Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 14
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:11 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
Boeing has a product that competes well in some areas and not others so they get crap for trying to improve their products. Yes, they exactly are trying to flood the market with options that will appeal to airlines. That's because they happen to be an airline company and selling products to customers is kind of what they do.

It seems to get lost that while the 320 series has sold better, customers have chosen to buy over 3500 MAX's. Remember, these are aircraft that customers chose Boeing over the Airbus options, so those customers must be idiots, right? I mean how could any sane person choose a MAX over a NEO under any circumstances? That sure is a lot of billions of dollars controlled by morons.

I guess some people are just satisfied to settle.


Polot wrote:
So the 737-9 gets squeezed out and maybe losses Boeing a little money (probably not a lot since there is very little unique to the 737-9). For years people here have been decrying the 737-9 and saying that Boeing needs to come up with a new solution. Why the now sudden fascination in making sure that the 737-9 is "protected" (for lack of better word) and gets sales in the future?

Those 12 seats may make or break a sale. For years one of the chief complaints against the 737-900 here was that it was too small, too close in size to the 737-800 versus the larger A321 (before the A321 had a noticeable range advantage in the form of the LR). Now Boeing is offering a model that is similar in size to the A321. Again who really cares if the 737-9 gets squeezed out?

Boeing would love it if an airline took the 737-10 that would have otherwise taken the the 737-8, 737-9, or 737-8 instead of the 737-9...because I guarantee you that the 737-10 will be more expensive than the 737-8. It is all about value for the money in the end. Some airlines might be able to justify taking a mix 738/7310 fleet, but not a mixed 737-8/9 fleet unless Boeing severely discounted the -9 model (too close in size to be worth 737-9 premium).


I am posting here on the knowledge that Boeing is in the process of building the first 737-9 MAX for flight testing and that that model will be built alongside the 737-10 MAX. If Boeing decided all that time ago to look at improvements of the 737-9 instead of having their head in the sand they may have come to the conclusion that the extra 66 inches is worth it and they could have built only one model. Maybe I am a little underwhelmed if the changes come down to only a small increase in capacity on a model that will be built alongside the 737-9.


Stitch wrote:
If Boeing sells the 737-10 to a customer who would have bought a 737-8 or 737-9 for more profit than a 737-8 or 737-9, then still net positive to them.


A lot of ifs right there though, what if they sell the customer the 737-10 for the same price they would have paid for the 737-9 if the customer threatens to go to Airbus instead?


Revelation wrote:
I think it's futile to expect some posters here to see anything from Boeing's perspective. Chances are good they'll admit this to be so.


I can see Boeing's perspective. My opinion on why they are doing it will differ from others, they needed a cheap and cheerful upgrade as they are constrained on a couple of fronts. Firstly they are stuck with the 1960's certification standards and cannot readily add new landing gear that the model needs which could mean bigger engines can be fit. They are also constrained by financial factors, still paying back on the 787 isn't helping them at all.


Stitch wrote:
The A320 family has always enjoyed larger diameter engines than the 737 family. It's no doubt helped sell Airbus A320 family planes, but it doesn't seem to be an overly-compelling advantage considering Boeing still sold plenty of 737 family planes.


Airbus also had a 21 year deficit to make up yet they are only 700 orders behind the 737 in total orders. Eventually they will overtake the deliveries of the 737 as well so while the model has sold well it has been second best for the better part of a decade or so. Will this model be able to stop the rot?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27025
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:05 am

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
If Boeing sells the 737-10 to a customer who would have bought a 737-8 or 737-9 for more profit than a 737-8 or 737-9, then still net positive to them.


A lot of ifs right there though, what if they sell the customer the 737-10 for the same price they would have paid for the 737-9 if the customer threatens to go to Airbus instead?


They could have paid the same price for a 737-9 that they would have paid for a 737-8 by threatening to go to Airbus.

Anyway, the 737-10 is not yet launched so if all the customers say they'll only pay a 737-9 price for a 737-10 launch order, then Boeing can just not launch the 737-10.

And really, if we have to have a "loser" in this discussion (and a.net as of late seems to require this), then it's going to be Airbus because they will lose their pricing monopoly on the A321-200neo by having customers threatening to order the 737-10 if Airbus does not lower their ASPs. Heck, the airlines themselves have not been shy in saying they want a better 737-9 so they can use it to leverage lower prices out of Airbus on the A321.



enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
The A320 family has always enjoyed larger diameter engines than the 737 family. It's no doubt helped sell Airbus A320 family planes, but it doesn't seem to be an overly-compelling advantage considering Boeing still sold plenty of 737 family planes.


Airbus also had a 21 year deficit to make up yet they are only 700 orders behind the 737 in total orders. Eventually they will overtake the deliveries of the 737 as well so while the model has sold well it has been second best for the better part of a decade or so. Will this model be able to stop the rot?


Probably not. But again, it's not like Boeing hasn't made a significant amount of money from selling the 737s they have and won't continue to make a significant amount of money from selling the 737s they will.

Getting 40% of the sales / revenue / profits from a 20,000 frame market is still a nice place to be.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23682
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:30 am

enzo011 wrote:
I am posting here on the knowledge that Boeing is in the process of building the first 737-9 MAX for flight testing and that that model will be built alongside the 737-10 MAX. If Boeing decided all that time ago to look at improvements of the 737-9 instead of having their head in the sand they may have come to the conclusion that the extra 66 inches is worth it and they could have built only one model. Maybe I am a little underwhelmed if the changes come down to only a small increase in capacity on a model that will be built alongside the 737-9.


'Head in the sand'? That's fan boy talk. You have no idea if the idea of a longer 737MAX was debated internally at the time of the program launch.

It would not surprise me if a longer 737MAX wasn't considered, but they knew the -9 length had decent market acceptance by key customers and didn't know for sure what the LEAP would be capable of so they went with the -9.

enzo011 wrote:
I can see Boeing's perspective. My opinion on why they are doing it will differ from others, they needed a cheap and cheerful upgrade as they are constrained on a couple of fronts. Firstly they are stuck with the 1960's certification standards and cannot readily add new landing gear that the model needs which could mean bigger engines can be fit. They are also constrained by financial factors, still paying back on the 787 isn't helping them at all.


Your opinion isn't radical. I agree with it, but would state it differently. They are constrained to the 737 family limitations by both certification grandfathering and by the huge installed base they sell into. They and their customers both are going to take a big hit when Boeing finally moves away from the 737 family. They are constrained by financial factors indeed from the 787 fiasco but also from the fact that as a US corporation they need to keep Wall Street and their own greedy executives happy.

enzo011 wrote:
Airbus also had a 21 year deficit to make up yet they are only 700 orders behind the 737 in total orders. Eventually they will overtake the deliveries of the 737 as well so while the model has sold well it has been second best for the better part of a decade or so. Will this model be able to stop the rot?


I don't think internally they care too much about total orders relative to their competition. I think they care a lot more about what the next quarter's results look like, and whether or not they will make bonus.
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
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:50 am

DocLightning wrote:

The landing gear retracts by swinging inward, as do most MLG on most large airliners that don't have additional center gear. The length of the MLG is constrained by how closely the two gear can swing without interfering with each other and Boeing has already maxed that out.

To lengthen the MLG would require an outboard shift of the MLG attachment point. This changes the stress points on the wing spar. This may cause interferences with any number of other systems routing through that relatively busy section of an airplane. The wing box is one of those things that must be designed right when the type is first designed because subsequent changes are very difficult (and by "difficult" I mean they require a lot of engineer hours and a lot of money, no to mention certification and what-not).

The 737 MLG was designed in the 1960s for a 100-120 passenger airplane that was designed to operate routes under three hours' duration into and out of small airports that might not even have a belt loader. Boeing had learned from the 727 program that putting the engines in the tail as a means to lower the fuselage also leads to a lot of inherent inefficiencies and so they resolved to use wing-mounted engines on the 737 (and all subsequent models, in spite of some funny-looking proposals). There had to be a lot of geometric arranging to fit everything where it needed to go, but as a result, they got a fuselage that was low enough to the ground so as to not need a belt loader. I am sure that not a single engineer on that team would have imagined in his wildest dreams that the 737 would still be in production almost 50 years later. They extended the MLG by several inches for the Classic series in the 1980s, but after that, the MLG cannot be extended any more without moving the attachment point.

Are Boeing approaching the limits of type approval grandfathering with the latest iteration, or is there still plenty of scope to do more?
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:03 am

I guess BA did not shoot for the 757-200 specs with this one. Go for 4000 nautical miles and 180 seats 2 class. Looks like they added 12 seats and the range probably has decreased. Too bad they didnt use LEAP-1A to get more thrust and carry more fuel and use the retracting landing gear like on the A330.

sv11
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:50 am

I just stumbled over this Bloomberg article from end of November, in which it says:

The airline also is studying the so-called Max 10X, a stretch of Boeing’s largest 737, after deferring 61 of the company’s smallest jets this month. The support from a blue-chip airline customer may help the planemaker close the business case for the proposed new variant, intended to help catch up to sales of Airbus’s A321neo.

[...]

Boeing met with United officials recently to discuss the Max 10X, a longer version of the largest 737 model. It “definitely looks to be of interest to us,” Levy said.

United’s interest is critical as Boeing weighs how to respond to the Airbus A321neo, which has emerged as a hot-seller for airlines flying trans-continental routes.

Boeing is mulling two options. One is a simple stretch of the Max 9 that would enter the market by 2019 and rely on a higher-thrust version of the Leap-1B engine developed for the Max family. The Chicago-based planemaker is also studying a more extensive revamp that would rely on the larger Leap created for Airbus and would be ready to fly commercially by late 2021.

“We are continuing to work through the business case and talk to customers about a potential Max 10X,” Boeing spokesman Paul Lewis said. “Once this process is successfully completed we will be in a position to share more details.”

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-revamp

So it seems this new definition of the 10MAX is the result of the two options discussed with UA (and most probably others).


Stitch wrote:
And really, if we have to have a "loser" in this discussion (and a.net as of late seems to require this)

Hehe, well spoken... ;-)
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:16 am

This is the sensible option. You do not get a bastard child in the 737 family which uses a different engine.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1846
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 8:58 am

Stitch wrote:
They could have paid the same price for a 737-9 that they would have paid for a 737-8 by threatening to go to Airbus.

Anyway, the 737-10 is not yet launched so if all the customers say they'll only pay a 737-9 price for a 737-10 launch order, then Boeing can just not launch the 737-10.

And really, if we have to have a "loser" in this discussion (and a.net as of late seems to require this), then it's going to be Airbus because they will lose their pricing monopoly on the A321-200neo by having customers threatening to order the 737-10 if Airbus does not lower their ASPs. Heck, the airlines themselves have not been shy in saying they want a better 737-9 so they can use it to leverage lower prices out of Airbus on the A321.


I guess we could debate any pricing we want to if we are just going to speculate. We will have to wait and see how many orders Boeing is able to get with the 737-9/10 combo and if the whispers are that they are paying a premium for the bigger aircraft as well. That would play a factor into whether Airbus will need to charge less on their A321 pricing.


Stitch wrote:
Probably not. But again, it's not like Boeing hasn't made a significant amount of money from selling the 737s they have and won't continue to make a significant amount of money from selling the 737s they will.

Getting 40% of the sales / revenue / profits from a 20,000 frame market is still a nice place to be.


That is true, I am sure Boeing will relish being known as the OEM that sells the second most aircraft in a market where only two exists.


Revelation wrote:
'Head in the sand'? That's fan boy talk. You have no idea if the idea of a longer 737MAX was debated internally at the time of the program launch.

It would not surprise me if a longer 737MAX wasn't considered, but they knew the -9 length had decent market acceptance by key customers and didn't know for sure what the LEAP would be capable of so they went with the -9.

Your opinion isn't radical. I agree with it, but would state it differently. They are constrained to the 737 family limitations by both certification grandfathering and by the huge installed base they sell into. They and their customers both are going to take a big hit when Boeing finally moves away from the 737 family. They are constrained by financial factors indeed from the 787 fiasco but also from the fact that as a US corporation they need to keep Wall Street and their own greedy executives happy.

I don't think internally they care too much about total orders relative to their competition. I think they care a lot more about what the next quarter's results look like, and whether or not they will make bonus.



I have no idea whether they have been discussing it, but if the changes are minimal you would have to wonder why it couldn't have been done in the first place if the changes are only a small stretch and changing the gear to help with the taking off.

Airbus do have shareholders as well and if we have a situation where both OEMs are in cash building and profiteering mode we will see less innovation from both OEM's, which would not be great if you like to see new innovations and products. I don't think making money for shareholders and innovating on new and existing products are impossible to achieve at the same time. It depends on the direction the management and the board wants to take the company in.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:19 am

enzo011 wrote:
Airbus do have shareholders as well and if we have a situation where both OEMs are in cash building and profiteering mode we will see less innovation from both OEM's, which would not be great if you like to see new innovations and products. I don't think making money for shareholders and innovating on new and existing products are impossible to achieve at the same time. It depends on the direction the management and the board wants to take the company in.


I agree it is possible to achieve both return to shareholders as well as innovating, and this is happening in this duopoly. Boeing and Airbus has continued to invest in their portfolio of narrowbody airplanes. I am impressed by how much the A320 and 737 has evolved in the last 20 years. I believe the fear of a third planemaker entering their duopoly also push innovation. I would argue that the CSeries, Comac C919 and Irkut mc-21 make sure that Boeing and Airbus keeps innovating.

I look forward to see an official launch of the 737-10MAX. Hopefully soon :-)
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:49 am

Actually, I would love to see comparison figures vs the "Classics" 737 series. Like CASM on a 737 MAX 8 vs the 737-200 on a 500nm mission. That would be interesting!
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

Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:45 am

N14AZ wrote:
I just stumbled over this Bloomberg article from end of November, in which it says:

The airline also is studying the so-called Max 10X, a stretch of Boeing’s largest 737, after deferring 61 of the company’s smallest jets this month. The support from a blue-chip airline customer may help the planemaker close the business case for the proposed new variant, intended to help catch up to sales of Airbus’s A321neo.

[...]

Boeing met with United officials recently to discuss the Max 10X, a longer version of the largest 737 model. It “definitely looks to be of interest to us,” Levy said.

United’s interest is critical as Boeing weighs how to respond to the Airbus A321neo, which has emerged as a hot-seller for airlines flying trans-continental routes.

Boeing is mulling two options. One is a simple stretch of the Max 9 that would enter the market by 2019 and rely on a higher-thrust version of the Leap-1B engine developed for the Max family. The Chicago-based planemaker is also studying a more extensive revamp that would rely on the larger Leap created for Airbus and would be ready to fly commercially by late 2021.

“We are continuing to work through the business case and talk to customers about a potential Max 10X,” Boeing spokesman Paul Lewis said. “Once this process is successfully completed we will be in a position to share more details.”

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-revamp

So it seems this new definition of the 10MAX is the result of the two options discussed with UA (and most probably others).


Stitch wrote:
And really, if we have to have a "loser" in this discussion (and a.net as of late seems to require this)

Hehe, well spoken... ;-)


Thanks for the link, missed that. Totally logical looking at 737-9 backlog. First there's Lionair (switching to -8s) and United, combined 75% of the orderbook.. Then nothing and than AirCanada (growing A321 fleet) and the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders
Last edited by keesje on Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:46 am

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Stitch wrote:
So responding to customer input (-7 changes) is a bad thing now?


You are wagging the dog.
The MAX7-1/2 is a significant simplification of production.
where the former -700 was an optimized frame the MAX7 is a simple shrink of MAX8.


And that's also a bad thing (from Boeing's perspective, if nothing else)?


You presented it as customer oriented service while it really is driven by cost considerations.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:17 am

keesje wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
I just stumbled over this Bloomberg article from end of November, in which it says:

The airline also is studying the so-called Max 10X, a stretch of Boeing’s largest 737, after deferring 61 of the company’s smallest jets this month. The support from a blue-chip airline customer may help the planemaker close the business case for the proposed new variant, intended to help catch up to sales of Airbus’s A321neo.

[...]

Boeing met with United officials recently to discuss the Max 10X, a longer version of the largest 737 model. It “definitely looks to be of interest to us,” Levy said.

United’s interest is critical as Boeing weighs how to respond to the Airbus A321neo, which has emerged as a hot-seller for airlines flying trans-continental routes.

Boeing is mulling two options. One is a simple stretch of the Max 9 that would enter the market by 2019 and rely on a higher-thrust version of the Leap-1B engine developed for the Max family. The Chicago-based planemaker is also studying a more extensive revamp that would rely on the larger Leap created for Airbus and would be ready to fly commercially by late 2021.

“We are continuing to work through the business case and talk to customers about a potential Max 10X,” Boeing spokesman Paul Lewis said. “Once this process is successfully completed we will be in a position to share more details.”

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-revamp

So it seems this new definition of the 10MAX is the result of the two options discussed with UA (and most probably others).


Stitch wrote:
And really, if we have to have a "loser" in this discussion (and a.net as of late seems to require this)

Hehe, well spoken... ;-)


Thanks for the link, missed that. Totally logical looking at 737-9 backlog. First there's Lionair (switching to -8s) and United, combined 75% of the orderbook.. Then nothing and than AirCanada (growing A321 fleet) and the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders


Keesje, with all the marketing charts directly from Airbus up your sleeve, I am surprised to see you using Wikipedia as your source for Boeing information and 737-9 orders. We have had press releases from more than just United, Lion Air and Air Canada. Alaska, Copa, Aeromexico, Icelandair, Turkish, Malaysia and more have all referenced in their press releases that they either have the 737-9 as part of their MAX order or have purchase rights. Wikipedia does not have a breakdown that is anywhere near correct since Boeing doesn't separate orders into different models for the 737 MAX on its website and press releases after 2013 stopped including model breakdown. I suspect that is because airlines have the ability to switch models at a later date and there are a variety of options to choose from. An airline doesn't have to pick which model their entire order comprises when they initially order the plane. They can negotiate prices for multiple models and firm their decision 12-24 months before delivery.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:43 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
keesje wrote:
N14AZ wrote:
I just stumbled over this Bloomberg article from end of November, in which it says:


Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-revamp

So it seems this new definition of the 10MAX is the result of the two options discussed with UA (and most probably others).



Hehe, well spoken... ;-)


Thanks for the link, missed that. Totally logical looking at 737-9 backlog. First there's Lionair (switching to -8s) and United, combined 75% of the orderbook.. Then nothing and than AirCanada (growing A321 fleet) and the rest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders


Keesje, with all the marketing charts directly from Airbus up your sleeve, I am surprised to see you using Wikipedia as your source for Boeing information and 737-9 orders. We have had press releases from more than just United, Lion Air and Air Canada. Alaska, Copa, Aeromexico, Icelandair, Turkish, Malaysia and more have all referenced in their press releases that they either have the 737-9 as part of their MAX order or have purchase rights. Wikipedia does not have a breakdown that is anywhere near correct since Boeing doesn't separate orders into different models for the 737 MAX on its website and press releases after 2013 stopped including model breakdown. I suspect that is because airlines have the ability to switch models at a later date and there are a variety of options to choose from. An airline doesn't have to pick which model their entire order comprises when they initially order the plane. They can negotiate prices for multiple models and firm their decision 12-24 months before delivery.


Hi Newbie pilot. I think the Wikipedia orderbook with all its references is 5x more solid then " abilities to switch" "purchase rights" and "press release references" you refer too. Boeing itself looking into a 2020 737-10 upgrade is probably a signal even blind loyal Boeing supporters wouldn't ignore at this stage.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18936
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:47 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I suspect that is because airlines have the ability to switch models at a later date and there are a variety of options to choose from. An airline doesn't have to pick which model their entire order comprises when they initially order the plane. They can negotiate prices for multiple models and firm their decision 12-24 months before delivery.


This has always been the case with both Airbus and Boeing and doesn't explain Boeing's curious decision to stop providing a model breakdown for the MAX and 77X.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:01 pm

scbriml wrote:
This has always been the case with both Airbus and Boeing and doesn't explain Boeing's curious decision to stop providing a model breakdown for the MAX and 77X.

Boeing seems to be less transparent with their disclosure - I am sure they do have the numbers (for their production planning) but they are just not prepared to make that common information for the industry.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:52 pm

Keesje, the 737-9 has more than three customers. That is my point. There are more customers than what is on Wikipedia. All are candidates for the 737-10.

scbriml wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I suspect that is because airlines have the ability to switch models at a later date and there are a variety of options to choose from. An airline doesn't have to pick which model their entire order comprises when they initially order the plane. They can negotiate prices for multiple models and firm their decision 12-24 months before delivery.


This has always been the case with both Airbus and Boeing and doesn't explain Boeing's curious decision to stop providing a model breakdown for the MAX and 77X.


It has always been true that airlines can switch models. The 737 team has worked hard to shorten that flow time down. It used to be 18-24 months to get an airplane configured. With what backlogs used to be, airlines were required to at least establish a baseline for what derivatives they ordered. Today the flow time is down to 10-12 months to configure a plane. That means airlines can wait much longer before they make their final decision on what their configuration will look like. Shortening the time between firm configuration and delivery is a competitive advantage for Boeing and leaving orders as undecided has the side effect of making things more difficult for the Airbus marketing analysts.

A good example is that the recent order or options for 100+ 737 MAX from Spicejet might include the 737-10 according to their chairman.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/13/news/co ... dia-order/
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:39 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, the 737-9 has more than three customers. That is my point. There are more customers than what is on Wikipedia. All are candidates for the 737-10.

scbriml wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
I suspect that is because airlines have the ability to switch models at a later date and there are a variety of options to choose from. An airline doesn't have to pick which model their entire order comprises when they initially order the plane. They can negotiate prices for multiple models and firm their decision 12-24 months before delivery.


This has always been the case with both Airbus and Boeing and doesn't explain Boeing's curious decision to stop providing a model breakdown for the MAX and 77X.


It has always been true that airlines can switch models. The 737 team has worked hard to shorten that flow time down. It used to be 18-24 months to get an airplane configured. With what backlogs used to be, airlines were required to at least establish a baseline for what derivatives they ordered. Today the flow time is down to 10-12 months to configure a plane. That means airlines can wait much longer before they make their final decision on what their configuration will look like. Shortening the time between firm configuration and delivery is a competitive advantage for Boeing and leaving orders as undecided has the side effect of making things more difficult for the Airbus marketing analysts.

A good example is that the recent order or options for 100+ 737 MAX from Spicejet might include the 737-10 according to their chairman.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/13/news/co ... dia-order/


But Newbie, the 737-9 has about 10 customers, as I linked to you. The point they may be more, or less. Boeing now hiding subtypes is not per definition a good sign There is simply no prove whatsoever there will be more. United might call it a day, switch 737-9s to -8s and like their main competitors order a bunch of A321s, if that provides better value and lower risk for them.

I hope Boeing can somehow convince CFM to improve BPR / sfc on the LEAP for them. Boeing might want to avoid, but what if United says take or leave, like AA did? They are redoing the MLG anyway. Interesting months ahead.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:01 pm

keesje wrote:
I hope Boeing can somehow convince CFM to improve BPR / sfc on the LEAP for them. Boeing might want to avoid, but what if United says take or leave, like AA did? They are redoing the MLG anyway. Interesting months ahead.

:confused:
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:17 pm

Polot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I hope Boeing can somehow convince CFM to improve BPR / sfc on the LEAP for them. Boeing might want to avoid, but what if United says take or leave, like AA did? They are redoing the MLG anyway. Interesting months ahead.

:confused:


https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1341593&start=50#p19060069
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:27 pm

Keesje, there is absolutely no proof of who has ordered what. It probably frustrates the Airbus marketing teams because when they lose a sales campaign, they don't know what the fleet composition that the airline decided on was until years later. Sounds like a strategic business decision and not " not per definition of a good sign".

You can believe in or create a rumor of United cancelling its 737-9 orders and ordering A321s, but there has been no evidence whatsoever that United intends to order the A321. Only the A321 fans seem to think it is a possibility. I have not seen any evidence out of United that they intend to abondon the 737 MAX and order the A321 just like I have seen no evidence of Air Canada changing its mind about replacing A321s with the 737 MAX. But I guess anything is possible in an Airbus fantasy world.

What I do see as possible is that with the solid growth in the North American aviation market in the 5 years since the 737 MAX was launched, airlines like Air Canada and United asked Boeing for something bigger. Boeing values meeting its customers needs and responded to that need in a way that also helps them better compete against the A321. The 737-10 sounds like a win - win solution to a problem that was probably created 6 years ago when Boeing had to rush the 737 MAX response to the A320 NEO and didn't have the time to adapt to a changing market interested in larger derivatives.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:40 pm

keesje wrote:
Polot wrote:
keesje wrote:
I hope Boeing can somehow convince CFM to improve BPR / sfc on the LEAP for them. Boeing might want to avoid, but what if United says take or leave, like AA did? They are redoing the MLG anyway. Interesting months ahead.

:confused:


https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1341593&start=50#p19060069


That is not really a "take it or leave it" situation. That is a "PS if you don't have a response to this plane you won't be getting an order" situation. United has a great relationship with Boeing. They already have 99 737MAXs on order. They ordered 40 73Gs, and less than a year later were able to defer them and convert them to 737MAXs, along with other orderbook changes in the past year or so. UA is going to work hard with Boeing to come up with a solution that everyone is happy with, UA are not really in a situation to be offering "take it or leave it" ultimatums (and I say this as someone who believes that UA will one day operate A321s...alongside 737-9s/737-10s if variant launched).

UA, and other airlines (both Airbus and Boeing operators), have a vested interest in making sure Boeing has a competitive response to the A321. A noncompetitive product is great for Airbus, not so much for the airlines who will paying out the nose for those great A321s. Also your example is a little weird because I don't know why you think Boeing wouldn't love an improved BPR/sfc on the LEAP. If there was an easy way to do so there would be no need for UA to pressure Boeing to pressure CFM...Boeing would already be pressuring CFM. Hell CFM would be facing internal pressure to try and make their product as competitive against PW as possible. It is not like CFM is purposely holding back the LEAP for Boeing.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:50 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
there is absolutely no proof of who has ordered what


Indeed, though I think it would be naive to believe the MAX-9 holds a large portion of the 737 MAX backlog.

Up to the end of 2015 Boeing had no more than 217 orders for the MAX-9, less than 10% of the entire 737 MAX backlog.

http://www.pdxlight.com/neomax.htm

Unfortunately that website was no longer updated after 2015. But if this trend continues, orders would stand at no more than 350 aircraft.

The 737-900ER never sold in large numbers. I would be surprised if the heavier MAX-9 would do much better.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:54 pm

Polot, I think large airlines like UA are is such a position, specially if dominate the order book for a type & have a good alternative. Think DL with their 787s, EK with the A350's, UA with their 737-700s. Neither Airbus or Boeing is going to sue them if they break their promises / contracts.

And what Airbus and Boeing say about can be taken with a grain of salt anyway. They'll adjust the message as required.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-ceo-no-urgent-response-a321neo-needed
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:05 pm

keesje wrote:
Polot, I think large airlines like UA are is such a position, specially if dominate the order book for a type & have a good alternative. Think DL with their 787s, EK with the A350's, UA with their 737-700s. Neither Airbus or Boeing is going to sue them if they break their promises / contracts.

Break promises? Sure Boeing/Airbus won't sue them because promises are not legally binding.

Break a contract and then go radio silent and avoid discussing the penalties? You bet Boeing/Airbus would sue.

The airlines know this and would never break a contract without negotiations about repercussions or alternatives to the penalties outlined in the contract. Because ha soon as they do so they are basically putting a giant neon sign on their headquarters that basically says "Hey Airbus/Boeing, my relationship with Boeing/Airbus is incredibly strained, no need to give me discounts to fight for an order because I'm going to order from you anyways".

Yes UA has a good alternative in the A321. One problem: Airbus knows that too. Sucks to hear through the grapevine about all the discounts competitors got and realize you overpaid for your planes.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:06 pm

keesje wrote:
Polot, I think large airlines like UA are is such a position, specially if dominate the order book for a type & have a good alternative. Think DL with their 787s, EK with the A350's, UA with their 737-700s. Neither Airbus or Boeing is going to sue them if they break their promises / contracts.

And what Airbus and Boeing say about can be taken with a grain of salt anyway. They'll adjust the message as required.
http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-ceo-no-urgent-response-a321neo-needed


I would be surprised to see United threaten to cancel an entire order with a take it or leave it attitude. United has Boeing people embedded in their headquarters to support their current fleet of over 500 Boeing airplanes. That type of combative attitude can be a good negotiating attitude or detrimental.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:15 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
That type of combative attitude can be a good negotiating attitude or detrimental.

Yes and in duopolies, like the aviation industry, it usually tends to be more detrimental rather than good. Which is why such attitude is rare, often newsworthy, and typically a result of accidents that resulted in bad PR and loss of life (i.e. Boeing vs USAir in regards to 737 rudder, or AA vs Airbus in beginning of last decade over A300 crash) and not orders in this industry.

Because in a duopoly if you burn one bridge you only have one other bridge left, so it really better be worth it.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:19 pm

It appears the board of directors approved the latest 737 MAX variant, and it would be officially launched if the marketing guys can gather enough orders:

Boeing won approval from its board of directors in late 2016 to go out and make deals for the jet with airlines, three people said. If Boeing wins enough airline commitments, the Max 10X would be officially launched as a new Boeing airliner. Boeing wants the jet to be ready for airline use by mid-2020, the people said.


http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/12/news/co ... or-max-10/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18936
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:21 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Shortening the time between firm configuration and delivery is a competitive advantage for Boeing and leaving orders as undecided has the side effect of making things more difficult for the Airbus marketing analysts.


So what's the comparable time for Airbus?

I think it's naive to assume that Airbus has little or no idea what models of MAX an airline has ordered since Airbus will, in almost all cases, have seen the RFP.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:23 pm

I'm guessing launch with orders at the Paris Air Show this year, with it being one of those worse kept secrets situations and a ton of leaks about who ordered it before then. Or maybe launch at first 737-8 delivery/EIS.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:14 pm

scbriml wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Shortening the time between firm configuration and delivery is a competitive advantage for Boeing and leaving orders as undecided has the side effect of making things more difficult for the Airbus marketing analysts.


So what's the comparable time for Airbus?

I think it's naive to assume that Airbus has little or no idea what models of MAX an airline has ordered since Airbus will, in almost all cases, have seen the RFP.


In 2002 Airbus had a lead time of 18 months for firm configuration. In 2009 they launched an effort to shorten that to 12 months. Simulataneously Boeing was working on getting the 737 to 10 months. The 737 supply chain is a bit simpler than the A320 although fuselages being manufactured by spirit in Kansas puts a limit on how low they can go. 6 months I believe would be ideal. I'm not an expert on the A320 configuration process so maybe someone else can respond.

I don't know who configures an airplane faster now. I do know that airlines having the flexibility to change airplane size closer to delivery as they adjust to market conditions gives them a competitive advantage over what it used to be like. I also think Boeing doesn't have firm commitments from many customers on what the model breakdown will be. That likely still is to be determined at many airlines.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
alyusuph
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:21 pm

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.


The Max 10 will only have 4 less seats (in two class configuration) than the A321 NEO. http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:23 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Keesje, there is absolutely no proof of who has ordered what.


Determining what is in a black box by watching stimulus response pairs is an art ( on occasion ).

If there were gobs of -9 orders hidden in the "unspecifics" pages of Boeings order book
there would be no need to send lots of MOM/NSA/737DachshundXL propositions over the
marketing cat walk.

Now if you note that Airbus expects to deliver 50% A321 in the years to come ( @40% this year )
and then look at Airbus NB orderbook you can think about how many "Gestaltwandler"
orders might be sitting there.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:25 pm

Polot wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
That type of combative attitude can be a good negotiating attitude or detrimental.

Yes and in duopolies, like the aviation industry, it usually tends to be more detrimental rather than good. Which is why such attitude is rare, often newsworthy, and typically a result of accidents that resulted in bad PR and loss of life (i.e. Boeing vs USAir in regards to 737 rudder, or AA vs Airbus in beginning of last decade over A300 crash) and not orders in this industry.

Because in a duopoly if you burn one bridge you only have one other bridge left, so it really better be worth it.


The big airlines and leasing companies get away with a lot. Airbus and Boeing know that if customers have seen A / B fighting other airlines, they'll put it on the agenda.

United has a strong position. How much is it worth for Boeing if United doesn't convert their -9s into -8's and orders A321NEO's?
At this stage that might kill the -10 program before it takes off. Boeing sales explaining to Air Canada why alliance partner United pulled out :worried: .. United will be the winner whatever happens, because Airbus might have to lower margin here.. :thumbsup:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:31 pm

Keesje, or maybe in a parallel universe, the 737-10 will have lower CASM than the A321neo and result in airlines cancelling A321neo orders in favor of the MAX family. Who is right? Who knows what will happen? This is the fun of an A vs B thread.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:34 pm

2020 or mid 2020ies?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10439
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:56 pm

keesje wrote:
United has a strong position. How much is it worth for Boeing if United doesn't convert their -9s into -8's and orders A321NEO's?
At this stage that might kill the -10 program before it takes off. Boeing sales explaining to Air Canada why alliance partner United pulled out :worried: .. United will be the winner whatever happens, because Airbus might have to lower margin here.. :thumbsup:

And if UA wasn't on board Boeing probably wouldn't launch the -10 program. You have absolutely zero idea what UA's opinion of this -10 is. For all we know they could be one of the major supporters of this project.

You seem to have this strange belief that Boeing doesn't talk to customers, or that customers (i.e. AC) buy billions of dollars worth of planes without being fully aware of what they are capable of or of the competition. I guarantee you what plane alliance partner United selected played no role in what Air Canada selected. Air Canada selected, after looking through Airbus's and Boeing's proposals, what they thought was best for them. Yes they means AC knows they can't containerize the 737MAX (since you always bring that up). Yes that means AC knows the 737-9's vs A321's capability.
Last edited by Polot on Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23682
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:58 pm

WIederling wrote:
Now if you note that Airbus expects to deliver 50% A321 in the years to come ( @40% this year )
and then look at Airbus NB orderbook you can think about how many "Gestaltwandler"
orders might be sitting there.


Interesting how people criticize Boeing so much for producing a model very close in size to its competitor's most popular model.

It seems to me to be a pretty sensible thing to do.

Since our resident photoshop artist only seems to do renditions for the Airbus line, it's nice to have found this:

Image

Ref: http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm

Nice to see all the gabs are filled!

Polot wrote:
You seem to have this strange belief that Boeing doesn't talk to customers, or that customers (i.e. AC) buy billions of dollars worth of planes without being fully aware of what they are capable of or of the competition. I guarantee you what plane alliance partner United selected played no role in what Air Canada selected. Air Canada selected, after looking through Airbus's and Boeing's proposals, what they thought was best for them. Yes they means AC knows they can't containerize the 737MAX (since you always bring that up). Yes that means AC knows the 737-9's vs A321's capability.


Yep, another poster above said Boeing had its 'head in the sand'.

There's a pretty strong streak of Airbus fan boy ism running around here these days.

We get it, you don't like the 737, but do you really think Boeing builds whatever it feels like building without talking to customers?

It would be self defeating to build a product without talking to the people who might be buying it.

Seems some can't even give Boeing a little bit of credit.
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
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:10 pm

They are now offering the plane. If the concept is not attractive, it will find no buyers and never see the light of day. If airlines buy it, it was worth doing. And I think it will be the CASM king below 2000nm.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:10 pm

Revelation wrote:
Nice to see all the gabs are filled!


you couldn't SCNR, could you? :-)

There's a lot of reasons why the product line looks like it does, but it would be self defeating to build a product without talking to the people who might be buying it.


IMU we do have to differentiate between real product ideas and some FUDdy balloons.

If the BOD has nodded this of that question is cleared.
But there have been so many "Testballons" launched ...
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:12 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I don't know who configures an airplane faster now. I do know that airlines having the flexibility to change airplane size closer to delivery as they adjust to market conditions gives them a competitive advantage over what it used to be like. I also think Boeing doesn't have firm commitments from many customers on what the model breakdown will be. That likely still is to be determined at many airlines.

Airlines have flexibility, but it comes at a premium over the agreed unit price for each model, and the premium is bigger the closer to the cut-off date. Customer initiated delays incur a further fee.

Industry practice was to waive change fees more often than not, but no longer.

If an airline switches from model X to Y, and Y has later delivery windows (due to development or pre-existing orders), then potentially, the airline incurs a change fee for the model switch and a change fee for later delivery.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:25 pm

I love to analyse the MAX product specs, but they're it changing all the time :duck:

BTW I made some pictures..

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1341593
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23682
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:26 pm

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Nice to see all the gabs are filled!


you couldn't SCNR, could you? :-)


WIederling, if I didn't love you so much, I'd hate you! :-)

WIederling wrote:
IMU we do have to differentiate between real product ideas and some FUDdy balloons.

If the BOD has nodded this of that question is cleared.
But there have been so many "Testballons" launched ...


I've used Leahy's "paper airplane company" quote a few times so I know where you're coming from. I guess we just have to accept that it is Boeing's style to continuously launch various trial balloons till they launch one that does not get shot full of holes. Since the story showed up in AvWeek, FG, CNN and Bloomberg it's pretty clear it was a well orchestrated trial balloon. That's just how they do things. They must have a "trial balloon department" in a set of cubicles some where in Seattle.

A lot of people here simply won't be happy till Boeing launches an all new narrowbody family but to me all that means is they won't be happy for many more years to come. Boeing's 737 line is filled for the next decade or so. There's no compelling technology that's going to give them a large enough boost over the A320 to make it worth the cost and the risk. Boeing will milk the 737 line till sales drop off a cliff.
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
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:30 pm

JoeCanuck wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
They extended the MLG by several inches for the Classic series in the 1980s, but after that, the MLG cannot be extended any more without moving the attachment point.

....or designing a telescoping mechanism that lengthens the gear as it lowers into landing position, allowing attachments points to remain the same.

For some reason Boeing does not seem to favor such an approach. Maybe the solution does not offer the reliability needed for civil aviation or requires too much maintenance. A comparison with military usage is not valid, because military jets require many man hours maintenance for every single flight hour.

travelhound wrote:
The larger engines come with additional weight, so there is a two steps forward, one step back tradeoff going for the larger engine.

So all other factors are not equal, thanks for confirmation!
A larger fan for the MAX is so desirable that Boeing had to increase the fan size at least once in the design phase.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Swadian
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:56 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:00 pm

All I'm hoping for is that Boeing doesn't try to write off the MOM after building the 737-10MAX.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18936
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:21 pm

Swadian wrote:
All I'm hoping for is that Boeing doesn't try to write off the MOM after building the 737-10MAX.


Given the lack of consensus among potential customers as to what MOM should be, maybe we should be prepared for disappointment.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
A lot of people here simply won't be happy till Boeing launches an all new narrowbody family but to me all that means is they won't be happy for many more years to come. Boeing's 737 line is filled for the next decade or so. There's no compelling technology that's going to give them a large enough boost over the A320 to make it worth the cost and the risk. Boeing will milk the 737 line till sales drop off a cliff.


But here is the clean sheet case to be made...

I actually believe that the A and B narrowbody backlogs are somewhat of an illusion, I agree the next five years of production are OK as both NEO and MAX enter service....about 5 thousand NB aircraft. After that, depends on the global economy, fuel prices, local market conditions, secondary market lease rates and interest rates. The world really has not seen a high interest rate environment for decades, it would decimate these backlogs. As we have seen in the widebody arena, deferrals, cancellations and airline bankruptcies can come quickly. High capital costs with low fuel prices will make it unreasonable to replace classic A320 and 737 quickly.

Since no real competitor is in this 200-250 passenger area (apologies A321)... B could start a new family with a midrange/MOM using current engine tech, GTF maybe - entry 2025...Then follow up with a smaller narrow body to replace MAX about 2030 with new engine tech but similar systems, technology as the MOM. (e.g. like 757-767 family). Airlines that commit to MOM, will likely follow on by ordering the new NB from the same family later. Also this spreads out the capital cost to B.

...If they don't -- then MAX will really start to look like a dated family after 2020, and customers will hesitate committing to 737's that will be flying until 2040 and beyond - especially with desperate looking landing gear kluges.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
WIederling
Posts: 9291
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:32 pm

Swadian wrote:
All I'm hoping for is that Boeing doesn't try to write off the MOM after building the 737-10MAX.


Any new gyration on the 737 project will delay any other project in the same domain that could be started from new.

Resource limitations.
Product ( new 737 derivative ) lifetime wanted to earn a dime for the effort.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27025
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:48 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Getting 40% of the sales / revenue / profits from a 20,000 frame market is still a nice place to be.

That is true, I am sure Boeing will relish being known as the OEM that sells the second most aircraft in a market where only two exists.


If they make strong profits and nice margins...

Airbus stopped "giving away planes" because they felt they had achieved a sufficient marketshare and their products were respected enough to command a strong price that generated a solid profit per frame. They could have kept undercutting Boeing on pricing and taken more and more of the market, but they decided it was more prudent to make money than lose it just to chase marketshare for the sake of marketshare.


WIederling wrote:
You presented (the change to the MAX-7) as customer oriented service while it really is driven by cost considerations.


So you're of the opinion if the MAX-7 customers did not want a larger plane, Boeing would have told them to pound tarmac and forced them to take delivery of the original specification? And that said customers would meekly take them with a polite "thank you, sir. Can I have another?"


keesje wrote:
Polot, I think large airlines like UA are is such a position, specially if dominate the order book for a type & have a good alternative. Think DL with their 787s, EK with the A350's, UA with their 737-700s. Neither Airbus or Boeing is going to sue them if they break their promises / contracts.


Tell that to Skymark. Airbus ended them with their lawsuit over the A380.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23682
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:55 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
...If they don't -- then MAX will really start to look like a dated family after 2020, and customers will hesitate committing to 737's that will be flying until 2040 and beyond - especially with desperate looking landing gear kluges.


IMHO your arguments had merit (although you never address the risks in making the transition to the new family) till I got to this part. Do you really think Boeing will commit to investing billions and taking on huge risk (see 787 program) "especially" to get rid of a landing gear design that's been used many times in the industry, just because it looks like a kluge to some people? That's fan boy thinking.

Sure, the time will come when Boeing replaces the 737, but they ain't doing it because the landing gear looks strange to some folk. My guess is they'll do it when they've rung every dime out of the 737 they can, and when the market makes it clear they aren't going to buy any more.
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
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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