds


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 27072 times:

It's hard to forget the visual Ozimek gave us of a 737 trucking around with GE90s..

Quoting aklrno (Reply 12):
He said in the video that the new 737 is NOT a replacement for the TATL 757. I guess we should believe him.

That was interesting.

He also said that only about 50 (or 15?) 757's are used on those long-range TATL routes, and that, being the newest 757s, will remain in service for a long time to come. He then said that the 737 MAX lineup will be a perfect replacement for the "other 1000." Which is interesting for numerous reasons.. 1) basically Boeing seems to be saying they're not interested in replacing the 50 (15) 757's that are pushed to the limits, and 2) THAT many 757 are still in service?!

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 3):
I don't believe it will have the range -- the ranges quoted are still-air aren't they?

Headwinds will make the real-life range shorter.

  Ozimek was quite clear regarding that. In the beginning of the video, he basically states that the "circle" maps aren't true circles because they factor in winds.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 26685 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 6):
The ranges quoted will be against 85% annual winds. All Boeing public range numbers are done this way.

Can you explain with an example what this means in practice, e.g. what would be the still air range of the -8 with the given 3620nm?

Quoting CM (Reply 15):
Narrow bodies are generically quoted at 200 lbs/pax, so 32,400 lbs.

I have got 210lb/pax for Boeing frames from Zeke but that is then for TA ? I assume A uses 95kg/pax throughout?



Non French in France
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2675 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 25280 times:

Sorry for those who were hoping for TATL capability - I'm afraid it won't happen (which is what I expected). I could still imagine a handful of UK-Ireland - Northeast US flights, but that's it. It won't be a 757 replacement. The MAX-7 is the only one that could, but not with a large enough pax load to make it worthwhile.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 24846 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 14):
It's the standard ACAP documents that Boeing publishes. On their website...

I think people keep forgetting what ACAP stands for: Airplane Characteristics for AIRPORT PLANNING (emphasis added). Nobody does flight planning with an ACAP. The payload/range curve in the ACAP is not the same, and not derived the same way, as the spec ranges.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
1) basically Boeing seems to be saying they're not interested in replacing the 50 (15) 757's that are pushed to the limits

Exactly. Which is what the "Here's why Boeing doesn't restart 757 production" crowd has been saying on a.net for as long as I've been here.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
2) THAT many 757 are still in service?!

Yes. The 757 is very good for its mission; it is not an airplane you would park lightly.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 18):
Can you explain with an example what this means in practice, e.g. what would be the still air range of the -8 with the given 3620nm?

Suppose the true airspeed of a cruising 737 is 400 knots, it's spec range is 3620nm, and the 85% annual headwind is 40 knots.

True groundspeed is 360 knots (400-40).
Flight time is therefore 10.1 hours (3620/360).
Still air range is then 4010nm (10.1 * 400).

These are random numbers I pulled out for the purpose of the example, I'm not including the climb/descent portions (because these don't have much effect on very long flights), and I'm not including altitude effects on the IAS/TAS variance. To do it properly you need full flight planning software. But this should give you a basic idea of what they mean.

Tom.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 24334 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 20):
85% annual headwind

Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.



Non French in France
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 23066 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 17):
Ozimek was quite clear regarding that. In the beginning of the video, he basically states that the "circle" maps aren't true circles because they factor in winds.

Boeing's Range Charts under the Technical Information section of a Commercial Airplane family reflect prevailing wind and weather patterns and the elevation and temperature of the city shown.

Examples - http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_rc_newyork.html and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/777_range_london.pdf


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 22723 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.

The 85% is an adverse wind component (headwind) added into the range calculation.  It theoretically accounts for winds on all but 15% of flying days.  85% has become a generally accepted standard by the airlines, as the conservatism in flight planning software and the tailored tracks most airlines actually fly results in 85% performance typically being flyable year round.  "85% annual winds" or "85% winds" is how this is typically annotated on Boeing charts.  Sometimes the winds are not specifically stated and this mission rule is lumped in with a few other factors and described as "Typical mission rules".  

To Astuteman's point, I can't say how ACAP data is calculated or presented, but Boeing marketing ranges are calculated using 85% winds as a part of the "typical mission rules".

 Using 85% winds is conservative, which is why the Boeing guy in the video stated the circle chart could be misleading.  What he meant is on most days the aircraft will be able to fly farther than what the chart was showing.

Some parts of the "typical mission rules" are not so conservative (like pax weight) but taken as a whole, the rule set results in mission performance claims which are conservative and do not overstate the capability of the airplane.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 22547 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 21):
Thanks Tom, that I get, the term "85% annual headwind" not. Is this some kind of standard in airline flying, does some organization publish it's values for all parts of the world etc.

Expanding on what CM said, the "85%" part is the probability distribution around the winds.

If you take all the winds on all they days everywhere and plot them out with how often you gets winds of various magnitudes you get some kind of curve. If you pick a really small value, say 1 knot, some huge % (95%+?) will be higher than that. If you pick some really high value, say 200 knots, almost none of the winds will be higher than that (0.01%?).

"85% winds" is saying "This is the value of windspeed that, 85% of the time, the actual wind will be equal or less than."

If the 85% wind is, say, 50 knots and you fly 1000 flights, for 850 (85%) of those flights you'd expect the average wind to be
less than or equal to 50 knots. The other 150 flights (remaining 15%) you'd expect the average wind to be higher.

Tom.


25 astuteman : I certainly don't forget it Tom. The only reason that I refer to the R/P charts in the ACAP is that, in reality, airline configurations differ, dry o
26 CARST : Tom, if the still air range is about 4000nm for the 738max, what are the longest routes this aircraft will fly on a daily basis? It seems to be very
27 CM : Depends on your definition of "close". Using the typical mission rules we've been discussing shows the 757 still has a pretty decisive range advantag
28 LAXDESI : I wonder if Boeing(or Airbus) has any plans to offer an ER version of 737-8(A320 NEO) with TATL range. Basically, MTOW of the larger 737-9 with one a
29 flylku : Perhaps they can make TATL, and maybe some airline will try it, but it will be low yield. Low yield passengers are the ones who say "I think it had tw
30 zeke : I am not sure where they have come up with their numbers for the competitive analysis, they seem to be rather different to their competitors announcem
31 ckfred : So, this begs the question. Will Airbus or Boeing try to develop a replacement for TATL 757s? Granted, that's not a huge number of aircraft. But, cons
32 XT6Wagon : how is it any better to be in a 777 or A330 with the same seat pitch and width as the economy seat in a 737/A320/757?
33 fpetrutiu : Boeing is reportedly working on one. We'll see where it goes...
34 Post contains links and images phxa340 : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...haul-757-replacement-study-371163/
35 tdscanuck : The MAX has altered flight controls; they may be getting more takeoff performance out of the wing. Auxiliary tanks are plumbed into the center tank o
36 PHX787 : Thanks for the information It would be interesting to see if someone tries
37 WarpSpeed : Might Boeing approach such a replacement by redefining the aircraft class such that TATL is a subset mission of a broader market? Some commentators h
38 Post contains images SASMD82 : I can't make head nor tail out it.....what is this in the normal metric system? How much better is it compared to the current 737 (Next -> oh yeah
39 Post contains images CM : Just to be clear, 7,000 lbs MTOW increase does not equal 7,000 lbs OEW increase The 737 MAX OEW increase is well shy of this. Regardless, the field l
40 Aesma : Well, in a 330 you can get a window seat with only one person next to you, but I digress ! People like to be in a larger plane, more visual space and
41 Post contains images Stitch : If you want TATL in a narrowbody there is the 737-700ER and A319-100LR.
42 Post contains images PHX787 : Or BA's 318CJ
43 MCOflyer : My guess is UA will use the new 737-9 on the DUB route when capacity is needed. If UA does not, someone will use it on services across the pond. KH
44 ikramerica : MAX9 will do EWR/IAD - UK/Ireland just fine. It's only a matter of cargo load depending on conditions.
45 Post contains images yeelep : That is the case with any plane, unless of course someone is sat on the wing. On a less smartassy note, does anyone know if the ram air exhaust louve
46 dfambro : But on a 747 many folks want to be upstairs, which is basically a short narrowbody cabin plopped on top of a widebody. It's got the least 'sense of s
47 Stitch : True, but upstairs on a 747 feels more like a 767 to me than a 757 for some reason...
48 zeke : I never said it did, I was referring to the 7000lb increase in TOW as described in the video in the OP at around the 1 minutes mark. I understand a n
49 CM : Fair enough. For those flights operating at MTOW, the full 7000lb increase is definitely a consideration for field performance. The OEW increase impa
50 as77w : It would be nice to see a 737 that is capable of making profitable and realistic ANC-East Coast non stops.
51 CM : ANC-JFK is 2942nm. A 737-700 can easily do that today, but Alaska routes have a lot of revenue cargo, which I suspect makes the current NB aircraft n
52 rwessel : It's hard to imagine that there are any plausible 737 routes that could actually make use of more than ETOPS 180. You'd need a near six hour segment
53 Post contains links LAXDESI : Estimates by United on fuel savings of 739ER relative to B752 suggests that a low density B737-9 tank may be able to beat B752 on many of the current
54 Post contains links 2travel2know2 : B737-700MAX, its range, still no good for CM (most likely to be profitable) transatlantic routes: PTY (9°04'17"N 79°23'00"W) SID (16°44'29"N 22°5
55 ikramerica : I fully expect this. Mainland EU will go all 767 then eventually 787 unless Boeing or Airbus create a 5000nm replacement for the 762/3 752/3, UK will
56 XT6Wagon : We will likely see some expansion of the use of 737's for transatlantic routes, but still in a premium only configuration like we see today. The lowe
57 tdscanuck : Yes but, as CM pointed out, they never updated the performance data to take credit for the brakes' increased capability. They were marketed purely as
58 ferpe : Winglets go directly to induced drag which reduces the climb gradient which influences screen height. At a calculated one engine out for a 737-800 at
59 packsonflight : Have Boeing released any DOW numbers for the MAX??? MTOW increase is pretty meaningless without the DOW me thinks.
60 TWA772LR : These new winglets look like modified blended winglets. Aren't raked wingtips more efficient than blended? If so, why didn't Boeing design the MAX wit
61 817Dreamliiner : Yes the raked wingtips are more efficient than the winglets. However you need to remember that its a 737, which is a short/medium haul narrow body ai
62 MCOflyer : I think AS will all three variants of the max series. The 900 Max is a perfect trans con a/c for the routes they serve. My gut tells me that a few 800
63 as77w : I can't see them ordering any 700MAX. It seems to me like AS is going in the direction of mainly 8s and 9s, with a their small fleet of current 700s.
64 Stitch : I agree with as77w. They have found the trip costs between the 737-700 and 737-800 to be so close that the 737-800 is the better choice because every
65 MCOflyer : I honestly can see 800's being converted. My gut tells me that in the future they will. Aside from this, I think the majority orders will be for the
66 Post contains images as77w : My guess for the future of AS bush flying is that they will use the 400Cs for as long as possible, then get rid of them. They will not convert any ot
67 sweair : The 757s that fly TATL have 4100nm range and 180 seats, they still struggle some days in the winter. A+B would have to add more range than this to tru
68 GCT64 : Looks like a likely scenario to me. I expect Ireland/Scotland/N England - NE USA/Canada to go to MAX9 or A321NEO (depending on the airline) - hopeful
69 rcair1 : In the video he specifically said that the Max was not a replacement for the TATL 757's, only the TCON 757's. He said the 100 or so 757's doing TATL
70 zeke : A lot of that sounds like the short field performance enhancement program for the NG, which I understand is standard on the -900ER
71 flylku : It isn't. But the seats in UA 777s are an inch wider. The seats in UA 767s are the same width but configured 2-3-2. I have flown the 330/340 but I do
72 NC1844v : Would Not be any different than all the aircraft in the past. Of course headwinds will change the range of an aircraft. Wind will effect your car if
73 tdscanuck : Very similar, only greater magnitude and applied across the family. Tom.
74 JoeCanuck : Do any 737's have droop ailerons?
75 r2rho : I'd be interested to know what the CASM or the trip cost of a 788 versus a 757 is... potentially, they are not too far apart, in which case the 788 co
76 ikramerica : It's what they say now, but again, if the performance is there in service, expect the UK routes to go 9MAX. Same for DEN/LAX/SFO - Hawaii other than
77 Stitch : CASM should favor the 787-8. In UA config, for example, the 757-200 seats 169 versus 219 on the 787-8. Trip cost would probably favor the 757-200.
78 DocLightning : Which raises the question of whether the world really *needs* a 752 replacement. They are being used on TATL routes partly because the airlines have
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Virgin Australia Orders 23 Boeing 737 MAX Jets posted Thu Jul 5 2012 00:52:40 by ZKOJH
Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?) posted Sun Nov 27 2011 23:13:57 by kaitak744
Boeing Puts Finishing Touches On 737 MAX posted Thu Apr 12 2012 12:51:45 by PhxA340
Pratt CEO Warns Boeing On 737 MAX posted Wed Sep 7 2011 03:05:21 by blueshamu330s
Report: United To Order 100 737 MAX posted Mon Jul 9 2012 14:07:51 by CX747
MEA To Sell A321s, Evaluating A320neo And 737 MAX posted Tue Jun 19 2012 17:07:32 by BA
Westjet 1,000,000 Boeing 737 Flight Today posted Wed May 30 2012 01:35:55 by Skippy777
New 737 Max Winglet posted Wed May 2 2012 06:23:04 by zeke
ALC Orders 8 More 789's + MoU For 60 737 MAX's posted Tue May 1 2012 09:54:25 by redrooster3
Jat Airways (JU) Leasing 2 Boeing 737-800s posted Thu Apr 12 2012 13:03:59 by crazyguineapig