Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 14
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:56 pm

rheinwladner wrote:

"So all other factors are not equal, thanks for confirmation!"

We could go through each element of the A320 and 737 air frames to (try and) determine where one has an advantage over the other, but this would really be fruitless. Using the CEO and NG as a guide, we know these air frames are close to parity. When we consider the efficiency gains for the new models are primarily coming from new engines, why over complicate an argument with other factors that in reality are inconsequential.

We could argue Boeing should have increased the length of the landing gear, so they could have put larger engines on the wing. The reality is this would have required additional structural mass for the landing gear, additional structural mass to support the landing gear and additional structural mass to support the larger and heavier engines.

If you are going to do all that work why not just build a new air frame.

Going forward, the success of these air frames is probably going to revolve around manufacturing costs and production capacity. From what I have seen Boeing and its partners are investing just as much in production systems as they are in advancing the air frame itself.

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...."

From a customer perspective there will probably be little difference between the A320 and 737. The problem with a new air frame, is not the efficiency gains it would have over the current aircraft, but the actual cost to purchase. I'd suggest, the latest 737MAX and A320NEO air frames are the best value narrow body aircraft the world has ever seen. From this perspective a new air frame may actually be a step backwards.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:09 pm

scbriml wrote:
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.

We may end up being disappointed, but I don't think this is the project that kills it.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:11 pm

Revelation wrote:
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.


Not suggesting the landing gear is the primary reason for replacement...the strange gear however, would be symbolic of an aircraft that can barely be upgraded or stretched because the engines and tail are almost dragging on the runway. And waiting too long to start a replacement would make it hard to finance a new clean sheet, if MAX sales have already fallen off a cliff.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
packsonflight
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:22 pm

I would not be surprised if this new wingbox design from Airbus would find its way into the A322

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-e ... -aircraft/
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:28 pm

Thanks everyone for an interesting tread.

I'm skeptical of this proposed 737-10x for three reasons:

1. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 will be very close in size. All three will be between the A320 and A321. Is this really necessary? I have a hard time seeing a healthy return on investments here. Maybe it would be better to compete on price?

2. I think it is time for Boeing to once again offer two narrowbody families at the same time. It will take a minimum of 5 to 6 years from launch to first aircraft in service. Then different variants needs to be developed. That will take another few years for each variant. And, of course it will take several years for ramp up of production to reach those high volumes a narrowbody line needs. We are talking 10 plus years from launch! Just think about when Boeing launched the 787, the time for production ramp up, and when they will finally have completed all three variants.

Boeing needs to launch a new narrowbody family this or next year in order to be able to have a smooth transition from the 737 to the next family in the early 2030s. In the mid to late 2020s they will have two narrowbody families on offer. I don't see this as a problem. They need to start the development of the new family now that they have a large and health backlog on the 737 program. It will be to late when the decline in orders/deliveries of the 737 is significant. This 737-10x might delay a new narrowbody family, and I think that will not benefit Boeing in the long run. It might actually jeopardize the company's commercial business.

3. Of all the posts in this tread, nobody has asked who will buy this proposed 737-10x? The minimum change from the 737-9 would indicate at those same airlines that have bought the 737-900ER or 737-9 MAX are likely very interested in the 737-10x. I can't see anything new that would indicate that A320/A321 operators would switch to the 737-10x. Maybe there will be conversions from the 737-9 and not a lot of new business.

The 737-900ER and the 737-9 MAX have seen reasonably success in the US, but has flopped big time in the rest of the world. In Europe there are only a handful 737-900ER in service. Of the NG series the 737-600 is way more frequently seen in the European skies and airports. The answer to the question, why has the 737-900/737-9 MAX only sold successfully in the US, will answer what Boeing needs to address in order to compete successfully against the A321. I don't have the answer, but it is definitely not a minimum change that can add two extra rows of economy seats. Why is the 737-800 so extremely popular, and the slightly longer 737-900ER a sales dog in most markets?

I have posted these before. It is a snapshot of a Sunday morning over Europe. It is an easy way to visualize what Boeing is up against. The first image is all 737-900 is the air, and the second one is all A321 in the air on a normal Sunday this last fall.

Image

Image
Last edited by reidar76 on Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 9:34 pm

Boeing has an opportunity to give the B737 a proper boost here.
For instance a 2-tier family can be built as follows:

MAX 7, MAX 8, MAX 9 (current line-up)
SUPERMAX 9, SUPERMAX 10 (new line-up)

The SUPERMAX series would sit on larger landing gears and have more powerful engines, optional ACT's.
The SUPERMAX 10 should then be a proper stretch of 6 rows, not just 2 rows, becoming a true B757 replacement and a A321 NEO killer.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:56 pm

Revelation wrote:
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.



That was me, I was saying Boeing had their head in the sand. :wave: I was commenting on the fact that the sales of the A321 has been better than the 737-900ER (and the 737-900) for the better part of 15 years yet it seems that even when doing the MAX they didn't think about lengthening the fuselage to the 737-10 (rumored) length. Surely it would have been better to do it when launching the MAX? Or did Boeing think they would capture more sales than their current share with the 737-900ER? Why would they think that?

You have yourself said that it is sensible to have the competition for the A321 close to its capacity. I agree with you and I don't know why this wasn't done earlier if this rumored new model changes is so relatively easy to do.

Secondly the pronouncements from Boeing regarding the A321 in all its guises has been interesting. First we had the comment that the A321 was just catching up to the 737-900ER in range when Airbus was launching the A321LR, as if this was the reason that Airbus did the LR because the 737 was walking away with that market. :shakehead:

Then we had Randy's words that he found the prediction of Airbus of a market of 1000 aircraft in the 757 capacity, "frankly a little bit laughable". Its been so laughable that Boeing has been talking about the MOM with their customers for a while now. I guess Boeing has gone into comedy as its been having discussions with airlines for a laugh.

Do you still think I was way over the top to say Boeing had their head in the sand on the 737-900/ER/9MAX when even Boeing themselves seemed to see no reason to upgrade the frame. Or how about their pronouncements on the MOM/757 market?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:33 pm

enzo011 wrote:
That was me, I was saying Boeing had their head in the sand. :wave: I was commenting on the fact that the sales of the A321 has been better than the 737-900ER (and the 737-900) for the better part of 15 years yet it seems that even when doing the MAX they didn't think about lengthening the fuselage to the 737-10 (rumored) length. Surely it would have been better to do it when launching the MAX? Or did Boeing think they would capture more sales than their current share with the 737-900ER? Why would they think that?

You have yourself said that it is sensible to have the competition for the A321 close to its capacity. I agree with you and I don't know why this wasn't done earlier if this rumored new model changes is so relatively easy to do.


There's lots of sensible reasons why it wasn't done earlier. To me it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that they had their hands full just getting the -7, -8 and -9 on the market as-is and didn't want to deal with a new size variant at introduction time. We've seen the -7 change since intro time and now we see the -10 being added. We also see the -9 being built right now and the potential -10 being three years away from now. I think it's safe to presume there would be at least another two year wait for the -10 if there was no -9 due to the additional design and qual work specific to the type. I think it'd be pretty bad to have such a delay. Better to have the -9 on the market and gaining orders right from the start and then add the -10 later if/when it's clear the market will support it. Note we read above that the board expects to see the orders in hand before the company can announce the product, so we don't really know if/when it will be a product.

enzo011 wrote:
Secondly the pronouncements from Boeing regarding the A321 in all its guises has been interesting. First we had the comment that the A321 was just catching up to the 737-900ER in range when Airbus was launching the A321LR, as if this was the reason that Airbus did the LR because the 737 was walking away with that market. :shakehead:

Then we had Randy's words that he found the prediction of Airbus of a market of 1000 aircraft in the 757 capacity, "frankly a little bit laughable". Its been so laughable that Boeing has been talking about the MOM with their customers for a while now. I guess Boeing has gone into comedy as its been having discussions with airlines for a laugh.

Do you still think I was way over the top to say Boeing had their head in the sand on the 737-900/ER/9MAX when even Boeing themselves seemed to see no reason to upgrade the frame. Or how about their pronouncements on the MOM/757 market?


I don't think they have their heads in the sand. I think there are a lot of things they'd like to do but can't due to the constraints they find themselves under. A lot of that is time and money due primarily to the 787 screw up and a lot of it is retaining the installed base. In an imaginary world where they got the 787 onto market with a reasonable amount of time and money the story probably would be different.
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
 
airzona11
Posts: 1772
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:44 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Thanks everyone for an interesting tread.

I'm skeptical of this proposed 737-10x for three reasons:

1. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 will be very close in size. All three will be between the A320 and A321. Is this really necessary? I have a hard time seeing a healthy return on investments here. Maybe it would be better to compete on price?

2. I think it is time for Boeing to once again offer two narrowbody families at the same time. It will take a minimum of 5 to 6 years from launch to first aircraft in service. Then different variants needs to be developed. That will take another few years for each variant. And, of course it will take several years for ramp up of production to reach those high volumes a narrowbody line needs. We are talking 10 plus years from launch! Just think about when Boeing launched the 787, the time for production ramp up, and when they will finally have completed all three variants.

Boeing needs to launch a new narrowbody family this or next year in order to be able to have a smooth transition from the 737 to the next family in the early 2030s. In the mid to late 2020s they will have two narrowbody families on offer. I don't see this as a problem. They need to start the development of the new family now that they have a large and health backlog on the 737 program. It will be to late when the decline in orders/deliveries of the 737 is significant. This 737-10x might delay a new narrowbody family, and I think that will not benefit Boeing in the long run. It might actually jeopardize the company's commercial business.

3. Of all the posts in this tread, nobody has asked who will buy this proposed 737-10x? The minimum change from the 737-9 would indicate at those same airlines that have bought the 737-900ER or 737-9 MAX are likely very interested in the 737-10x. I can't see anything new that would indicate that A320/A321 operators would switch to the 737-10x. Maybe there will be conversions from the 737-9 and not a lot of new business.

The 737-900ER and the 737-9 MAX have seen reasonably success in the US, but has flopped big time in the rest of the world. In Europe there are only a handful 737-900ER in service. Of the NG series the 737-600 is way more frequently seen in the European skies and airports. The answer to the question, why has the 737-900/737-9 MAX only sold successfully in the US, will answer what Boeing needs to address in order to compete successfully against the A321. I don't have the answer, but it is definitely not a minimum change that can add two extra rows of economy seats. Why is the 737-800 so extremely popular, and the slightly longer 737-900ER a sales dog in most markets?

I have posted these before. It is a snapshot of a Sunday morning over Europe. It is an easy way to visualize what Boeing is up against. The first image is all 737-900 is the air, and the second one is all A321 in the air on a normal Sunday this last fall.


Taking a stab at it.

1- Same family of airplanes with more choice, there is nothing wrong with that. No different than A321NEO/LR/expanded exit config. Boeings answer is a 739/73X. Opting to just compete on price, I assume you say that in jest?

2- Airlines do not want 737s/757s like days past. Or A300/A320s. They have standardized across families and adopted increased frequencies, that is how to maximize revenue/profits. I am with you, that would be cool to see, but those days are behind us.

3- Any 739 customer could be a potential customer. Just like A321s/739s found their way into fleets of airlines that operated A320s/738s. The CASM advantages might be great fits for airlines. It doesn't have to steal A321s, it can grow/protect its 737 base (which is HUGE). The same way Boeing is now offering the 738Max and the 737 MAX 200.

What is any negative about Boeing offering more choices/options/configs to the 737?

It is safe to assume the largest member of the fleet earns the most the respective manufacturers. The fact that people bemoaning the "1960s" 737 is a precise reason why they can for relatively low risk keep adding models. The R+D is relatively low, the 737 is a cash cow, and they have an embedded base to sell to, and their clients have only 1 option.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:59 pm

reidar76 wrote:
I'm skeptical of this proposed 737-10x for three reasons:

1. The 737-8, 737-9 and 737-10 will be very close in size. All three will be between the A320 and A321. Is this really necessary? I have a hard time seeing a healthy return on investments here. Maybe it would be better to compete on price?


Boeing has been competing on price (at least half off list and sometimes more), but if an airline wants / needs more seats than what the 737-9 offers, it doesn't matter how cheap the 737-9 is because it won't work for them. So they buy the A321, even if they have to pay a premium for it (the extra passenger traffic over the life of the frame will more than cover that higher CAPEX).

A fair number of 737 operators are now adding the A321 - and especially A321neo - to their fleets, and not because they plan to put it on 3500nm missions only or operate it out of "constrained" airports. They're doing so because they need something bigger than the 737-9 and the A321 is all there is (even if it might be too big, in some cases). A 737-10 will either bring these customers back into the fold (they're large and diverse enough to operate both frames) or it will prevent other 737 customers from jumping to the A321 in the first place.

As for return on investment, pure stretches are "cheap". Well Fargo analysts believe that the entire 737MAX program could break even on only 250 frames. They may be mad, but if they're not, then a simple stretch could be covered with a launch order of a tenth that.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:06 am

enzo011 wrote:
Secondly the pronouncements from Boeing regarding the A321 in all its guises has been interesting. First we had the comment that the A321 was just catching up to the 737-900ER in range when Airbus was launching the A321LR, as if this was the reason that Airbus did the LR because the 737 was walking away with that market. :shakehead:

Then we had Randy's words that he found the prediction of Airbus of a market of 1000 aircraft in the 757 capacity, "frankly a little bit laughable". Its been so laughable that Boeing has been talking about the MOM with their customers for a while now. I guess Boeing has gone into comedy as its been having discussions with airlines for a laugh.

Do you still think I was way over the top to say Boeing had their head in the sand on the 737-900/ER/9MAX when even Boeing themselves seemed to see no reason to upgrade the frame. Or how about their pronouncements on the MOM/757 market?



And what happens if we look at a very similar scenario?:

When Boeing launched the '7E7' in 2004, Airbus stated they did not really need to respond, as Boeing was merely making a "Chinese copy of the A330" - Noel Foregard. John Leahy also famously stated that he was in continuous contact with customers, and 'no one' was talking about it (7E7). Once the sales momentum clearly swung towards the new plane, Airbus reacted by floating various upgrade plans for the A330, culminating in the launch, and sales, of the A350 Mk.1.

But as we all know, even that plan was scrapped, and Airbus went back to the drawing board and launched the A350XWB. Homerun, right? Well, not quite. Since the launch of that family, they changed their plans for the smallest model, and instead of an optimized -800, they decided to go with a straight-shrink of the -900 (-7 MAX, anyone?). They have also re-worked and altered the largest model to make it more capable (again, sound familiar?).

And if that weren't enough, because of the rejection of the 'new' A350-800, they have gone back and re-launched one of their original plans in the form of the A330NEO.

Now, I ask you enzo011, would you say that Airbus have their "head in the sand"? Or would you say they are actively listening and reacting to what the market and their customers are saying?

Personally, I would vehemently say it is the latter. And I would say the same of Boeing, too. But maybe that's just me. . .

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1312
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:29 am

QuarkFly wrote:
Not suggesting the landing gear is the primary reason for replacement...the strange gear however, would be symbolic of an aircraft that can barely be upgraded or stretched because the engines and tail are almost dragging on the runway.


Well, just remember, the low stance is a feature, not a bug. :-)

Seriously, there are plusses to being low to the ground. Whether they are enough to offset the minuses is certainly arguable at this point, but the short gear is not an unmitigated curse.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:12 am

PITingres wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
Not suggesting the landing gear is the primary reason for replacement...the strange gear however, would be symbolic of an aircraft that can barely be upgraded or stretched because the engines and tail are almost dragging on the runway.


Well, just remember, the low stance is a feature, not a bug. :-)

Seriously, there are plusses to being low to the ground. Whether they are enough to offset the minuses is certainly arguable at this point, but the short gear is not an unmitigated curse.


Not to the 737-700 or 737-800, but stretching the fuselage further it becomes a curse.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:53 am

Revelation wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
That was me, I was saying Boeing had their head in the sand. :wave: I was commenting on the fact that the sales of the A321 has been better than the 737-900ER (and the 737-900) for the better part of 15 years yet it seems that even when doing the MAX they didn't think about lengthening the fuselage to the 737-10 (rumored) length. Surely it would have been better to do it when launching the MAX? Or did Boeing think they would capture more sales than their current share with the 737-900ER? Why would they think that?

You have yourself said that it is sensible to have the competition for the A321 close to its capacity. I agree with you and I don't know why this wasn't done earlier if this rumored new model changes is so relatively easy to do.


There's lots of sensible reasons why it wasn't done earlier. To me it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that they had their hands full just getting the -7, -8 and -9 on the market as-is and didn't want to deal with a new size variant at introduction time. We've seen the -7 change since intro time and now we see the -10 being added. We also see the -9 being built right now and the potential -10 being three years away from now. I think it's safe to presume there would be at least another two year wait for the -10 if there was no -9 due to the additional design and qual work specific to the type. I think it'd be pretty bad to have such a delay. Better to have the -9 on the market and gaining orders right from the start and then add the -10 later if/when it's clear the market will support it. Note we read above that the board expects to see the orders in hand before the company can announce the product, so we don't really know if/when it will be a product.


That's, like, your opinion man. It's not too hard to come to the conclusion that the engineers would have said we have to do "X" to improve this plane and the accountants said do "Y" because it costs less. Now that the -7 and -9 have had to be rejigged I would guess the savings have been zero and they had to do the "X" anyway. Since the -8 is the obvious leader of the 737 product line it would have made just as much sense to come to market with the first and delay the -7 and -9 as long as was necessary to work out the best way to implement them.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:11 am

Revelation wrote:
There's lots of sensible reasons why it wasn't done earlier. To me it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that they had their hands full just getting the -7, -8 and -9 on the market as-is and didn't want to deal with a new size variant at introduction time. We've seen the -7 change since intro time and now we see the -10 being added. We also see the -9 being built right now and the potential -10 being three years away from now. I think it's safe to presume there would be at least another two year wait for the -10 if there was no -9 due to the additional design and qual work specific to the type. I think it'd be pretty bad to have such a delay. Better to have the -9 on the market and gaining orders right from the start and then add the -10 later if/when it's clear the market will support it. Note we read above that the board expects to see the orders in hand before the company can announce the product, so we don't really know if/when it will be a product.



I can see the sense of the 737-10. I can see the sense in doing nothing to the 737-9 if you are going to launch the MOM to fill the spot above the A321. I see very little sense in offering both the 737-9 and 737-10 and adding the MOM as well into a crowded space already, but then again I guess it shows the corner Boeing is in with their current products in this market space. Now some may try to slather some lipstick on that pig, but a pig it still is.

Hamlet69 wrote:
And what happens if we look at a very similar scenario?:

When Boeing launched the '7E7' in 2004, Airbus stated they did not really need to respond, as Boeing was merely making a "Chinese copy of the A330" - Noel Foregard. John Leahy also famously stated that he was in continuous contact with customers, and 'no one' was talking about it (7E7). Once the sales momentum clearly swung towards the new plane, Airbus reacted by floating various upgrade plans for the A330, culminating in the launch, and sales, of the A350 Mk.1.

But as we all know, even that plan was scrapped, and Airbus went back to the drawing board and launched the A350XWB. Homerun, right? Well, not quite. Since the launch of that family, they changed their plans for the smallest model, and instead of an optimized -800, they decided to go with a straight-shrink of the -900 (-7 MAX, anyone?). They have also re-worked and altered the largest model to make it more capable (again, sound familiar?).

And if that weren't enough, because of the rejection of the 'new' A350-800, they have gone back and re-launched one of their original plans in the form of the A330NEO.

Now, I ask you enzo011, would you say that Airbus have their "head in the sand"? Or would you say they are actively listening and reacting to what the market and their customers are saying?

Personally, I would vehemently say it is the latter. And I would say the same of Boeing, too. But maybe that's just me. . .

Hamlet69



Airbus most definitely had their head in the sand with the 787 and the original A350. Now they did have their own debacle with the A380 they were working on but that is no excuse for their half arsed replies to the 787. Now with hindsight I think they should have stuck to their guns and launched the A330neo (the first iteration of the A350) as a reply to the 787. In the end going for the XWB worked out fine because of the 787 delays but if the 787 was on time Airbus would have been in a world of hurt.

All decisions since then has been made in reaction to the situation and where Boeing finds itself, like being able to offer a lower priced A330neo to compete with the higher priced 787 (Boeing needs to make up deferred cost so cannot compete on price). So Airbus most definitely didn't listen to their customers because they went through so many designs and it was only after almost 2 years that they decided to go with the XWB. That is head in the sand decision making for 2 years that worked out only because their competition decided Airbus shouldn't have the prize of biggest screw-up with a new design all to themselves.

The changes to the A350-1000 was done before they were producing the first aircraft. If you wanted a similar situation the A35K would have been in production and they would have added length to make a A350-1100. So that is not a similar situation. If Boeing had changed the 737-9 MAX to be this new length it would have been similar.

Edited to add to the post.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:12 am

enzo011 wrote:
I was commenting on the fact that the sales of the A321 has been better than the 737-900ER (and the 737-900) for the better part of 15 years yet it seems that even when doing the MAX they didn't think about lengthening the fuselage to the 737-10 (rumored) length. Surely it would have been better to do it when launching the MAX? Or did Boeing think they would capture more sales than their current share with the 737-900ER? Why would they think that?


We know the MAX was an "emergency response" to Airbus launching the NEO and it garnering so much interest from the market. Boeing's plan was to have NSA next, but the 787 fiasco soaked up all their engineering resources and then the launch of the A350XWB put the 777 at risk so as resources freed up from the 787 program, I expect they went to the 777X.

Maybe Boeing felt a "MAX'd" 737-9 would be enough at the time they launched it - we had not yet seen the shift to higher capacity narrowbodies that we see today. Or maybe they felt that getting to market ASAP was paramount before Airbus took everything so they did not spend time researching larger frames. Or maybe it was both.

But today, the market shift to larger frames is a reality and Boeing no longer had no choice but to respond. And so they have. It's not the best response, but it appears to have enough interest to make it worth offering.
 
Hamlet69
Posts: 2541
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 2:45 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:35 am

enzo011 wrote:
Airbus most definitely had their head in the sand with the 787 and the original A350.


Well, I may completely disagree with your characterization, but at least you are consistent. :cool2:

enzo011 wrote:
The changes to the A350-1000 was done before they were producing the first aircraft. If you wanted a similar situation the A35K would have been in production and they would have added length to make a A350-1100. So that is not a similar situation.


But isn't that exactly what Airbus are talking about doing, after saying they saw no market for the 777-9X? :wink2: To be honest, I forget which proposal (-1100, -2000, -8000?) they are on now. I will grant you, however, that they are further along with the -1000 than Boeing is the -9 MAX. The latter is only beginning final assembly, while the former is in flight test.

Regards,

Hamlet69
All gave some. Some gave all.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:51 am

Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
I was commenting on the fact that the sales of the A321 has been better than the 737-900ER (and the 737-900) for the better part of 15 years yet it seems that even when doing the MAX they didn't think about lengthening the fuselage to the 737-10 (rumored) length. Surely it would have been better to do it when launching the MAX? Or did Boeing think they would capture more sales than their current share with the 737-900ER? Why would they think that?


We know the MAX was an "emergency response" to Airbus launching the NEO and it garnering so much interest from the market. Boeing's plan was to have NSA next, but the 787 fiasco soaked up all their engineering resources and then the launch of the A350XWB put the 777 at risk so as resources freed up from the 787 program, I expect they went to the 777X.

Maybe Boeing felt a "MAX'd" 737-9 would be enough at the time they launched it - we had not yet seen the shift to higher capacity narrowbodies that we see today. Or maybe they felt that getting to market ASAP was paramount before Airbus took everything so they did not spend time researching larger frames. Or maybe it was both.

But today, the market shift to larger frames is a reality and Boeing no longer had no choice but to respond. And so they have. It's not the best response, but it appears to have enough interest to make it worth offering.


I think with the launch of the A321NEOLR the market finally had an aircraft that could fill the bottom end of the MOM space. As such, when Boeing lauched the 737-8 and 737-9 models in 2010 they did so on the basis that these aircraft would be filling the traditional NB market space.

I suspect the A321NEOLR, an aircraft more than half the cost of a 787-8 is steeling sales from the lower end WB 787 and A330 models. I can see A321NEOLR flying from BNE-SIN on a regular basis. This is a route once predominantly flown by 747's, than A330's and in the not too distant future probably narrow body aircraft.

I suspect airlines like LionAir would be pushing Boeing to develop a A321NEOLR competitor. Just think of the markets they could access with such an aircraft.

As such we are probably witnessing a fundamental change in the NB market and subsequently offerings. I suspect Boeing were dragging their feet, as they had more to loose with these longer range narrow bodies (loss of 787-8 sales).
 
User avatar
AirCal737
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:00 am

The real thing is MTOW. If the MTOW of the 737-10 could increased to 95-100 ton, it could really make a difference. The main problem is engine thrust. The improved 1B probably has a thrust at 140kN, providing a thrust-to -weight ratio at 0.28, similar to the 777 and 787. Obviously the 737-10 needs better take off performance than widebodies. As wingspan is limited, the only thing to do is to increase wing thickness. Hint: Boeing has optimized wing thickness for different lenth versions of airliners.
 
klkla
Posts: 848
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:03 am

RickNRoll wrote:
That's, like, your opinion man. It's not too hard to come to the conclusion that the engineers would have said we have to do "X" to improve this plane and the accountants said do "Y" because it costs less. Now that the -7 and -9 have had to be rejigged I would guess the savings have been zero and they had to do the "X" anyway. Since the -8 is the obvious leader of the 737 product line it would have made just as much sense to come to market with the first and delay the -7 and -9 as long as was necessary to work out the best way to implement them.


The -8 is coming to market first (and ahead of schedule at that). The -7 was changed before production began on the first frame so not problem there. It doesn't sound like the -10 is going to be that expensive or time consuming for Boeing, either.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:06 am

Would this landing gear design require true landing gear doors? What is the largest aircraft currently with trailing link landing gear?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:47 am

enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
There's lots of sensible reasons why it wasn't done earlier. To me it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that they had their hands full just getting the -7, -8 and -9 on the market as-is and didn't want to deal with a new size variant at introduction time. We've seen the -7 change since intro time and now we see the -10 being added. We also see the -9 being built right now and the potential -10 being three years away from now. I think it's safe to presume there would be at least another two year wait for the -10 if there was no -9 due to the additional design and qual work specific to the type. I think it'd be pretty bad to have such a delay. Better to have the -9 on the market and gaining orders right from the start and then add the -10 later if/when it's clear the market will support it. Note we read above that the board expects to see the orders in hand before the company can announce the product, so we don't really know if/when it will be a product.



I can see the sense of the 737-10. I can see the sense in doing nothing to the 737-9 if you are going to launch the MOM to fill the spot above the A321. I see very little sense in offering both the 737-9 and 737-10 and adding the MOM as well into a crowded space already, but then again I guess it shows the corner Boeing is in with their current products in this market space. Now some may try to slather some lipstick on that pig, but a pig it still is.


What is frankly getting exhausting is the constant rehash in every thread about Boeing's 737 program and all it's criticisms. As you said above, it's the corner Boeing is in with their current products in this market space. Why do you (and others) feel the need to hit that over and over and over and over and over? Your lipstick-on-a-pig comment really illustrates that instead of seeing it for what it is, you'd rather bash and label and point and laugh or whatever it is while you slather over your keyboard thread after thread. It's really bizarre.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling it what it is, which is that Boeing has a dated aircraft designed in the 60's that has served them well but is about tapped. They struggled/stumbled/fumbled the 787 program and together those two things have - wait for it - painted them into a corner with their current products. It is what it is, and I'd hope the most ardent Boeing fanboy would accept that it's never going to be the good ole days for the 737 again. Most here seem to get that.

Do we need to continually take it to the next level? Head in the sand? Lipstick on a pig? All the derogatory nonsense that just inflames the dialogue and makes it virtually impossible to have a decent conversation without it being a red team vs a blue team competition?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2226
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:51 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
Would this landing gear design require true landing gear doors? What is the largest aircraft currently with trailing link landing gear?



An-225. 1.4 million pounds mtow.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:33 am

enzo011 wrote:
That is head in the sand decision making for 2 years that worked out only because their competition decided Airbus shouldn't have the prize of biggest screw-up with a new design all to themselves.


PlanesNTrains has a point. The sarcasm is getting over the top. Neither Airbus nor Boeing set out to deliberately screw up their prime airplane programs of the 2000 to 2012 timeframe. Rhetorical overkill.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:04 am

Hamlet69 wrote:
But isn't that exactly what Airbus are talking about doing, after saying they saw no market for the 777-9X? :wink2: To be honest, I forget which proposal (-1100, -2000, -8000?) they are on now. I will grant you, however, that they are further along with the -1000 than Boeing is the -9 MAX. The latter is only beginning final assembly, while the former is in flight test.

Regards,

Hamlet69



Ah, I get your point now. I thought you were discussing the initial A35K and then the improved version we see flying now. With the proposed A35K stretch we have been reading about the difference between the 737-9 and the new A350 design (I think there has only ever been one proposal from Airbus, but many names of the same proposal of a stretched A35K) is that the 777X is a new aircraft that has been stretched and had a new wing fitted. This has moved the target for Airbus where they were aiming to compete with the 77W when completing the design of the A35K, it is now the bigger 779 that it needs to compete with.

The A321 has just been given new engines and some minor improvements, same as the 737-9MAX. It hasn't been lengthened or given new wings, its the same design they have been competing against since its introduction (by design I mean design length).
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19174
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:56 am

reidar76 wrote:
Boeing needs to launch a new narrowbody family this or next year in order to be able to have a smooth transition from the 737 to the next family in the early 2030s. In the mid to late 2020s they will have two narrowbody families on offer. I don't see this as a problem. They need to start the development of the new family now that they have a large and health backlog on the 737 program. It will be to late when the decline in orders/deliveries of the 737 is significant. This 737-10x might delay a new narrowbody family, and I think that will not benefit Boeing in the long run. It might actually jeopardize the company's commercial business.


There's no way that Boeing is launching NSA any time soon. :shakehead:

Next generation engines will be the biggest contributor to reduced costs over neo/MAX. Aside from possibly Rolls (who have other challenges just now), no manufacturer is interested in this any time soon, they have a lot of R&D and manufacturing costs to recoup from GTF and LEAP.

Even leaving the engine issue aside, everyone (Airbus, Boeing, PW and CFM) wants to milk every penny they can from what they've invested in neo/MAX.
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: 1310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:02 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
There's lots of sensible reasons why it wasn't done earlier. To me it's not too hard to come to the conclusion that they had their hands full just getting the -7, -8 and -9 on the market as-is and didn't want to deal with a new size variant at introduction time. We've seen the -7 change since intro time and now we see the -10 being added. We also see the -9 being built right now and the potential -10 being three years away from now. I think it's safe to presume there would be at least another two year wait for the -10 if there was no -9 due to the additional design and qual work specific to the type. I think it'd be pretty bad to have such a delay. Better to have the -9 on the market and gaining orders right from the start and then add the -10 later if/when it's clear the market will support it. Note we read above that the board expects to see the orders in hand before the company can announce the product, so we don't really know if/when it will be a product.



I can see the sense of the 737-10. I can see the sense in doing nothing to the 737-9 if you are going to launch the MOM to fill the spot above the A321. I see very little sense in offering both the 737-9 and 737-10 and adding the MOM as well into a crowded space already, but then again I guess it shows the corner Boeing is in with their current products in this market space. Now some may try to slather some lipstick on that pig, but a pig it still is.


What is frankly getting exhausting is the constant rehash in every thread about Boeing's 737 program and all it's criticisms. As you said above, it's the corner Boeing is in with their current products in this market space. Why do you (and others) feel the need to hit that over and over and over and over and over? Your lipstick-on-a-pig comment really illustrates that instead of seeing it for what it is, you'd rather bash and label and point and laugh or whatever it is while you slather over your keyboard thread after thread. It's really bizarre.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with calling it what it is, which is that Boeing has a dated aircraft designed in the 60's that has served them well but is about tapped. They struggled/stumbled/fumbled the 787 program and together those two things have - wait for it - painted them into a corner with their current products. It is what it is, and I'd hope the most ardent Boeing fanboy would accept that it's never going to be the good ole days for the 737 again. Most here seem to get that.

Do we need to continually take it to the next level? Head in the sand? Lipstick on a pig? All the derogatory nonsense that just inflames the dialogue and makes it virtually impossible to have a decent conversation without it being a red team vs a blue team competition?

This is A.Net at its "best".

You get even worse threads on how doomed the A380 is every week, even when the subject does not relate to the A380's well being. That is what puts me off A.Net forums. Fanboys getting in the way of a real valuable and interesting discussion.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:12 pm

scbriml wrote:
reidar76 wrote:
Boeing needs to launch a new narrowbody family this or next year in order to be able to have a smooth transition from the 737 to the next family in the early 2030s. In the mid to late 2020s they will have two narrowbody families on offer. I don't see this as a problem. They need to start the development of the new family now that they have a large and health backlog on the 737 program. It will be to late when the decline in orders/deliveries of the 737 is significant. This 737-10x might delay a new narrowbody family, and I think that will not benefit Boeing in the long run. It might actually jeopardize the company's commercial business.


There's no way that Boeing is launching NSA any time soon. :shakehead:

Next generation engines will be the biggest contributor to reduced costs over neo/MAX. Aside from possibly Rolls (who have other challenges just now), no manufacturer is interested in this any time soon, they have a lot of R&D and manufacturing costs to recoup from GTF and LEAP.

Even leaving the engine issue aside, everyone (Airbus, Boeing, PW and CFM) wants to milk every penny they can from what they've invested in neo/MAX.

This is true to a certain extent - airframe improvements usually yield a small fuel burn improvement, usually around 3 to 5%.

However, the B737 has some handicaps forced on the engines - so a new, taller airframe will allow it to use bigger and more powerful engines. New and more advanced CFRP technologies will also help it reduce weight. Do remember that the B737 started as a short range 100 seat plane and progressively stretched to what it is today. A new design optimised for 150-270 pax and free from enforced engine limitations might be a lot more competitive against the A320 family.

As such, Boeing must seriously be looking into launching the MOM/NSA soon so that the B737 Max will not slip further and further behind in the sales league.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
In an imaginary world where they got the 787 onto market with a reasonable amount of time and money the story probably would be different.


IMHO:
The sales success of the Dreamliner based on what was offered and how it was to be snapped together in no time" ( which even Boeing management seems to have believed in an act of selfhypnosis and ( trashing the "Airlines and leasers only do fact based professional decision" folklore for good ) and "..a reasonable amount of time and money .." can't go together.

But it worked well for managing share holder value. Boeing is less about Hard Product and more about perception management.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:59 pm

AvObserver wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
That is head in the sand decision making for 2 years that worked out only because their competition decided Airbus shouldn't have the prize of biggest screw-up with a new design all to themselves.


PlanesNTrains has a point. The sarcasm is getting over the top. Neither Airbus nor Boeing set out to deliberately screw up their prime airplane programs of the 2000 to 2012 timeframe. Rhetorical overkill.

WIederling wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In an imaginary world where they got the 787 onto market with a reasonable amount of time and money the story probably would be different.


IMHO:
The sales success of the Dreamliner based on what was offered and how it was to be snapped together in no time" ( which even Boeing management seems to have believed in an act of selfhypnosis and ( trashing the "Airlines and leasers only do fact based professional decision" folklore for good ) and "..a reasonable amount of time and money .." can't go together.

But it worked well for managing share holder value. Boeing is less about Hard Product and more about perception management.


Speaking of rhetorical overkill, good morning Herr Lederling!

Your post points out the risks in a revolutionary all-new aircraft program, and the preceding post says Boeing must launch an revolutionary all-new aircraft program soon. This is how it goes on a.net.

To me the big difference between 787 and NSA is that when 787 was launched the 767 had run its course so Boeing had no choice but launch an all-new airframe or leave the market. Right now the MAX program has sold out every production line slot for the next five years or so and is still gaining orders every year. They're also (supposedly) on the verge of launching an even bigger 737. That tells me we won't be seeing a NSA/MOM any time soon.

Note how I do not mention that the A320 family is getting even more orders or has an even greater backlog. To me, that's really only matters if you are managing to market share rather than profit. To a.net fan boys, it's all that matters. Boeing's words and actions show it doesn't matter to them.

A few posts earlier we read that a new engine is needed for NSA/MOM to be successful and we also read the engine manufacturers are all deeply committed to the current very expensive programs they're ramping up right now so there won't be a new engine any time soon.

Another reason why the status quo will reign for at least the next five years.

Boeing is happy with the profits they're making with the MAX. They're in no rush to double down on risk/reward with a NSA. They're not going to kill the goose laying the golden eggs, they're gonna let it die of old age. That's my rhetorical splash for the day.
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
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:14 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
That's, like, your opinion man. It's not too hard to come to the conclusion that the engineers would have said we have to do "X" to improve this plane and the accountants said do "Y" because it costs less. Now that the -7 and -9 have had to be rejigged I would guess the savings have been zero and they had to do the "X" anyway. Since the -8 is the obvious leader of the 737 product line it would have made just as much sense to come to market with the first and delay the -7 and -9 as long as was necessary to work out the best way to implement them.


You are asserting the -9 is not the best implementation, but we don't know that. We do know it has time to market and cost advantages relative to the -10X and we know it has orders so it has market acceptance. We don't even know if the -10X will get enough orders to become a product. We don't know how many -9 orders will switch to -10 orders. Some airlines already have -900 fleets and might not want to have both -9 and -10 sizes in their fleets. Some might not like the range reduction and/or thrust bump (usually means more maintenance costs) and/or different gear of the -10. So, in the long run, it might be best to have both -9 and -10 in the product lineup. It's not like Boeing hasn't had four members in its 737 family before.

I'm not saying this is necessarily true because we really don't know what the customers are asking for and we really don't know the costs of each iteration. I am saying it's absurd to say this outcome results from Boeing having its head in the sand, for the same reasons.
Last edited by Revelation on Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:15 pm

alyusuph wrote:

The Max 10 will only have 4 less seats (in two class configuration) than the A321 NEO. http://www.b737.org.uk/737max10.htm


The link you provided says:

Single class passenger capacity of up to 230

Versus 240 seats on the A321. I was talking about maximum capacity.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:22 pm

Regarding the range, Jon Ostrower tweeted the following:

New detail: 737 Max 10 will get little benefit from extra fuel tank. Only +30nm range because it hits the weight limit before limit fuel.

Which is to say, it won’t have extra fuel tanks.

Boeing at Farnborough touted the Max 9 range in 2021 with one extra fuel tank at 3,605nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 9346
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:24 pm

Revelation wrote:
Speaking of rhetorical overkill, good morning Herr Lederling!

Your post points out the risks in a revolutionary all-new aircraft program, and the preceding post says Boeing must launch an revolutionary all-new aircraft program soon. This is how it goes on a.net.



Apparently I wasn't wordy enough.

My thesis is that the 787 as announced and planned and the later epileptic seizures of project execution are conjoined twins, inseparable without killing both.

A realistic product presented in scope of a well founded developement path showing good changes of coming to fruition without indue excursion in time and outlay would have performed significantly less spectacular. Probably similar sales but over a longer period alongside of the A350Mk1. $30++b less to recoup and less competition for the 77W ( no immediate A350XWB ).

But they went the flashy way.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10706
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:44 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Regarding the range, Jon Ostrower tweeted the following:

New detail: 737 Max 10 will get little benefit from extra fuel tank. Only +30nm range because it hits the weight limit before limit fuel.

Which is to say, it won’t have extra fuel tanks.

Boeing at Farnborough touted the Max 9 range in 2021 with one extra fuel tank at 3,605nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower

Which, as some of us postulated, suggest there will be little change in MTOW and instead Boeing is focusing the plane on being a great plane for short haul flights. Which isn't a bad strategy, as despite the A321's greater range and performance we all know most will probably be flying <3000nm flights.

If it can reliably do JFK-LAX (2150 nm) it is likely good enough for 95% of the airlines out there.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2570
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:56 pm

I believe the choice of going for the somewhat "easier" solution, meaning new landing gear and a moderate stretch - means that Boeing will focus resources on something else instead. Someone mentioned the 737-8, -9 and now -10 will all be between A320 and A321 in size. Boeing choosing not to go for the full blown MadMAX with large stretch, new wings, and beefier engines suggests that they're leaving room and resources for a new model between the 737-10 and 787-8. Effectively a 757/767 replacement.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:04 pm

Please can we keep the thread on topic, sales success of 787 does not need to be discussed in depth here.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24589
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:17 pm

WIederling wrote:
Apparently I wasn't wordy enough.

My thesis is that the 787 as announced and planned and the later epileptic seizures of project execution are conjoined twins, inseparable without killing both.

A realistic product presented in scope of a well founded developement path showing good changes of coming to fruition without indue excursion in time and outlay would have performed significantly less spectacular. Probably similar sales but over a longer period alongside of the A350Mk1. $30++b less to recoup and less competition for the 77W ( no immediate A350XWB ).

But they went the flashy way.


I don't think this thread is the place to have yet another deep dive on the failings of the 787 program.

I think the relevant thing to take away is all-new clean sheet programs are risky. Some turn out just fine (A350), others not so much (A380, 787).

I think one thing 787 and NSA will have in common is that there is such a big gap between the predecessor and the current and near-future state of the art that the scope of the project will be huge. There will be a huge temptation for Boeing to make a lot of changes in not just the product's technology, but also the way it is built, how partnering is done, etc.

It's interesting to me at least that they were already staring down that complexity a while ago but blinked and came out with MAX. Now that we have MAX, they'll want to earn back their investment in it before thinking about NSA, IMHO.

Some say that they've learned their lessons from the 787 and will take away only the things that worked, but that really depends on what goals the program sets for itself, and how much 787 tech can be applied to NSA, and how disciplined the management is.

Time will tell, but as above, I don't think it'll be any time soon.

JetBuddy wrote:
I believe the choice of going for the somewhat "easier" solution, meaning new landing gear and a moderate stretch - means that Boeing will focus resources on something else instead. Someone mentioned the 737-8, -9 and now -10 will all be between A320 and A321 in size. Boeing choosing not to go for the full blown MadMAX with large stretch, new wings, and beefier engines suggests that they're leaving room and resources for a new model between the 737-10 and 787-8. Effectively a 757/767 replacement.


Could be, or could be that they simply want to take profits for a while, or the 777X is burning through more cash than they wanted so they need to be conservative, etc.
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
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:44 pm

I think that the product offerings that Boeing has are fine as they are. No, they don't lead in any particular aspect, but, if they can afford to be price competitive while offering reasonably close or even sometimes better efficiency, then it's really all that they need to do.

Going forward, I feel that Boeing will eventually decide to produce a clean sheet, lower MOM offering based on a somewhat more oval fuselage that incorporates advanced materials. It will enable them to save on weight enough that it only requires a minor advancement of the Leap 1A to get it up to near 40K thrust. It will be targeted at a high density layout of between 220-260 passengers (maybe slightly larger) at 7 across (2-3-2) or 8 across (2-4-2). This plane will eventually be the longer range offering for the max9 and max10 market section of the market). The drawback on this plane will be a somewhat reduced cargo load as compared to passenger capacity (but given how the market already punishes checked bags, this won't be such a big deal). I am under no illusion that this craft will see the air before 2025-2028.

The Max9 and Max 10 will keep boeing in the game for a long time to come. It seems to me that Boeing will eventually offer the max10 gear on the max 9 to inprove its take off performance, increasing its usable range from shorter airfields (might even make it acceptable for carribean use as I've been on more than one -800 that had seats blocked off due to MTOW limits due to field length).

I'm also not comparing the MAx to the Neo. This has more to do with what Boeing can do right now to address market needs and not not to what Boeing can do to compete with AB.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
The reason for why Boeing didn't design a taller MLG goes back to the marketing assessment for the program.


Speculation here says going taller has many knock-on effects like needing better exit slides, etc so Boeing is avoiding that.


No doubt those are all impacted by raising the MLG. But those are costs. There's also the sales benefit that should be considered in that decision.

My contention is that Boeing missed on their market assessment for the 737MAX. As demonstrated by the sales success of the A321neo, I think they under-estimated the demand for a bigger/heavier variant above the MAX9. Had they considered that, then the justification for investing in a taller MLG could have been very different.

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. 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.


No doubt that redesign of the MLG is a serious undertaking. All I'm saying is that it is a less serious undertaking than an all-new design.

The 737 MLG was heavily re-worked for the 737NG program. The 737NG MLG attachment points are about 20 inches wider than on the 737 Classics and the fuselage stands about 2-3 inches higher off the ground depending on weight.

So, it can certainly be done. It's just a question of whether it's worth it. Again, I think this is a case where Boeing didn't see the need for a longer fuselage or bigger engines when the 737MAX program was launched.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2667
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 8:53 pm

Polot wrote:
Which, as some of us postulated, suggest there will be little change in MTOW and instead Boeing is focusing the plane on being a great plane for short haul flights. Which isn't a bad strategy, as despite the A321's greater range and performance we all know most will probably be flying <3000nm flights.

If it can reliably do JFK-LAX (2150 nm) it is likely good enough for 95% of the airlines out there.


The thing is though, if we are to believe that the 739 and MAX9 have a similar efficiency to equivalent A321, then it's not the (unit) efficiency that drives the A321's better sales. It's something else (Performance? Runway requirements? Less flexibility?). So even if the MAX10 increases the efficiency marginally, it probably still retains the other factors that make the 739 less popular. Will it really sway that many airlines? Because if the limitations currently keep down sales on the 739 then they're unlikely to change that for the MAX10.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10706
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:10 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Polot wrote:
Which, as some of us postulated, suggest there will be little change in MTOW and instead Boeing is focusing the plane on being a great plane for short haul flights. Which isn't a bad strategy, as despite the A321's greater range and performance we all know most will probably be flying <3000nm flights.

If it can reliably do JFK-LAX (2150 nm) it is likely good enough for 95% of the airlines out there.


The thing is though, if we are to believe that the 739 and MAX9 have a similar efficiency to equivalent A321, then it's not the (unit) efficiency that drives the A321's better sales. It's something else (Performance? Runway requirements? Less flexibility?). So even if the MAX10 increases the efficiency marginally, it probably still retains the other factors that make the 739 less popular. Will it really sway that many airlines? Because if the limitations currently keep down sales on the 739 then they're unlikely to change that for the MAX10.

Well the A321 is larger than the 739. This stretch seems to bring them to near parity, especially in 2 class configurations.

I think the one of the 739's issues is that the gap between it and the 738 has always been too close, making it harder to justify paying the premium for the slightly larger 739 (of course in the -900A there was no difference in max pax for a one class operator). With the MAX 200 is is probably hard for the cram them in types to justify taking the 739 over that. The gap between the A320 and A321 is much larger, even larger than between the 738 and 7310, due to the A320s slightly smaller size.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2667
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:24 pm

Polot wrote:
Well the A321 is larger than the 739. This stretch seems to bring them to near parity, especially in 2 class configurations.

I think the one of the 739's issues is that the gap between it and the 738 has always been too close, making it harder to justify paying the premium for the slightly larger 739 (of course in the -900A there was no difference in max pax for a one class operator). With the MAX 200 is is probably hard for the cram them in types to justify taking the 739 over that. The gap between the A320 and A321 is much larger, even larger than between the 738 and 7310, due to the A320s slightly smaller size.


OK, I didn't put that into consideration, the size argument. But I'm still not sure it offers enough of an advantage to sway airlines that haven't ordered the 739 already or the A321, to overcome the limitations. The main airlines that would to be candidates to buy it are probably ones that have ordered the MAX9. Maybe I'm underestimating how much the proximity in size to the 738 has hampered the 739, but I just don't see how Boeing can make a product that will be popular enough to justify the investment without making serious changes that they don't really want to make.
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:50 pm

Boeing could have launched the -10 a year or two ago. However, they staked out the MOM market for the Board, and launching a -10 made an incursion on that market, making the MOM unviable.

In the meantime, Airbus has squeezed the MOM market top and bottom with the A321 and A330NEO, so the -10 is the low-risk option, providing it sells in sufficient numbers.

Boeing's ability to deep discount has been severely constrained by the new management, but this doesn't matter at the moment, with full A & B order books, and Airbus charging a premium on the 321.

If the 787 launch had been as perfect as the order taking, MOM would have quickly followed the 777X. But them if EK hadn't cancelled the A350 order..................
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:25 pm

enzo011 wrote:
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.


I really don't get where you are going with all of this. You seem to be more interested in waving the Airbus flag and crapping on Boeing than discussing even the teeniest merits to the 737, and more specifically, the -10. Nobody is arguing that the 321 is the best seller, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep hammering the point. As far as I can tell, nobody in this discussion has any control over the manufacturing or marketing decisions of either maker so I'm not sure who you're trying to convince...and of what.

Boeing is trying to maximize the value of the 737 line since it seems that makes more economic sense than a 10 billion dollar investment on an all new aircraft line. So far, they have had minimal cost to put Leap's on the 738 and 739. By far, most of the expense and risk has been for GE since the engines are, by far, the biggest difference between the max and the NG's.

Except for some wing strengthening, the MAX airframes are almost identical to what they've been cranking out for decades, so it's really not a lot of risk for Boeing, and so far, it's paid off pretty well, to the tune of over 3500 aircraft being sold. In case you're counting, that's 3500 planes chosen over the competing Airbus products.

I know....those airlines must be run by idiots, to have chosen such a clearly inferior product. All those billions wasted.

enzo011 wrote:
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.


That would have been a really funny burn if I wasn't completely sure you were taking this all way too seriously.
What the...?
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:07 am

Well, it seems that this thread is losing its soul and turning into a A vs B thing.

As someone pointed out earlier, the MAX 200, MAX 9 and MAX 10 would be too close together and wouldn't justify the investment of launching a simple stretch with a different landing gear. I've pointed this out in the last 3 pages.

One more thing that I would like to see disappear from this thread is this MOM talk.
MOM here, MOM there.
To those who are talking about the A321 NEO like it's an MOM for LCC's who are going to fly over the Atlantic with it:
You don't know what you're talking about!

It's sickening that this is allowed to go on and on while basically being very ill-informed.



The A321 NEO is not a proper TATL B757 replacement.
Airbus has updated the aircraft characteristics for airport planning on the A321 to include the A321 NEO.
http://www.airbus.com/support/maintenance-engineering/technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/

Look at their payload-range charts on P. 3-2-1.
It doesn't even come close to a RB211 B757.

On a typical LHR-JFK of 6000km, a 93.5 ton MTOW A321 NEO will only be able to carry 17.5 tons of payload.
This is in ISA conditions, not accounting for any of the prevailing Westerly winds or ETOPS reserves.
If you account for prevailing winds and ETOPS reserves you're going to end up at around 14 tons of payload on Westbound legs.

So what if the A321 NEO LR with 97 tons MTOW can give you the prevailing winds ETOPS reserves margin, you still are going to end up with a payload restriction of lower than 15 tons on a ISA+15°C hot summer day departing out of LHR to JFK.
LHR-JFK is one of the shorter B757 TATL sectors too. Any longer sectors and the passengers will have to be put on a strict Slim-fast diet for a month before flying on an A321 NEO LR.
The payload restriction takes the imaginary "LCC's operating dozens of A321 NEO LR's across the pond" airliners.net obsession off the table. Which LCC is going to fly 150 seat A321's?

Boeing could come up with a SUPERMAX family as pointed out earlier, but they'll need a significant MTOW boost to achieve that.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21858
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:19 am

DfwRevolution wrote:
No doubt that redesign of the MLG is a serious undertaking. All I'm saying is that it is a less serious undertaking than an all-new design.



Well, that isn't such a cut-and-dry statement. It is true that the absolute amount of engineering is smaller, but the decision is not as simple as "it costs less."

A major structural change to the 737 wingbox for one variant would use a lot of engineering resources and yet it would make the aircraft LESS attractive to many operators, not more. The reason is that many potential operators are already 737 operators, so this new 737 with the modified wing box would have a huge difference in parts, in operational procedures, etc. From an operations standpoint, it might as well be an entire new type.

So you're leveraging a smaller expense against a much higher chance of failing to make an ROI.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:33 am

Waterbomber wrote:
Well, it seems that this thread is losing its soul and turning into a A vs B thing.

As someone pointed out earlier, the MAX 200, MAX 9 and MAX 10 would be too close together and wouldn't justify the investment of launching a simple stretch with a different landing gear. I've pointed this out in the last 3 pages.

One more thing that I would like to see disappear from this thread is this MOM talk.
MOM here, MOM there.
To those who are talking about the A321 NEO like it's an MOM for LCC's who are going to fly over the Atlantic with it:
You don't know what you're talking about!

It's sickening that this is allowed to go on and on while basically being very ill-informed.



The A321 NEO is not a proper TATL B757 replacement.
Airbus has updated the aircraft characteristics for airport planning on the A321 to include the A321 NEO.
http://www.airbus.com/support/maintenance-engineering/technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/

Look at their payload-range charts on P. 3-2-1.
It doesn't even come close to a RB211 B757.

On a typical LHR-JFK of 6000km, a 93.5 ton MTOW A321 NEO will only be able to carry 17.5 tons of payload.
This is in ISA conditions, not accounting for any of the prevailing Westerly winds or ETOPS reserves.
If you account for prevailing winds and ETOPS reserves you're going to end up at around 14 tons of payload on Westbound legs.

So what if the A321 NEO LR with 97 tons MTOW can give you the prevailing winds ETOPS reserves margin, you still are going to end up with a payload restriction of lower than 15 tons on a ISA+15°C hot summer day departing out of LHR to JFK.
LHR-JFK is one of the shorter B757 TATL sectors too. Any longer sectors and the passengers will have to be put on a strict Slim-fast diet for a month before flying on an A321 NEO LR.
The payload restriction takes the imaginary "LCC's operating dozens of A321 NEO LR's across the pond" airliners.net obsession off the table. Which LCC is going to fly 150 seat A321's?

Boeing could come up with a SUPERMAX family as pointed out earlier, but they'll need a significant MTOW boost to achieve that.


I think the MOM is very relevant to the discussion as it would have been considered in the trade study of the 737-10MAX.

From where I sit, the 737-10MAX is an aircraft optimised for existing 737 customers for existing narrow body routes. At the top end of the range charts there may be opportunity to open new routes, but this would be limited.

As such, this isn't a head to head competition between the 737-10 and A321. I'd suggest the 737-10 will be optimised for shorter stage lengths and as such will have an efficiency advantage over the A321 on these sectors. The opposite will be true when stage lengths increase.

For me, the question becomes will this (at a guess) efficiency advantage be enough to offset the limited capability of the aircraft in the payload/range charts.

....and I see a MOM as a done deal. If Boeing can develop a MOM aircraft that is clearly superior to the A321NEO, Airbus and its A321NEO customers will have quite a few years of treading water.

I see an MOM with a ~10-15% fuel efficiency gain over the A321 and optimised so that is suitable for a range of cabin products (full service, LCC) as a potentially great product.
 
User avatar
airmagnac
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:11 am

Waterbomber wrote:

The A321 NEO is not a proper TATL B757 replacement.
Airbus has updated the aircraft characteristics for airport planning on the A321 to include the A321 NEO.
http://www.airbus.com/support/maintenance-engineering/technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/

Look at their payload-range charts on P. 3-2-1.
It doesn't even come close to a RB211 B757.

On a typical LHR-JFK of 6000km, a 93.5 ton MTOW A321 NEO will only be able to carry 17.5 tons of payload.


Careful, the NEO chart is for a 93.5ton MTOW with only 1 ACT
A bit strange actually as the CEO and sharklets charts are provided with 2 ACT

But considering roughly a +400nm boost per ACT, this brings the LR capability to approx 20tons @ 4000nm. As announced, and covering the lower MOM segment (however you wish to define it) which also appears to be the most in demand. As this MAX10 gives up on this segment, it represents an important opportunity cost for Boeing.

However one should keep in mind that the main market for single aisle aircraft is the more usual lower range one, and the MAX10 could addresss that, if only to keep some share for Boeing. Which is a perfectly good strategy for a duopoly. Yet I guess that was also supposed to be the role of the -900/-9... so we'll see how this -10 folds out.

I find this solution technically interesting, almost elegant in its concept, but from a development cost perspective this would still be about 1.5-2 billion $, and it carries risk. Considering 500 to 1000 units sold, that's a few million of premium that Boeing needs to secure just on the premice that this -10 is an alternative to the more versatile 321...

travelhound wrote:
I see an MOM with a ~10-15% fuel efficiency gain over the A321


Efficiency points don't grow on trees in a Boeing-owned garden. Most fuel efficiency gains of the past 30 years are due to engine gains, not airframe gains. And whichever engine Boeing hangs under a MOM, Airbus could most likely install on a 321.
There is simply no new airframe tech that provides major fuel gains, using the tube&wing design. Unless Boeing take a radical "all in" approach far beyond what was attempted for the 787, there is no way they can differentiate a new MoM from existing machines. Do you really think they'd want to go down that path ?
My goal as an engineer is to fill my soul with coffee and become immortal
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:18 am

A MOM delivered in the 2024-2028 period will have engines that are a generation or two ahead of the Leap and Prat.

The wing on the A321 (and 737MX) has been optimised for shorter trips. hey are also previosu generation wings. As such, there is probably a conservative ~3-5% gain for a current generation wing optimised for longer mission profiles.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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