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?