Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8746 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5009 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 1): Hope it includes some MAX-7 orders to launch that subtype.
GOL needs short field operations and with the weights on the MAX going up, the -7 might be needed for Rio and similar airports that have very short runways.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
EddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7177 posts, RR: 45 Reply 7, posted (7 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4709 times:
Wow, Latin America is proving to be a great place for Boeing. First the massive AM MAX order and now Gol's. Congrats to both Gol and Boeing!
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6): GOL needs short field operations and with the weights on the MAX going up, the -7 might be needed for Rio and similar airports that have very short runways.
voar From Canada, joined Jul 2008, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4332 times:
Even more important than the Short-field operations capability is the maximum wingspan at CGH. It cannot be bigger than the 737-800 or it won't fit in the gates there. Currently there is only about 3m distance between parked aircraft.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10687 posts, RR: 100 Reply 12, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3558 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6): the -7 might be needed for Rio and similar airports that have very short runways.
Interesting... But wouldn't it just make sense for GOL to keep their current 73Gs for those few airports? Leasing costs of the -7MAX will be higher due to expected poor resale.
Every time Boeing has improved the engines on the 737, the prefered sub-type has grown. Why would leasing companies risk taking a poor resale version? The 73G and A319 resale values were already taking a hit as airlines shifted to the A320/738. There simply is not enough cost difference per flight to justify a smaller type.
With the JT8Ds, the 732 was the preferred length
With the CFM-3s, the 733 was the preferred length, not the 735 (732 length)
With the CFM-7s, the 738 is the dominant type, with the 736s being scrapped due to such low demand and reduced resale of the 73Gs.
With WN (and thus FL) going to the 738, where is the resale market for the -7MAX? I do not see it. If I were a bank VP or leasing VP, I wouldn't approve a loan on a 737-7MAX without a substantial down payment *and* an aggressive depreciation schedule. For that is the only way to make money on the type. Otherwise, the leasing and financing companies should stick with the far more liquid 738MAX/739MAX.
This shift to a longer length has happened every engine change on the 737. Why fight it? If GOL needs a smaller plane, the airline is large enough now to order a dedicated sub fleet. I doubt they will, but the current 73Gs can fill that role if the field is too short.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26719 posts, RR: 83 Reply 14, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3096 times:
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8746 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3035 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14): Quoting brindabella (Reply 11):
Really? 724 orders and not even one -7 yet?
With trip costs effectively the same, you're leaving money on the table flying a 737-7 instead of a 737-8.
The trip costs are close, but there is a difference. The marginal cost of the extra seats is low, but certainly not zero.
The biggest difference in favor of the -7 is that the 737-7 can takeoff from runways that a 737-8 can't or would be so weight restricted that the 737-7 has better economics.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 16, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Their problem is 2012, not 2018.
They shall use the funds to improve their product and try to launch a better "long haul" 738 product to tap markets in which there's real demand such as United States, Canada and the Caribbean.
This order will not help them today.
That's my 2c
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2412 times:
2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
Quoting avi8 (Reply 9): I wonder when COPA will order the MAX. I thought we would see their order sooner given the long flights they make to deep South America.
As soon as the MAX is starting to be delivered, any CM NG aircraft already in order or option will be a MAX.quote=Roseflyer,reply=15]The biggest difference in favor of the -7 is that the 737-7 can takeoff from runways that a 737-8 can't or would be so weight restricted that the 737-7 has better economics.[/quote]And the B737-600 can take off from even shorter runways fully loaded than both B737-700 and -800.
Should G3 financial status be of some concern for Boeing or G3 itself?
60 B737MAX isn't a couple of aircraft.
g500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 724 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 16): They shall use the funds to improve their product and try to launch a better "long haul" 738 product to tap markets in which there's real demand such as United States, Canada and the Caribbean.
Suppose they set up an international hub in Northern Brazil (Manaus). The longer range 737-800 would only be able to reach Southern Florida (MIA, FLL, MCO). The rest of the U.S (LAX, IAH, JFK) would not reachable with a 737 MAX. That might be why some people were expecting a 787 order
Quoting LipeGIG (Reply 16): This order will not help them today
agree. at least It will give their stock price a good jolt upwards
yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, RR: 59 Reply 20, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1637 times:
Quoting brindabella (Reply 11): Quoting yyz717 (Reply 1):
Hope it includes some MAX-7 orders to launch that subtype.
Really? 724 orders and not even one -7 yet?
No launch customer fot the MAX-7 yet. It will not enter service until 2019 though, after the -8 and -9.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12): With WN (and thus FL) going to the 738, where is the resale market for the -7MAX? I do not see it. If I were a bank VP or leasing VP, I wouldn't approve a loan on a 737-7MAX without a substantial down payment *and* an aggressive depreciation schedule. For that is the only way to make money on the type.
I would agree with your point if we were in say 2017 (5 years from now) but it's early days yet. Once a large/marquis customer has ordered the -7, leasing companies will be more willing to finance -7 orders. Of course.....Boeing still needs the initial -7 order to kickstart the subtype.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
vatveng From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 892 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 12): With the JT8Ds, the 732 was the preferred length
With the CFM-3s, the 733 was the preferred length, not the 735 (732 length)
With the CFM-7s, the 738 is the dominant type, with the 736s being scrapped due to such low demand and reduced resale of the 73Gs.
With the preferred length increasing, could we some day see a MAX-10? How much farther can the 737 platform be stretched before significant structural changes are required that would make a clean-sheet design more cost-effective?
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10687 posts, RR: 100 Reply 22, posted (7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Quoting yyz717 (Reply 20): Once a large/marquis customer has ordered the -7, leasing companies will be more willing to finance -7 orders. Of course.....Boeing still needs the initial -7 order to kickstart the subtype.
To a degree. That didn't save 736 resale values. The reality is that the cost difference, per flight between a 738MAX and 73GMAX is too little to justify the smaller type. But hey, I hope to be proven wrong! For a liquid -7 resale market, there must be 20 airlines flying the type. I do not see that happening. Thus, my opinion on why leasing companies will avoid the type.
For example, Lyon air switched from the 739ER to the 738 due to its superior resale value impacting their operating costs. Now that the 739ER is doing better, I expect them to switch back (if they haven't already).
Quoting vatveng (Reply 21): With the preferred length increasing, could we some day see a MAX-10? How much farther can the 737 platform be stretched before significant structural changes are required that would make a clean-sheet design more cost-effective?
The issue is takeoff performance. I speculate that the 737-9 is shorter than the A321 for that reason. The plane must be designed around tail strikes and that limits runway performance. There might be a small stretch of the -9, but not enough that I would concern myself. I expect the -9 to *eventually* outsell the -8MAX. But when? Eventually is a long time frame.
I'm more concerned on when we see a TATL range high MTOW 738MAX.
Quoting g500 (Reply 19): The rest of the U.S (LAX, IAH, JFK) would not reachable with a 737 MAX.
I'm hearing rumors of a 3900nm+ range 738MAX. That might help a bit.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8746 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15989 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Apr 2011, 105 posts, 
From Guatemala, joined Nov 2000, 1084 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7177 posts, 
From Norway, joined May 2006, 907 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, 
From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2011 posts, 
For a liquid -7 resale market, there must be 20 airlines flying the type. I do not see that happening. Thus, my opinion on why leasing companies will avoid the type.
Printer friendly format 
