Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration and recent developments

Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:00 pm

If Boeing ever launches a MoM, maybe it will be a 737 after all.

Image

Wings will be bigger, landing gear higher, engines more efficient.

4500NM range, an A321 killer?
Last edited by SQ22 on Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Thread title updated
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:32 pm

MOM looks to be aimed at a larger market that will need higher operating weights and more capacity than a stretch 737 (ne 757-200) can offer,

As to it being an A321-200 killer, I expect not (it's a 737, after all), but even if it did prove to somehow be "better", Airbus will of course launch your A322-200 and cut it off at the knees.
 
log0008
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:17 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:47 pm

It will not be a A321-200 killer but I suspect what it can be is the A321 of the 737 line up, where carrier which operates a single fleet of 737 (Ryanair, Southwest and other LCC's) can offer higher capacity on key routes, much like many use the A321 for.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:03 am

The main issue is that it would cost a lot to develope something like this. If they try and keep it cheap, it won't be very good and could easily be beat by a new Airbus. If they make many changes like a new gear and wing, it will cost a ton of money, require more to be changed, and would significantly increase the cost of purchasing such a plane. With the number of changes the 737-10 would need, how common would it be with the other 737 models? Could it even be certified as a variant of the 737-100?

I also don't see the point of a mid cabin galley on a 737 of any sort as DL for example is doing away with that on many of their 757s. It is highly unlikely that they would use a different engine than the CFM-LEAP as it would further reduce commonality with the other 737 variants.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:04 am

I think Boeing might have a job filling up a gap, 4000NM with 200 passengers. Airlines are asking for it.

If Airbus does it too, bummer, but it is still better then being out of the game altogether. Airlines are abandoning the 737 product because the -8 is the biggest useful optional type for their operations in the future. The slight capacity increase the -9 offers over the -8 doesn't justify it's payload-range hit and take-off performance short-fall.

Major -9 customer United has been very quiet on their 2012 737-9 order. The only other major customer, Lionair, has quietly been converting to -8s. United has to take decisions soon. No airline looks forwards to an oddball sub-fleet without rest value. That wasn't the idea 4 years back. No doubt John Leahy is sitting at their table with tailored A321 NEO proposals.

Image

Has Boeing started assembling the -9 prototype? I think United is pulling strings in the -9 / MoM project.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:37 am

I think it would be important for the discussion to keep the proposed '737-10X' and MoM separate. From my understanding from both the press and elsewhere, these are separate studies. As <b>Stitch</b> noted, the MoM is supposedly the next step up from the A321, while the -10X would be roughly equivalent in size & mission. Now, whether both or either ever sees a runway is anyone's guess, and there will be a ton of factors for both Boeing and the airlines to consider before going forward. But it is important to make the distinction.

"<I>Airbus will of course launch your A322-200 and cut it off at the knees.</I>"

I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any proposed 'A322' as any cheaper or easier for Airbus to do than Boeing to do a -10. The wing on the A321 is already maxed out (excuse the pun), and according to Airbus's ACAP documentation, there's only a few cm difference in ground clearance between the current A321neo and the 737-9 MAX. Is it doable? Absolutely. But it won't just be a 'quick fix' to counter Boeing if they do end up doing a heavily modified 737-10X.

Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
sxf24
Posts: 993
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:00 am

keesje wrote:
I Major -9 customer United has been very quiet on their 2012 737-9 order. The only other major customer, Lionair, has quietly been converting to -8s. United has to take decisions soon. No airline looks forwards to an oddball sub-fleet without rest value. That wasn't the idea 4 years back. No doubt John Leahy is sitting at their table with tailored A321 NEO proposals.

Has Boeing started assembling the -9 prototype? I think United is pulling strings in the -9 / MoM project.


What is United supposed to say? "We aren't changing our order"?

The -900ER is not as easy to finance as the -800, which is why Lionair is converting some deliveries. Part of the financing challenge is that the largest operators of the -900 don't finance their airplanes, they pay cash. Lionair can't do that and faces a bit of a challenge. I'm not aware that there converted any MAX orders.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:24 am

keesje wrote:
If Boeing ever launches a MoM, maybe it will be a 737 after all.

Image

Wings will be bigger, landing gear higher, engines more efficient.

4500NM range, an A321 killer?


Just curious, what is the origin of that concept?
 
gregn21
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:27 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:36 am

keesje wrote:
If Boeing ever launches a MoM, maybe it will be a 737 after all.

Image

Wings will be bigger, landing gear higher, engines more efficient.

4500NM range, an A321 killer?


I don't really have an opinion on this, but why is there a flea on the drawing?
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10423
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:50 am

gregn21 wrote:
I don't really have an opinion on this, but why is there a flea on the drawing?

It's actually a fly, not a flea. It's basically Keesje's "signature" or calling card so to speak on his concept design's.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:21 am

keesje wrote:
I think Boeing might have a job filling up a gap, 4000NM with 200 passengers. Airlines are asking for it.

If Airbus does it too, bummer, but it is still better then being out of the game altogether. Airlines are abandoning the 737 product because the -8 is the biggest useful optional type for their operations in the future. The slight capacity increase the -9 offers over the -8 doesn't justify it's payload-range hit and take-off performance short-fall.

Major -9 customer United has been very quiet on their 2012 737-9 order. The only other major customer, Lionair, has quietly been converting to -8s. United has to take decisions soon. No airline looks forwards to an oddball sub-fleet without rest value. That wasn't the idea 4 years back. No doubt John Leahy is sitting at their table with tailored A321 NEO proposals.

Image

Has Boeing started assembling the -9 prototype? I think United is pulling strings in the -9 / MoM project.



When your reference United Airlines as being quiet, what does that even mean?? Are they supposed to have an open line of dialogue with you or a certain group of people?? United already said that the NEO has "isssues" whatever that means. That comment was made before the PW engine problems, if you are wondering. If United wanted to buy it, they would have already, hence the "issues" reply to the media when asked about ordering the A321NEO. The Lion Air conversion was 5 years ago for 12 -900ER's to -800NG's as a lease back sale to an undisclosed leasing company. They are not dissatisfied with the -900ER as you make them out to be.


Boeing is not going to make a 737-10 MAX as the MOM. The starting line for Boeing, which would be the MAX 9, is severely inferior to the A321 NEO. To be at par with the NEO, Boeing would have to invest with a new MLG (more weight) to accommodate a bigger fan blade (more weight) to make up for the thrust shortfalls, in addition to the fuse plugs to lengthen the frame (more weight). And since Boeing's intent is to beat the A321NEO, not to be neck and neck, a afr greater level of investment would be needed to miles ahead of the NEO. I'm fairly confident that the MAX will be the last iteration of the 737. Boeing is far too behind the narrow-body race to continue to dither the 737 as if they were in 1972 again.


My personal opinion is that Boeing will opt for 787 frame with narrow-body economics. When Boeing can figure out can figure out how to bring it to market in the next 5-7 years, make the MOM far greater to what Airbus can muster with a A322, make the price attractive and make it economical and not comical, they could have something to counter an Airbus knee-jerk reaction. Not a knock on the boys and girls in Toulouse, it's just inevitable.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:28 am

Hamlet69 wrote:
I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any proposed 'A322' as any cheaper or easier for Airbus to do than Boeing to do a -10. The wing on the A321 is already maxed out (excuse the pun), and according to Airbus's ACAP documentation, there's only a few cm difference in ground clearance between the current A321neo and the 737-9 MAX. Is it doable? Absolutely. But it won't just be a 'quick fix' to counter Boeing if they do end up doing a heavily modified 737-10X.

Regards,

Hamlet69


I don't see the A322 as being any cheaper than the -10X but if they do it right (new larger wing / wingbox uprated UC) it would be much more capable that a -10X and could be the gateway for Airbus to a 3rd gen A320 product range that would obsolete the MAX line up.
BV
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:47 am

Hamlet69 wrote:
I think it would be important for the discussion to keep the proposed '737-10X' and MoM separate. From my understanding from both the press and elsewhere, these are separate studies. As <b>Stitch</b> noted, the MoM is supposedly the next step up from the A321, while the -10X would be roughly equivalent in size & mission. Now, whether both or either ever sees a runway is anyone's guess, and there will be a ton of factors for both Boeing and the airlines to consider before going forward. But it is important to make the distinction.

"<I>Airbus will of course launch your A322-200 and cut it off at the knees.</I>"

I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any proposed 'A322' as any cheaper or easier for Airbus to do than Boeing to do a -10. The wing on the A321 is already maxed out (excuse the pun), and according to Airbus's ACAP documentation, there's only a few cm difference in ground clearance between the current A321neo and the 737-9 MAX. Is it doable? Absolutely. But it won't just be a 'quick fix' to counter Boeing if they do end up doing a heavily modified 737-10X.

Regards,

Hamlet69

The problem with the 737-10 is that if it is built for similar missions as the A321LR, but needs many costly upgrades to get there, who is going to pay a lot extra for a beefed up 737 that is more expensive than the A321LR, but does basically the same thing. If they make it bigger/more capable 737 that goes beyond the A321, they are then reaching into MoM territory. The question would then be what engines would power that. I believe The CFM-LEAP maxes out at 33,000 lbs which would be enough for an A321LR counterpart, but if they saw the need to further expand the plane they would probably need to go with the PW1000G which makes the 737-10 even less common with the rest of the 737 and makes the 737 program no longer CFM exclusive.

I might be wrong, but I am convinced the A321 has more than just a few cm of ground clearance. After all, look at how much bigger its engines are. The point is a heavily modified 737-10X would probably not be worth the costs to make. It would certainly drive the price up and then would it be competitive with the A321LR?
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:53 am

As many have said.The Max10 and MOM studies are completely different.
If Boeing are being 'told' by customers that they want a Boeing version of the 321neo then (as far as I can see - but no expert!).
They would need to introduce a wing plug at the wing root.The would enable a lengthened MLG strut without changing the basic design.Increase fuel tanks,increase lift and allow optimal fan size on their GE engines.But no doubt it's much harder than that!

Otherwise they will just have to concede this marketplace to Airbus -for the moment ,till they launch a NSA (inc MOM) sometime in the next few years when they are ready.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:38 am

actually a much lengthened MLG can be really useful towards finally making a worthy competitor against the 321neo, on top of 753/762/763 replacement markets.

but one of the biggest design considerations is to ensure simultaneous 1L + 2L boarding. I recall AA wanted to do 2L boarding for the 321T to enhance the F cabin experience but realized it was too close to the wing/engine.

one of the latest innovation is that the UA Polaris seat (and similar designs) allow all-aisle access even in a 2-2 configuration of a narrow body, thus eliminating one of the biggest barriers whereas in the current gen DL AA UA all have to use the BE Diamond seat on their transatlantic 757s that isn't all-aisle.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:53 am

parapente wrote:
As many have said.The Max10 and MOM studies are completely different.


True. However, at modern day economics of the NB, it'll be very hard for Boeing to justify offering a small wide body like 2-3-2 unless they can really show near-zero CASM/drag penalty against 3-3.

Of course, the DOA of the 787-3 and the complete drying of sales of the 787-8 and rather lackluster sales so far of the 338neo are extra data points to showcase the challenges of the MOM if it were to be twin-aisle. I'm not saying Boeing can't make it happen, but doing so will be a breakthrough in engineering feat that has governed/constrained aircraft design for the past 20 years.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:34 am

Hamlet69 wrote:
I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any proposed 'A322' as any cheaper or easier for Airbus to do than Boeing to do a -10. The wing on the A321 is already maxed out (excuse the pun), and according to Airbus's ACAP documentation, there's only a few cm difference in ground clearance between the current A321neo and the 737-9 MAX. Is it doable? Absolutely. But it won't just be a 'quick fix' to counter Boeing if they do end up doing a heavily modified 737-10X.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Two times "apples vs oranges".
First the A322 would not be a step to achieve parity as the -10 would, but be again another step ahead of the competition.
And second has the A321neo the same ground clearance as the -9 after getting the GTF, while the latter cant get a serious GTF engine at all.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:30 am

I still see this being a success. IMO It has a market, and just because Airbus might launch its own doesn't mean Boeing customers will abandon it. Plus a hypothetical A322 would take time to design, like the 737-10. So if it is a MoM then there will be quite a few orders before we see an A322, if at all.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
rocketPower
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:44 am

Oh yay another stretch of ancient technology proposal.

You guys seriously want to put engineers out of work with horrible paxex to boot with this constant reuse.

And what's with the engine chevrons, I thought they designed that out of the 777x. Why would it be needed here?
rocketPower

Life is about enjoying being uncomfortable. If you're complacent, something is wrong!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:39 am

rotating14:
When your reference United Airlines as being quiet, what does that even mean?? Are they supposed to have an open line of dialogue with you or a certain group of people?? United already said that the NEO has "isssues" whatever that means. That comment was made before the PW engine problems, if you are wondering. If United wanted to buy it, they would have already, hence the "issues" reply to the media when asked about ordering the A321NEO. The Lion Air conversion was 5 years ago for 12 -900ER's to -800NG's as a lease back sale to an undisclosed leasing company. They are not dissatisfied with the -900ER as you make them out to be.


Concluding United has doubts about the (massively successful) A321NEO and remains blindly committed to the 737-9 they ordered 4 years ago (with Boeing themselves looking for "solutions" for something since) is not the most accurate approach to effectively predict what is going to happen IMO. About LionAir, they used to be the MAX 9 launching customer. The third biggest 737-9 customer, Air Canada, has quietly been expanding their A321 fleet.

If Boeing launches a bigger 737 to fill the 737-8 - 787-9 area, they would invest for a new subfamily not for one subtype. A same MTOW version optimized for leisure trading capacity for range would be likely to serve this segment.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11652
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 11:49 am

You, Kees, are talking about a whole new 737 version, more in line of the Classic to New Generation upgrade, then the NG to Max upgrade. Why not take this money and effort into the proposed MoM, then you have a more optimized model and a model which you can upgrade again later on. I don't see it happening, neither the -10Max or -11Max.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:01 pm

rocketPower wrote:
And what's with the engine chevrons, I thought they designed that out of the 777x.


Chevrons are a "we could not get it quieter by other means, f* the losses" kind of solution :-)

Why would it be needed here?


Looks good and if Boeing uses it this must be the best of the best of the best solutions.
::mindpic:: multi services recruitment scene in MiB ::/mindpic::
Murphy is an optimist
 
rocketPower
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:59 pm

WIederling wrote:
rocketPower wrote:
And what's with the engine chevrons, I thought they designed that out of the 777x.


Chevrons are a "we could not get it quieter by other means, f* the losses" kind of solution :-)

Why would it be needed here?


Looks good and if Boeing uses it this must be the best of the best of the best solutions.
::mindpic:: multi services recruitment scene in MiB ::/mindpic::


Guess I didn't know the OP is a Boeing employee. Also not sure where the longer gear are going to fit.
rocketPower

Life is about enjoying being uncomfortable. If you're complacent, something is wrong!
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4113
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:53 pm

Boeing is about through with the 777X wing and associated changes. Any 737-10 will involve similar engineering design and construction. This would be Boeings 3rd plastic wing, familiar territory. Boeing very likely knows now how much it would cost to do a new wing, MLG and stretch for this possible new 737. I suspect they will do it.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:32 pm

keesje wrote:
rotating14:
When your reference United Airlines as being quiet, what does that even mean?? Are they supposed to have an open line of dialogue with you or a certain group of people?? United already said that the NEO has "isssues" whatever that means. That comment was made before the PW engine problems, if you are wondering. If United wanted to buy it, they would have already, hence the "issues" reply to the media when asked about ordering the A321NEO. The Lion Air conversion was 5 years ago for 12 -900ER's to -800NG's as a lease back sale to an undisclosed leasing company. They are not dissatisfied with the -900ER as you make them out to be.


Concluding United has doubts about the (massively successful) A321NEO and remains blindly committed to the 737-9 they ordered 4 years ago (with Boeing themselves looking for "solutions" for something since) is not the most accurate approach to effectively predict what is going to happen IMO. About LionAir, they used to be the MAX 9 launching customer. The third biggest 737-9 customer, Air Canada, has quietly been expanding their A321 fleet.

If Boeing launches a bigger 737 to fill the 737-8 - 787-9 area, they would invest for a new subfamily not for one subtype. A same MTOW version optimized for leisure trading capacity for range would be likely to serve this segment.

Image


There's no doubt that the A321 NEO is sales success but I'm trying to pin-point the crux of your argument. United is not on a schedule to order planes as often as people imagine. They are just completing the 2012 order and have MAX 9's coming along with the 737-700's they ordered this year. United has staff intelligent enough to plan out their fleets for the short and long term. Lion Air. They are the global launch customer of the MAX 9 and still are. Air Canada nor its subsidiary Rouge have any A321 CEO or NEO on order and will be replaced by MAX 8 and 9 models.

If Boeing chooses to go ahead with the MAX 10, it'd be unwise to make a MAX 10 (a) MAX 10 (b) MAX 10 (c). Like I mentioned before, I just dont think they'll go with both the MOM and MAX 10 amounts to be. Many of us here had the same conversation when the 777x was launched and when Airbus contemplated on a larger A350-1000 version to compete with the 777-9 and create the A380 NEO. In the end, the A380 NEO is on the shelf and Airbus is still trying to see is there is enough market to make a 777-9 competitor. As I digress, there's too much risk and not enough reward to launch a MAX 10. But taking the resources that you would have dumped into the MAX 10 and allocated it for the MOM, then you'd have a better starting point, based on what the market is asking and headed for. Good day.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:03 pm

Dutchy wrote:
You, Keesje, are talking about a whole new 737 version, more in line of the Classic to New Generation upgrade, then the NG to Max upgrade. Why not take this money and effort into the proposed MoM, then you have a more optimized model and a model which you can upgrade again later on.


Because than Airbus could not easily leap-frog it with a revamped A320. :lol:

Which is why Boeing isn't going to do it. The MAX is nothing more than a way to sell another 5000+ 737s between 2011 and 2031 when they're ready to introduce the NSA. And considering they're 2/3rd's of the way there already only five years in...
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 8:06 pm

We looked / estimated the costs of dual aisle versus single aisle aircraft up to 260-270 seats. And at the advantages of new materials. Things just don't look rosy for a new twin aisle. Boeing told us they won't do moonshots and want to avoid investing $20Bill is a program with questionable bottom line.

Still above 200 seats / 3000NM they don't have a competitive product. Nothing to keep Airbus honest on pricing. Airbus shows us soon 50% of A320 production will be A321s. Hold that against their 5000 aircraft backlog, without competition. The currently reported B739- A321 marketshares seems an euphemism for an unfolding dramatic reality.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-define-midsize-market-initiative-within-one-year

Boeing is looking at an 737-10 not because they think it's a great opportunity, but defending their market position. Doing nothing is worse.

A bigger MAX would require a new bigger (inner) wing, wing box, wheel bays, landing gear, engines and pylons. But fuselages, systems, cockpit, tail, APU, crew, MRO network would offer commonality with the MAX and NG. There's an optimized supply chain and worldwide support in place.

Boeing could scale a bigger version on top of the current MAX series, significantly higher capacity, newest bigger versions of LEAP and/or GTF and a range bump on top of the A321LR to open up a string of additional city pairs.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:16 pm

keesje wrote:
Still above 200 seats / 3000NM they don't have a competitive product.


Neither does Airbus when we're talking MoM, which is above 200 seats / 4000nm. It also remains to be seen how many of those A321-200neos will be flying missions between 3000-4000nm.

The 737-9 is inferior to the A321-200neo just as the 737-900ER is inferior to the A321-200, but we're likely not talking a market for these types of frames in the 5,000+ unit range, which would require a strong response from Boeing. The A321ceo has around 1800 orders and the A321neo has around 1200 and one expects a not-insignificant number of the neo sales are to replace ceo models and others are to replace 757-200ERs. The 737-900 is around 500 units and the 737-9 could be up to 400 units (though likely less) and many of the 737-9 sales are likely replacements for 737-900ERs.

So we may be looking at a market of perhaps 2500 planes, which is likely not large enough for Boeing to invest into the mid-to-high ten figures with Airbus already having close to half of it - especially if the result is similar to the A321-200neo and exerts a downwards pressure on per-frame Average Sales Prices. Because Boeing could not offer the "737-10" at half-off like they are the 737-9: even to launch customers. So that may be why we're not hearing much about such a frame as pitched customers might not be accepting Boeing's pricing demands.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Sun Aug 28, 2016 9:36 pm

Hamlet69 wrote:
I may be in the minority here, but I don't see any proposed 'A322' as any cheaper or easier for Airbus to do than Boeing to do a -10. The wing on the A321 is already maxed out (excuse the pun), and according to Airbus's ACAP documentation, there's only a few cm difference in ground clearance between the current A321neo and the 737-9 MAX. Is it doable? Absolutely. But it won't just be a 'quick fix' to counter Boeing if they do end up doing a heavily modified 737-10X.


I agree, a hypothetical A322 airplane will not be a 'quick fix'. Wings and wingbox changes are complex.

Thing is, Airbus invested a lot of money into A321 upgrades, and are still doing so. Thanks to all these efforts, A321 production is about to reach 50% of all A320 Family output. Airbus has a large market share in this segment.

So if Boeing is going to invest several billion dollars into a 737-10 upgrade, I'm willing to bet Airbus will invest several billions into a A322 to defend their precious A321 market.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:33 am

A few weeks ago, Scott published a review on the 737-10 situation.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/08/01/pontifications-a321lr-actions-put-pressure-boeing-launch-737-10/

He argues Boeing fears loosing MAX business by not offering A321 competition. This goes further than just 737-9 sales.

If Airbus delivers half it's current backlog as A321, that's 2500 alone in the next 7 years, on top off 1300 delivered over the last 20 years.

It seems the strategic risks and financial impact of not responding with a competitive model are considered too high at Boeing.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:09 am

keesje wrote:
A few weeks ago, Scott published a review on the 737-10 situation.

He argues Boeing fears loosing MAX business by not offering A321 competition.


He also argues in that same review that a 737-10 would be "too little, too late" against the A321-200neo, which is a view I happen to agree with. NSA is where Boeing needs to go and they need to have it in flight test within a decade and in volume production within 15 years.

Even if Airbus secures ~2500 A321-200neo orders to ~1000 737-9 orders, that's hardly the end of the world for Boeing. The 737NG secured 7000 sales between 1996 and 2016 and it looks like the MAX should do that between 2011 and 2031 (when I expect NSA to be in full production).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:33 am

Sometimes doing nothing is the best option until you can do it right. A 737-1000 will face the danger that it forces Airbus into action and there is plenty they could do.

It starts with a A322 and ends with something simple like a A320.5.
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:40 am

keesje wrote:
We looked / estimated the costs of dual aisle versus single aisle aircraft up to 260-270 seats. And at the advantages of new materials. Things just don't look rosy for a new twin aisle. Boeing told us they won't do moonshots and want to avoid investing $20Bill is a program with questionable bottom line.

Still above 200 seats / 3000NM they don't have a competitive product. Nothing to keep Airbus honest on pricing. Airbus shows us soon 50% of A320 production will be A321s. Hold that against their 5000 aircraft backlog, without competition. The currently reported B739- A321 marketshares seems an euphemism for an unfolding dramatic reality.

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-define-midsize-market-initiative-within-one-year

Boeing is looking at an 737-10 not because they think it's a great opportunity, but defending their market position. Doing nothing is worse.

A bigger MAX would require a new bigger (inner) wing, wing box, wheel bays, landing gear, engines and pylons. But fuselages, systems, cockpit, tail, APU, crew, MRO network would offer commonality with the MAX and NG. There's an optimized supply chain and worldwide support in place.

Boeing could scale a bigger version on top of the current MAX series, significantly higher capacity, newest bigger versions of LEAP and/or GTF and a range bump on top of the A321LR to open up a string of additional city pairs.


It would certainly need a new wing, nose an main gear (dual axle mains?), more payload (fuel, cargo and passenger capacity), and more thrust from a most likely a bigger LEAP. What I think would happen though is that Boeing having to do a lot more than just those changes. Fuselage? The wing to body fairing would have to be all new to allow room the different gear and bigger wing. The fuselage would also need extra reinforcement. Tail? Well the way I see it with this one is that the current tailplane would probably be inadequate for a much bigger plane and the vertical stab would need to be different because of the great increase in engine thrust. This would likely require a new tail or modifications to the existing tail. Systems? With a new wing, engines, gear, and large cabin I would assume the systems would need modification. I would wonder with the new wing and gear if the existing hydraulic setup would be adequate. Two small engine pumps, two small 8 gpm electric pumps, a small/weak flap motor, and a small standby pump for a limited functionality standby system. Would those do it? Would the existing pneumatic system be able to keep up to an even bigger cabin than the 737-9? As it is the 737-900/9's climate control does not function as well as it should. APU? I enough systems were to be modified, I would think a bigger APU that could supply more air and electrical power might be needed. Cockpit? That would certainly stay the same, otherwise the whole idea of a stretched 737 would be pointless. If they were to significantly change the cockpit, the might as well make a whole new type of plane.

I don't see the commonality being as great as airlines would hope between this 737-10 and the smaller 737s. That would make it less attractive to current 737 operators. Adding the price of the plane which would certainly have to be higher than the A321LR and you have an even less attractive plane. It would have to be able to outdo the A321LR on payload and range. The PW1000G would help increase capability and efficiency, but again would further harm commonality.

If the commonality is too little with the smaller 737s and the price is too high as I expect both would be the case, I can't see this concept getting very far.
I also would feel very bad for the pilots that would have to put up with a 737 cockpit on a 4000nmi flight.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:43 am

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
A few weeks ago, Scott published a review on the 737-10 situation.

He argues Boeing fears loosing MAX business by not offering A321 competition.


He also argues in that same review that a 737-10 would be "too little, too late" against the A321-200neo, which is a view I happen to agree with. NSA is where Boeing needs to go and they need to have it in flight test within a decade and in volume production within 15 years.

Even if Airbus secures ~2500 A321-200neo orders to ~1000 737-9 orders, that's hardly the end of the world for Boeing. The 737NG secured 7000 sales between 1996 and 2016 and it looks like the MAX should do that between 2011 and 2031 (when I expect NSA to be in full production).


-> I think for " too little" we would have to know how a 737-10 would look, what would be basic specifications.

With the current backlog (5400)/ production rate (moving to 50% vA321), it seems 2500 A321's are already in the pocket. 1000 737-9 is a different story IMO. 300 of the 400 on order are for LionAir and United, which seem far from rock solid at this stage.

If Boeing has to invest 6 Billions to get this subseries launched and its sells 500-1000, preventing airlines like United to switch and winning back some others, the 6-12 mln per aircraft to recoup versus being worked out / loosing customers (who might get second thoughts about the rest of their NB fleet requirements) seems frankly a no-brainer. I'm not surprised at all Boeing is taking a good look. Closing down the 737 line seems not on a the agenda anytime soon. That helps versus an entirely new line.

Image

If such an aircraft would have capabilities beyond the A321s / 757s (4500NM) at cost levels far below the twin aisles, it would simply be a good product for a good price, that airlines are asking for. That tends to work out.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 9:31 am

It would only be a good product, if Airbus does not answer it. If Airbus decides to invest into a new wing / wingbox and MLG for the A322 (wingbox and MLG might only mean strengthening only) it will be a competitive product. We should not forget that the A320 series still flies with the original wing and that the A321NEO is competitive already. A A322 could take more liberties in design (like bigger wingspan) than a 737-1000 which would need to fight the A321 and the theoretical A322.
In the end the situation is, that the demands is bigger than the production capability of Airbus and Boeing, so customers have not much choice really. Even if they prefer the A321 they might want or need the 737-8MAX simply because Airbus has not enough slots to deliver A321s and A320s in the time frame.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 10:24 am

Even in context of the 737 NG family the -900 was not all that much of "a better mousetrap".
13% in '16 up to now, 18% of deliveries in '15, down from its best of 20% in '13.

Compare to the continuously rising A321 production segment.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:43 am

I think the idea would be to out do Airbus with an aircraft that outdoes the A321, not match it.

A little bigger, cheaper, more range than the A321LR. The 737MAX already has bigger fuel tanks and a bigger wing than A321 to start with.

Add 82 inch fan enhanced LEAPs, slightly bigger windows, etc.. A good product, even if Airbus answers it.

Big support from GE/GECAS and launching customers United, JAL, Alaska & Ryanair.

Boeing never looked back, another successful facelift.

Boeing Back in Business

;) ;)

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
micstatic
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:56 am

Personally, I just hope we have seen the last 737 development. Such a passenger unfriendly cross section. Good riddance.
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:31 pm

micstatic wrote:
Personally, I just hope we have seen the last 737 development. Such a passenger unfriendly cross section. Good riddance.


We will never see the end of this creature until the FAA refuse to grandfather further developments.
BV
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 12:47 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
micstatic wrote:
Personally, I just hope we have seen the last 737 development. Such a passenger unfriendly cross section. Good riddance.


We will never see the end of this creature until the FAA refuse to grandfather further developments.


New United 757 cabin.
http://gojetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/p+s+United+BusinessFirst+4.jpg
http://i0.wp.com/pointmetotheplane.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/New-UA-PS-4.jpg

Same seats as on 787 and 777, IFE, internet, a good meal, extra pitch (32 inch on the 737-10 above), no transfer..
and a big economy + section if you are a FF / pay more.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
micstatic
Posts: 765
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:06 pm

keesje wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
micstatic wrote:
Personally, I just hope we have seen the last 737 development. Such a passenger unfriendly cross section. Good riddance.


We will never see the end of this creature until the FAA refuse to grandfather further developments.


New United 757 cabin.
http://gojetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/p+s+United+BusinessFirst+4.jpg
http://i0.wp.com/pointmetotheplane.boardingarea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/New-UA-PS-4.jpg

Same seats as on 787 and 777, IFE, internet, a good meal, extra pitch (32 inch on the 737-10 above), no transfer..
and a big economy + section if you are a FF / pay more.


All that sounds good. My problem is the narrow shoulder level cross section.
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:35 pm

micstatic wrote:
Personally, I just hope we have seen the last 737 development.


I agree. Four generations of the 737 is enough. Time for something new.
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:39 pm

keesje wrote:
I think Boeing might have a job filling up a gap, 4000NM with 200 passengers.


I don't find the argument "there's a gap, it must be filled" to be very compelling. Ref: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353571- ... nds-adored

rotating14 wrote:
Boeing is not going to make a 737-10 MAX as the MOM. The starting line for Boeing, which would be the MAX 9, is severely inferior to the A321 NEO. To be at par with the NEO, Boeing would have to invest with a new MLG (more weight) to accommodate a bigger fan blade (more weight) to make up for the thrust shortfalls, in addition to the fuse plugs to lengthen the frame (more weight). And since Boeing's intent is to beat the A321NEO, not to be neck and neck, a afr greater level of investment would be needed to miles ahead of the NEO. I'm fairly confident that the MAX will be the last iteration of the 737. Boeing is far too behind the narrow-body race to continue to dither the 737 as if they were in 1972 again.

My personal opinion is that Boeing will opt for 787 frame with narrow-body economics. When Boeing can figure out can figure out how to bring it to market in the next 5-7 years, make the MOM far greater to what Airbus can muster with a A322, make the price attractive and make it economical and not comical, they could have something to counter an Airbus knee-jerk reaction. Not a knock on the boys and girls in Toulouse, it's just inevitable.


We've been through this in a lot of detail in the last 1-3 months.

Ref:

There's been a lot of plot twists in the MadMax vs MOM/NMA saga, so many that John Leahy actually started using the term MadMax, and also referred to Boeing as "the paper airplane company".

Personally I've been a proponent of the MadMax. From what I see (and of course it's very limited), I think it's an incremental spend with incremental revenue that should cover that spend. It'd help fix the "A321 problem" and help restore the duopoly. However Boeing itself might know that in fact the customers aren't all that interested so maybe that's why the idea seems to be on hold (although the articles in the linked posts suggest they're still contemplating the MadMax).

As per your post, the 737 is a lighter airplane per-seat than is the A320 which is one of its main advantages, one that Boeing apparently valued a lot, but in retrospect, perhaps too much. The articles in the referenced links above show that all the "problems" with the 739 can be fixed, but the end result is a heavier aircraft and so one that gives away one of its main advantages, lower weight per seat.

I agree with the idea that a 737 extension and also A321 do not fit what Boeing views as the MOM segment. To me the MOM segment starts bigger, probably an a/c with 753 and/or 762-non-ER capacity and range (and presumably even more range). Leahy disagrees and says the MOM segment is now being filled by the A321. It's a clever strategy that allows Airbus to get whatever benefit there is from all the MOM hype. The reality is somewhere in between. The A321neoLR is something that begins to address the MOM segment, and every A321ceo/neo/neoLR undermines the MOM segment business case somewhat, but again, I don't think the A321 fits into what Boeing describes as the MOM segment.

I do think launching a MOM would target a lot of resources at a market segment that's not well defined, and I personally have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to make such a high risk move. The costs would be eye-watering. To me it does seem that a lot of potential customers are being lost to the A321 and whatever Boeing does could be further undermined by Airbus selling A321s cheaply and doing a A322 at a much lower cost and with more market acceptance than an all-new MOM.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 1170
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:05 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the idea would be to out do Airbus with an aircraft that outdoes the A321, not match it.

A little bigger, cheaper, more range than the A321LR. The 737MAX already has bigger fuel tanks and a bigger wing than A321 to start with.

Add 82 inch fan enhanced LEAPs, slightly bigger windows, etc.. A good product, even if Airbus answers it.

Big support from GE/GECAS and launching customers United, JAL, Alaska & Ryanair.

Boeing never looked back, another successful facelift.

Boeing Back in Business

;) ;)

Image


It would certainly have to beat an A321LR, but I still don't see how it could be cheaper than an A321LR. What would be paying for the development costs? As it stands now, the A321 has greater wing area than the 737 and A320, if Boeing were to make a 737-10, it would need a new wing no doubt otherwise it would be useless. The improved LEAP would sound intriguing, but the PW1000G has more room for growth and you could just imagine what Airbus could do with that. I would think the windows are something that cannot be changed.

I think the section 41 update is interesting. I don't think it would ever happen if airlines so badly want common crews with the rest of the 737 max. I think it would be a good upgrade though and then they could give it a common cockpit with the 787 which would be like 757/767. At that rate though, I think they would just be better off using the 757s nose which can probably fit a 787 cockpit with little modification and saves e cost of developing an new nose. A new nose, as I already stated, would most likely not happen. I love discussing this things!
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T PA-28-180

2 ears for spatial hearing, 2 eyes for depth perception, 2 ears for balance... How did Boeing think 1 sensor was good enough?!
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 4:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
Personally I've been a proponent of the MadMax. From what I see (and of course it's very limited), I think it's an incremental spend with incremental revenue that should cover that spend. It'd help fix the "A321 problem"


Yes it would help fix the A321 problem but not in a good way for Boeing, more acuratly it would help fix the A321's problems by motivating Airbus into fixing the A321's range and wing loading issues which opens up a whole new can of worms for the MAX and NSA,

Revelation wrote:
I do think launching a MOM would target a lot of resources at a market segment that's not well defined, and I personally have a hard time seeing Boeing deciding to make such a high risk move. The costs would be eye-watering. To me it does seem that a lot of potential customers are being lost to the A321 and whatever Boeing does could be further undermined by Airbus selling A321s cheaply and doing a A322 at a much lower cost and with more market acceptance than an all-new MOM.


Boeing lost this hand of chess when it was forced into the MAX (some argue it was lost when it screwed up the 787 program) arguably it is making the MAX mistake again with the 777X does it really want to do a threefer?
BV
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27092
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 5:48 pm

keesje wrote:
If Boeing has to invest 6 Billions to get this subseries launched and its sells 500-1000, preventing airlines like United to switch and winning back some others, the 6-12 mln per aircraft to recoup versus being worked out / loosing customers (who might get second thoughts about the rest of their NB fleet requirements) seems frankly a no-brainer.


Except Boeing has to get the airlines to pay that extra $6-12 million per frame over the A321-200neo. At current ASPs, that is a 10-20% premium. And if the "737-10" is no better than the A321-200neo, why would airlines pay that premium?

And if the "737-10" does end up being sufficiently better than the A321-200neo that Boeing can charge 10-20% more, that implies those "2500" A321-200neo orders could be at risk as airlines would likely move en masse to the "737-10". So then Airbus would be the one who is in "a pickle" and they would have to respond with their own multi-billion upgrade (a.k.a. the "A322-200") that would itself be years later to market, losing hundreds if not thousands of orders as the "737-10" runs away with the market, lifting the 737-7, 737-8 and 737-MAX200 with it.

Which would admittedly be great for Boeing, but not so much for Airbus. So I expect John L is fervently wishing Boeing doesn't follow your advice. :)
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23959
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:09 pm

BoeingVista wrote:
Boeing lost this hand of chess when it was forced into the MAX (some argue it was lost when it screwed up the 787 program) arguably it is making the MAX mistake again with the 777X does it really want to do a threefer?


And yet when they did go "clean sheet" with the 787 they also lost big. The only saving grace for the 787 was that it was addressing a huge market. I don't feel very confident about the MOM segment, but of course I don't know what customers are telling Boeing with regard to their preferences on MadMax or MOM. And, famously a few airlines helped Boeing define the 777 but never actually bought any so what they say may or may not reflect what they buy. It's all a huge crap shoot, which is what makes it so interesting to see where things end up going.

Bottom line is one possible outcome is they could spend eye-watering money building a MOM just to find out the market isn't as strong as they thought it was and be screwed. I'm sure that concern is going in to their calculations. The need to adapt widebody tech and end up with narrowbody economics creates an even greater need to get it right or lose your shirt.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
nry
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:42 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:12 pm

Image
B727, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777, B787, DC9/MD80, DC10, MD11
A319, A320 (+neo), A321, A330, A340
L1011
ATR77, CRJ200, CRJ700, E145, E170, E175
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:16 pm

keesje wrote:
A little bigger, cheaper, more range than the A321LR.

It cant be easily cheaper if it requires much more investment.
Your proposal looks reasonable and with a rather small scope. But redesigning the whole central wing with the much longer gears is a hefty challenge. This means, that one of the most complex areas of an aircraft has to be freshly designed from scratch. I believe even 777X and 748 had less change scope, than this one would require. IMO a 737 on steroids would also loose the benefits of the lighter, 60's vintage airframe.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
keesje
Topic Author
Posts: 13841
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Configuration

Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:24 am

rheinwaldner wrote:
keesje wrote:
A little bigger, cheaper, more range than the A321LR.

It cant be easily cheaper if it requires much more investment.
Your proposal looks reasonable and with a rather small scope. But redesigning the whole central wing with the much longer gears is a hefty challenge. This means, that one of the most complex areas of an aircraft has to be freshly designed from scratch. I believe even 777X and 748 had less change scope, than this one would require. IMO a 737 on steroids would also loose the benefits of the lighter, 60's vintage airframe.


Modifying the A321 to a A322 configurations would require similar modifications as a 737-10.

We should not forget Boeing has an urgent "A321" challenge. There is no direct MoM (as defined by Boeing) challenge / competitor taking market share. First things first at minimal cost is probably the guiding principle for Boeing at this stage.

Image

The 737 MAX has roots in the fifties/sixties, but looking at the aircraft that is not the case for the tail, wings, engines, systems, controls and cockpit systems. The benefits of the lighter, 60's vintage airframe would far be outweighed by revenuepotential, capabilities and, stopping Airbus merciless exploiting its A321 advantage with long term Boeing customers..

Doing nothing and evaluating the situation can be extremely damaging for a company, usually it becomes clear afterwards.

Image
Captain Hindsight https://youtu.be/B-khEYhppBs
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos