Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14
 
User avatar
STT757
Topic Author
Posts: 14084
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:37 am

Sorry I cannot find the full length article I read before I went to post this but here's the pay wall brief:

Boeing has defined the size of the proposed additional -10X stretch variant of the 737 MAX narrowbody to compete more aggressively against the Airbus A321neo. Boeing, which first revealed design studies of an extra stretched variant of the MAX in mid-2016, has finalized a design based on a 66-inch fuselage stretch. While significantly less than the 132-inch extension it outlined at the 2016 Farnborough Airshow, the additional cabin length enables two-class capacity to be increased to 189 ...


http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines/boeing-defines-737-max-extra-stretch

Basically it's a 66 inch stretch, not as much as some were predicting, and it will retain the same engines and wing. It will however have new landing gear, to help with runway performance. Entrance into services expected in 2020.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27053
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:00 am

Guy Norris reports that the main gear will incorporate a form of trailing-link gear design that shifts the rotation point slightly aft and will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:13 am

... all that for 12 additonal seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:18 am

Might as well write off the -9 investments made so far. This proposed -10 sounds like the proper -9.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27053
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:18 am

Waterbomber wrote:
... all that for 12 additonal seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.


So consider how much more absurd it would have been to go even longer, then (as many a.netter's have said Boeing must do). :duck:
Last edited by Stitch on Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1868
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:21 am

Where do they put the extra 66 inches? At the rear?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27053
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:22 am

RickNRoll wrote:
Where do they put the extra 66 inches? At the rear?


I expect it will be some forward and some aft.
 
downdata
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:38 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:29 am

737 MAX 9.5 :P
 
xdlx
Posts: 961
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:39 am

Oh please.... the 900/900ER/900MAX are all you can get from this frame that should have stopped @ 800
 
User avatar
DexSwart
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:58 am

xdlx wrote:
Oh please.... the 900/900ER/900MAX are all you can get from this frame that should have stopped @ 800


I know the 900ER is a runway hog but isn't it quite popular with airlines?

I mean, especially if airlines already have type rated crews, then it seems to be working for them quite well.

I think it's great that Boeing are at least being realistic with this stretch.

It's going to be one long aircraft.

The fact that the engines won't be any more powerful or wings larger seems like it may be an issue though?
Durban. Melbourne. Denver. Hong Kong.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2683
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:03 am

DexSwart wrote:
xdlx wrote:
Oh please.... the 900/900ER/900MAX are all you can get from this frame that should have stopped @ 800


I know the 900ER is a runway hog but isn't it quite popular with airlines?

I mean, especially if airlines already have type rated crews, then it seems to be working for them quite well.

I think it's great that Boeing are at least being realistic with this stretch.

It's going to be one long aircraft.

The fact that the engines won't be any more powerful or wings larger seems like it may be an issue though?



I have visions of a twin engine Boeing 720 :)
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2971
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:12 am

Why bother building the -9? They might as well scrap it and call this -10X the -9 like they did with the -7.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4277
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:16 am

Well I guess better this than the original proposal which seemed like a total dog and a disgrace to the 737 family.
First to fly the 787-9
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:17 am

Okcflyer wrote:
This proposed -10 sounds like the proper -9.


I agree. Boeing has upsized the 7 and now upsized the 9 slightly (I can't imagine too many buying another 9 once this 10 is available). I know it's the same engine, but perhaps a minor thrust bump? This minor stretch should preserve allot of the range from the 9 and might make using the existing rail transport from Wichitaw easier.

It will be interesting to see if this plane can begin winning a few MAX10 vs A321NEO sales campaigns. Clearly the MAX9 has not, faring much worse than I had imagined.

As these thousands of NEOs and MAXes get delivered and new sales campaigns emerge, we can sit back and enjoy the planemakers making ongoing tweaks and further improvements to these fine aircraft.
Last edited by ODwyerPW on Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:46 am, edited 4 times in total.
learning never stops.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2066
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:23 am

I've been on some 900s lately as a pax where the takeoffs are quite fun. Obviously based on conditions, but I can only imagine they are max power. One was on an 950 mile flight with most seats filled on a 52 degree evening. Tons of noise and shaking, and the characteristic slow rotating and then noticeable pitch up. Quite impressive and makes me wonder if the field performance has less to do with power available and more with a high speed mixed with limited rotation clearance? I did count lengths and we were approximately at 5,500' runway when airborne.
 
amdiesen
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:27 am

a successful, a321 mitigating, *10 would have 1) same engines as the A321, 2) appropriate/larger wings
seat-count would be less relevant

Once the industry goes oval with twin isles (in a narrowbody plus class), these 'long' single isles will become less desirable. Minimizing gate times will increasingly become a material issue. '757 phoenix'
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:15 am

MAX10 should have capacity/range nearly equivalent to A321NEO and perhaps more acceptable runway performance than the 900/900ER/MAX9 (interested in more details about this 777like derived levered gear).

A boosted Leap1B might have higher maintenance intervals for the engine in comparison to Leap1A or PW1500.
A321 will continue to enjoy the containerized cargo advantage.
A321 might enjoy an efficiency advantage, but too early to tell.
I won't comment on the 6" fuselage width difference... that's at your butt... at your shoulders there isn't allot of width difference between 737/A320...(I perceive it, but I bet joesixpack doesn't.)

Clearly the A321NEO is the more capable plane, but perhaps this MAX10 might be enough to overcome the biggest issues that plagued the 900/900ER/MAX9.
learning never stops.
 
User avatar
richcam427
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:55 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:30 am

From a Boeing fan, the entire 737 MAX lineup is somewhat of a disappointment when compared to the A320neo. Hopefully Boeing can kick some ass with the 737 replacement, because what they have now just isn't getting it done.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:44 am

Waterbomber wrote:
... all that for 12 additional seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.

I kinda agree with you. Id like to read the article though.
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2430
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:47 am

They should nickname it the Boeing 737 MAX Tailstriker.
If you hate wearing a mask, you’re really going to hate using a ventilator.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:50 am

Don't do it !! Still won't match the A321 in performance or efficiency, The landing gear sounds kluged. Will not have much compatibility with other 737-MAX versions. Save the bullets for a 200-250 passenger all new aircraft for the 2025 timeframe.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:56 am

Simple, efficient, cheap to develop and probably competitive to the A321NEO in 90% of all cases. Sounds good, should be a huge hit with the airlines who want MAX efficiency.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:02 am

The only possible sense this makes is as a complete replacement for the -9X in the current MAX lineup. Precisely the same as the stretched MAX-7

This is no 10X, in fact its nothing more than a proper 9X designed to compete only with the standard A321-NEO, not the LR.

Boeing is essentially saying the MAX-10 is dead.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:03 am

Waterbomber wrote:
... all that for 12 additonal seats that may or may not get filled?
It's absurd.


The greater point is - is this aircraft attractive enough to generate the sales the -9Max has been missing (losing to the A321NEO)?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
travelhound
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:05 am

This is a good option for Boeing and its 737 customers.

The seating capacity difference between the A321 and 737-9 is now within a whisker and from where I sit the economics could well be in favour of the Boeing product (depending on mission profile).

With many airlines already down gauging domestic flights from 767 type aircraft to the A320/737 family of aircraft, there is now a need for a narrow body aircraft in the 737-10 and A321 segment.

The questions becomes, how many airlines have already committed to the A321 and is Boeing too late to the party.

I'd suggest this will enable the market to equalise around the A320/B737 family. Airbus no longer has the advantage they once had.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:05 am

flyboy80 wrote:
I've been on some 900s lately as a pax where the takeoffs are quite fun. Obviously based on conditions, but I can only imagine they are max power. One was on an 950 mile flight with most seats filled on a 52 degree evening. Tons of noise and shaking, and the characteristic slow rotating and then noticeable pitch up. Quite impressive and makes me wonder if the field performance has less to do with power available and more with a high speed mixed with limited rotation clearance? I did count lengths and we were approximately at 5,500' runway when airborne.


Frankly, your description sound more like reduced thrust take offs, rather than "max power" efforts.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:41 am

IMHO, too little, too late. But then again, I can't really see any of Boeing's other options ending up much better. Boeing made the wrong decision already when they decided to develop the 737NG back in the 90s. Airbus has been in a position to force Boeing's hand ever since.

Stitch wrote:
Guy Norris reports that the main gear will incorporate a form of trailing-link gear design that shifts the rotation point slightly aft and will be conceptually derived from the semilevered main landing gear design developed for the 777-300ER.


Cool. F/A-18 style MLG on a 737 :duck:


travelhound wrote:
from where I sit the economics could well be in favour of the Boeing product (depending on mission profile).

Airbus no longer has the advantage they once had.


I doubt it. The A321 is an optimized 240-seater. Updating the A321CEO to the A321NEO required very little work in the first place.
This 737-10MAX on the other hand will be a mess of various improvements and compromises that will all inevitably increase the weight and push up the cost and complexity. Commonality will drop vs the rest of the 737MAX family, and it will still be stuck with that compromised small-diameter version of the LEAP-X engine.

travelhound wrote:
The questions becomes, how many airlines have already committed to the A321 and is Boeing too late to the party.


It might be a bit late now for all the existing major airlines of the world. United seems like a certain bet, but the rest of the US majors have already jumped ship from the larger 737 variants, the same goes for most of Europe too. Upstart airlines, across Asia in particular, might end up being the best bet. I could foresee quite a few existing 737-9 customers transfer their orders to this new type, and even order more. It will also add some more pressure to Airbus' premium pricing on the A321.

:)
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:47 am

I think Boeing has no option but to put this on the table to stop Airbus having monopoly pricing on the A321neo. If Airbus can make good profits from the A321, it will make the company a stronger competitor to Boeing.
 
User avatar
caoimhin
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 12:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:18 am

VSMUT wrote:
Boeing made the wrong decision already when they decided to develop the 737NG back in the 90s


Really? They've sold 6,500 of them. We should all be so lucky that our bad decisions produce...what, half a trillion USD in revenue?

Are you saying you believe they should have developed a clean sheet back then? Maybe they would have a more modern airframe today, but there was no guarantee it would have been a commercial success.

The MAX may have been the mistake. But even that may have been the least objectionable of several poor choices. With developing the 787, 777X, (at the time) 748, and whatever Is being done with MoM, it is fair to say that resources are tied up. The MAX may have just been a sensible way to extend the life of that program without the enormous investment of a new flagship project or pulling too many engineers away from other projects.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:25 am

Indeed the stretch is much smaller than expected, might as well cancel the MAX-9 instead.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:49 am

If this gear get certified then why would they not put it on the 9/9er also?

Fred
Image
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4136
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:59 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Indeed the stretch is much smaller than expected, might as well cancel the MAX-9 instead.

Either they will do it officially or the market will make the decision by converting orders from MAX-9 to MAX-10 or by stopping ordering the MAX-9, we shall see...
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:03 am

caoimhin wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Boeing made the wrong decision already when they decided to develop the 737NG back in the 90s


Really? They've sold 6,500 of them. We should all be so lucky that our bad decisions produce...what, half a trillion USD in revenue?

Are you saying you believe they should have developed a clean sheet back then? Maybe they would have a more modern airframe today, but there was no guarantee it would have been a commercial success.


Yes, they should have developed a clean sheet design back then. It would have placed the A320 at a distinct disadvantage, and allowed Boeing more room to do a proper update of it's own design today.

The 737NG wasn't a failure by any means (I would call it a great success), but in the long term they shot themselves in the foot by doing it. Easily said in hindsight, but still. The 737MAX is a mess of an update. Split scimitar winglets, new tail-cone, extended L/G, partial FBW, and engines that hardly fit. If you need to do that much work, while your competitor just slaps a pair of new engines onto their offering, then your base platform (the 737) is the wrong choice and ill-suited for the task. Especially when the simpler offering from your competitor sells better too.

6500 737NGs sold suggests that it would have been a roaring success.
 
Passedv1
Posts: 662
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:11 am

This is like a bad horror movie where the monster keeps coming back.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:21 am

Wow there are so many people who just seem to hate the 737 family. It is a good thing that airliners.net is not responsible for running airlines since the 4,000 airplane backlog that the 737 family has indicates that quite a few airlines don't share that sentiment.

A simple stretch that brings the 737-10 capacity to be equal to the A321 capacity sounds like a pretty good idea to me. They will make adjustments to the gear to address runway performance issues. Again sounds like a pretty good idea. The 737-10 probably will have operating costs that are pretty equal to the A321neo.

This isn't a dramatic redesign but a refinement of a product to better compete.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:23 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
A simple stretch that brings the 737-10 capacity to be equal to the A321 capacity sounds like a pretty good idea to me.


It's not equal, still 10 seats short of the A321.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:26 am

10 seats short as they could not get it to work (rotation, thrust etc) with a big enough stretch.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:28 am

QuarkFly wrote:
Don't do it !! Still won't match the A321 in performance or efficiency, The landing gear sounds kluged. Will not have much compatibility with other 737-MAX versions. Save the bullets for a 200-250 passenger all new aircraft for the 2025 timeframe.


How do you know it won't match the A321 in efficiency? Lots of fanboys through nebulous generalizations around like it is based on an old design, fan diameter or other vague ideas, but head to head the 737MAX and A320neo families look to have very comparable Efficiency per seat. It really can depend on the exact operating characteristics of an airline, how they configure the plane and what routes they operate it at. Don't forget that the A321 has a lot of extra weight on board that a 737 does not like overwinter slides, powered cargo doors, oversized cabin doors, larger diameter fuselage, heavier engines, heavier gear, etc. Some of those are strengths, but some are weakneses. It is entirely plausible that for the same capacity, the OEW of the 737-10 could be lower than the A321.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:34 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A simple stretch that brings the 737-10 capacity to be equal to the A321 capacity sounds like a pretty good idea to me.


It's not equal, still 10 seats short of the A321.


Delta has not a 12 seat difference between their 737-900ERs and A321s being delivered fresh from the factory this year. 66 inches would close that gap. The A321neo will add a few extra seats due to exit reconfiguration, but the capacities will probably be pretty close. Closer than the 737-800 to A320 I suppose.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:35 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A simple stretch that brings the 737-10 capacity to be equal to the A321 capacity sounds like a pretty good idea to me.


It's not equal, still 10 seats short of the A321.


Delta has not a 12 seat difference between their 737-900ERs and A321s being delivered fresh from the factory this year. 66 inches would close that gap. The A321neo will add a few extra seats due to exit reconfiguration, but the capacities will probably be pretty close. Closer than the 737-800 to A320 I suppose.


I was just comparing OEM cabins. The MAX-10 goes up to 230 seats in single class, versus 240 seats on the A321.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2971
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:41 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
A simple stretch that brings the 737-10 capacity to be equal to the A321 capacity sounds like a pretty good idea to me.


It's not equal, still 10 seats short of the A321.


In a 2 class configuration it seems to match it. Unless I'm unaware of 200 seat 2 class A321s
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:47 am

VSMUT wrote:
caoimhin wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
Boeing made the wrong decision already when they decided to develop the 737NG back in the 90s


Really? They've sold 6,500 of them. We should all be so lucky that our bad decisions produce...what, half a trillion USD in revenue?

Are you saying you believe they should have developed a clean sheet back then? Maybe they would have a more modern airframe today, but there was no guarantee it would have been a commercial success.


Yes, they should have developed a clean sheet design back then. It would have placed the A320 at a distinct disadvantage, and allowed Boeing more room to do a proper update of it's own design today.

The 737NG wasn't a failure by any means (I would call it a great success), but in the long term they shot themselves in the foot by doing it. Easily said in hindsight, but still. The 737MAX is a mess of an update. Split scimitar winglets, new tail-cone, extended L/G, partial FBW, and engines that hardly fit. If you need to do that much work, while your competitor just slaps a pair of new engines onto their offering, then your base platform (the 737) is the wrong choice and ill-suited for the task. Especially when the simpler offering from your competitor sells better too.

6500 737NGs sold suggests that it would have been a roaring success.


Boeing has sold over 3000 737MAX. Just look at that number for a minute. The 737ng only had about 400 orders before first delivery. Airbus has done a better job in emerging markets than Boeing and has gigantic mega orders for over 400 planes from both Air Asia and IndiGo. Congrats to them for their big backlog, but Boeing has done pretty well too. 3500 orders and they haven't delivered yet means there is plenty of opportunity for 737-10 sales, although we might see the 737-9 disappear.
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1986
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:57 am

I never got the hate for this a/c. It's a plane that will most likely be used widely in the US and possibly Europe, as well as Asia. And as demand grows, the planes will need to do the same. My problem is with the same engines and wings the range won't likely be long and there might be a need for a long runway.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:18 pm

So far, how many firm orders have the current Max-9 amassed?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:23 pm

It is a good idea if it sells. Otherwise it is a waste of money/time. Boeing knows exactly what it is doing but after the original MAX launch, the MAX 7 and MAX 9 have now ~ been pulled. Maybe One Boeing listened to people they knew agree.

What everybody knows but doesn't want to say (Incl CFM), the higher by pass ratio on the LEAP-A is there for a reason & it won't go away.

Apparently UA agreed. If they don't we can turn another page..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
holzmann
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:47 pm

Clear that Boeing simply can't or won't take the risk on a clean sheet NB or MOM. Should have done it 15 years ago. The 737 is long in the tooth, though besides the lav, it feels as comfortable or more so than an A320/321 for transcontinental.
DISCLAIMER: Airliners.net is an AIRBUS forum. Boeing Commercial Airplanes, if it has considered doing so in the past, should in no way consider supporting this website.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1854
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing has sold over 3000 737MAX. Just look at that number for a minute. The 737ng only had about 400 orders before first delivery. Airbus has done a better job in emerging markets than Boeing and has gigantic mega orders for over 400 planes from both Air Asia and IndiGo. Congrats to them for their big backlog, but Boeing has done pretty well too. 3500 orders and they haven't delivered yet means there is plenty of opportunity for 737-10 sales, although we might see the 737-9 disappear.



Boeing had something like 80% of the market when the A320 was launched and with the wonderful successful 737NG and now the 737MAX they have 42% of the market. If you call losing all that market in a competition where no OEM could deliver to all airlines so 50-50 should be parity or acceptable at best as a success then I guess we have different definitions of what it means.

The comparison to the A321 will be interesting, we have to remember that the A320 is a heavier frame than the 737 so it has been able to sell more than the 737 even with this negative. So you would assume the ability to have the bigger fan would play a big role on why the A320 has been so competitive. So Boeing will have the 737-10MAX that will not have bigger engines trying to compete with the A321neo, so while it may be more competitive than the 739MAX, the inherent disadvantages are still there and haven't gone away, maybe just plastered over at best.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:56 pm

holzmann wrote:
Clear that Boeing simply can't or won't take the risk on a clean sheet NB or MOM. ...


Not sure. This small improvement can also be a sign they are launching something new behind the scenes.

Announcing so in the open, would lead to a terrible next 7 years in terms of 737 sales / deliveries / margins..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4137
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:09 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Boeing has sold over 3000 737MAX. Just look at that number for a minute. The 737ng only had about 400 orders before first delivery. Airbus has done a better job in emerging markets than Boeing and has gigantic mega orders for over 400 planes from both Air Asia and IndiGo. Congrats to them for their big backlog, but Boeing has done pretty well too. 3500 orders and they haven't delivered yet means there is plenty of opportunity for 737-10 sales, although we might see the 737-9 disappear.


About 3350 actually. But that is still 1500 short of the A320NEO, an aircraft that required significantly fewer changes over it's predecessor (and therefore cheaper to develop), and by all accounts an aircraft that commands higher prices too. 3350 means very little if you sell them at close to break-even cost. 3350 also means very little when two manufacturers enjoy a virtual duopoly, and the best-selling jet is already sold out many years into the future.

Comparing the number of orders before delivery is nonsensical. The global aircraft market was significantly smaller back then.


Newbiepilot wrote:
How do you know it won't match the A321 in efficiency? Lots of fanboys through nebulous generalizations around like it is based on an old design, fan diameter or other vague ideas, but head to head the 737MAX and A320neo families look to have very comparable Efficiency per seat.


1. It is a very old design, and that has influenced the development of the MAX in many detrimental ways. As a pilot I also find the lack of automation vs the A320 family very significant.

2. Fan diameter is relevant. There is a reason why the fan size is growing on all aircraft nowadays. The A320NEO (81 in.), C919 (78 in.) and MC-21 (81 in.) will all feature significantly bigger fans, and they all compete for the same mission profile. Sure, many will then respond by saying that the smaller fan is an advantage on shorter flights. But that completely misses the fact that the true short-haulers, the regional jets, also feature bigger fans than the 737MAX nowadays. The C-series (73 in.) and Embraer E2 (73 in.) will both have fans that are bigger than the MAX, as will the SSJ NG eventually. It seems pretty conspicuous that a 240 seat 737 will have smaller fans than a 100 seat regional jet ;)

Newbiepilot wrote:
Don't forget that the A321 has a lot of extra weight on board that a 737 does not like overwinter slides...
... oversized cabin doors


The 737-900ER already features an extra full-size door and slides for it. There is also a pretty good chance that the door configuration will be changed into an A321 layout on this proposed 737-10.
BTW, the A321 doesn't feature overwing emergency exits. True, the 240 seat version will, but it gets rid of the full-size doors forward of the wings too.

Newbiepilot wrote:
powered cargo doors, oversized cabin doors, larger diameter fuselage, heavier engines,


Powered cargo doors = bigger cargo hold = an advantage.

"Oversized" doors? How many times have we heard that 757 style boarding doors was necessary in this size category? Funny how suddenly it is a disadvantage when the 737 doesn't feature it :scratchchin:

Larger diameter fuselage = advantage

Heavier engines? Yeah, by about 200-300 kg pr. engine.

Newbiepilot wrote:
heavier gear


The gear on the proposed 737-10 will not be lighter than the A321s.

Newbiepilot wrote:
the A321 has a lot of extra weight on board that a 737 does not


The A321 at MTOW and with 240 passengers will weigh 389 kg per passenger. The same number for a 737-9 (albeit with 220 pax) is 400 kg. Using a rough calculation, assuming a linear growth of weight with length, the 737-10 should achieve 395 kg pr passenger at 230 pax.
Using the same method for MZFW, those numbers are 307 kg for the A321, 322 kg for the 737-9 and 307 kg for the 737-10.

The A321 is heavier overall, but lighter per passenger.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10083
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:19 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
This is no 10X, in fact its nothing more than a proper 9X designed to compete only with the standard A321-NEO, not the LR.

The 9X was already struggling against the A321NEO so I don't see how a worst performer will somehow be a better competitor. The only area in which this 10X can come close to matching the A321 is in floor space and that will only make it a perfect competitor to a pre-sharklets A321ceo. Welcome to 2009, Boeing.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

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