mzlin
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:57 pm

The Reuters video claims a "breakthrough" in the gear design; likely Boeing has identified which of the gear designs being tested is best. The article describes a gear with both a semi-levered design (i.e. trailing link) and a telescoping ability. I would be surprised though if the telescoping gear became reality. It would raise the wing higher off the ground, which would then necessitate escape slides with the overwing exits, unless Boeing could install some system that assures the telescoping gears collapse when an escape slide is opened, but that just seems way too complicated.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:08 am

TranscendZac wrote:
Stitch wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Looks like everyone is getting tired of the MAX variants, wants Boeing to get on with the future

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 6066074624


And yet five years ago when Boeing asked them to wait for NSA they were saying "give us something now or we'll buy A320neos." :sarcastic:

Precisely. And, where was the technology 5 years ago or even now that Boeing could have utilized to outgun the A320NEO? Boeing should have probably bit the bullet with the 737NG and did the longer landing gear, newer cockpit, etc to better accommodate the larger engines because if we're all honest, the only thing the A320/A320NEO has a clear advantage is in ground clearance for larger more powerful engines which is what is giving the A321 the big advantage. No discredit to the A320 family either, it just seems that the only 737 family member that isn't as competitive is the 739ER/739MAX and i think it has more to do with ground clearance prohibiting a properly powerful enough engine and limited rotation angels hindering performance vs the A321.

In my opinion the 737-10MAX appears to be a very inexpensive stop gap because Boeing likely has another answer up their sleeve. I'm in the clearly small minority on this site who thinks it's a good idea. It will provide nearly the same real world passenger numbers as the 321 and 757 while offering incredibly good economics on the sub 1,000nm sectors which is the vast majority of fly. It will still fly further than the 739ER which for 90% plus missions isn't lacking range. It's a safe bet for Boeing and may help to keep Airbus A321 pricing in line too.
Agree with all of your talking points here; great post! Still wishing though that Boeing would spend the money on taller MLG to take Leap-1A engines and do the 132" stretch over the -9, instead of the measly 66" currently planned. Al least then they'd have an offering fully competitive with the A321NEO. But clearly, they're trying NOT to spend the kind of money that, along with strengthening the wings and other assorted changes would cost. So it would seem they're okay with no more than a 40% VS. 60% market share in this segment.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:30 am

AvObserver wrote:
Agree with all of your talking points here; great post! Still wishing though that Boeing would spend the money on taller MLG to take Leap-1A engines and do the 132" stretch over the -9, instead of the measly 66" currently planned. Al least then they'd have an offering fully competitive with the A321NEO. But clearly, they're trying NOT to spend the kind of money that, along with strengthening the wings and other assorted changes would cost. So it would seem they're okay with no more than a 40% VS. 60% market share in this segment.

Boeing cannot justify that kind of expenditure on an aircraft that will probably get less than 500 orders. It is meant to be a stop gap against the A321Neo - Boeing guessed incorrectly when they first launched the MAX. The market has moved one size up - so most airlines think that the A320/B738 size should now be their smallest single aisle while the A321 is fast becoming their mainstream single aisle equipment.

Boeing will launch their MoM/NSA with 2025 availability. Until then, the MAX 10 will have to fight with the A321Neo for orders and the MAX 9 will fade away.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:12 am

mzlin wrote:
The Reuters video claims a "breakthrough" in the gear design; likely Boeing has identified which of the gear designs being tested is best. The article describes a gear with both a semi-levered design (i.e. trailing link) and a telescoping ability. I would be surprised though if the telescoping gear became reality. It would raise the wing higher off the ground, which would then necessitate escape slides with the overwing exits, unless Boeing could install some system that assures the telescoping gears collapse when an escape slide is opened, but that just seems way too complicated.


The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.
 
mzlin
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:59 am

reidar76 wrote:
mzlin wrote:
The Reuters video claims a "breakthrough" in the gear design; likely Boeing has identified which of the gear designs being tested is best. The article describes a gear with both a semi-levered design (i.e. trailing link) and a telescoping ability. I would be surprised though if the telescoping gear became reality. It would raise the wing higher off the ground, which would then necessitate escape slides with the overwing exits, unless Boeing could install some system that assures the telescoping gears collapse when an escape slide is opened, but that just seems way too complicated.


The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.


I cannot imagine the reason for this. The current height can fit in the current bay. If the gear is the same height as now, then there is no need to make it shorter once airborne to fit into the existing bay. A trailing link extension that extends aft horizontally can still fit into the current fuselage without crossing the midline too; the bay only needs to be extended along the fore-aft axis. The fuselage will be stretched by a length similar to the length of the trailing link anyway, so this won't be a problem.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue May 02, 2017 10:51 am

AvWeek: Boeing Outlines 737-10X Gear Test Plan gives us:

While precise details of the finalized gear arrangement are not yet being disclosed, Boeing is offering new insights into both the overall configuration and the way it will be evaluated during 2017. The design focus is on “the upper portion of the gear as it integrates with the actuator,” says 737 MAX vice president and general manager Keith Leverkuhn. In this area, within the tight confines of the existing wheel well, Boeing’s new design will do some “clever folding using a link mechanism at the top,” he adds.

The lower section of the leg is also modified with “an additional shock strut that fits inside the same forging. This moves the contact point aft a little bit. That’s fundamentally what we are doing and yes, it will look like a trailing link gear. We want to make it maintainable, reliable, and we are going to need that gear to get the performance we want out of the -10 but I’m confident in the solution set,” Leverkuhn says.

The article goes on to say they'll spend most of this year testing and refining the gear design.
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
ikolkyo
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue May 02, 2017 11:11 am

I guess the -10 really is going to happen, wonder who is onboard for it.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue May 02, 2017 4:33 pm

I recently started a thread about the number of life rafts on B737 and A320. The 737 family can't have aft doors rafts because the aircraft sits tail-heavy in the water.

What will be the MAX 10 raft configuration given the max capacity of 230 in a single class layout?
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue May 02, 2017 7:54 pm

I think that is pretty much 'spot on' flea.The old 900 was being beaten by the 321 but not so much as to worry Boeing and it did have a market.But as you say the market moved.When they started out their biggest customer insisted on the 7.Imho the 7.5 is sensible.It keeps costs down and allows 150 pax with 3 staff.
But the 321 turned out to be a hell of a beast.The judicial game of exits and internal packaging gave the a 240 seater on one hand and a tatl with 3 extra tanks on the other (seating 210 ish).The market loved it and this (plus their ERX) is their response.
For transcontinental it will do well for their loyal customers.

The 'MOM' will happen but not for a while IMHO.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Tue May 02, 2017 8:42 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I guess the -10 really is going to happen, wonder who is onboard for it.

The AvWeek article I posted makes it clear that Boeing needs to get enough interest in order to launch the project. The fact that they point this out suggests there is some unspecified amount of doubt about the launch being a sure thing. To me the MAX-10 fits in line with Boeing's current approach to product development, like it or not, but that doesn't mean it's a sure thing. The amount of money they're spending on developing the gear isn't huge and is probably a justifiable R&D expenditure even if the MAX-10 isn't launched.
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
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed May 03, 2017 1:56 am

flee wrote:
Boeing cannot justify that kind of expenditure on an aircraft that will probably get less than 500 orders. It is meant to be a stop gap against the A321Neo - Boeing guessed incorrectly when they first launched the MAX. The market has moved one size up - so most airlines think that the A320/B738 size should now be their smallest single aisle while the A321 is fast becoming their mainstream single aisle equipment.

Boeing will launch their MoM/NSA with 2025 availability. Until then, the MAX 10 will have to fight with the A321Neo for orders and the MAX 9 will fade away.

Sadly, agree with all of these caveats but also want to add that Boeing's credibility is on the line because they won't build a MAX fully competitive with the 321NEO. Customers see that and take note. If Boeing won't build a MAX to match the biggest Airbus narrow-body then the customers that need more capacity and range than the MAX-10 offers, they'll happily take their business to Airbus. Maybe it's not worth it for BCA to build a fully competitive MAX-10 but it's not just sales that Boeing is losing; it's also its own market credibility in a segment which will be important for many years to come, regardless of the MOM airplane.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed May 03, 2017 2:53 am

[quote="flee"]The market has moved one size up - so most airlines think that the A320/B738 size should now be their smallest single aisle while the A321 is fast becoming their mainstream single aisle equipment.

That has been true for over a decade. The vast majority of the A319 and 73G were ordered prior to 2005. The UA order last March - subsequently converted - was a surprising boost to the 73G variant.

Even with the popularity of the A321neo, the A320neo is still outselling its larger sibling 3:1.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 10:16 am

As a gross oversimplification I guess both OEM's are trying to shoehorn the perfect pax sizes and ranges into 1980 designs when the market was vastly different to that which it is now.New technology engines have addressed much of the range issues and new interior technology (slimline seats/flex galleys and loos) combined with revised exits have helped meet the 'perfect' pax requirements without major alterations to the core structure of the aircraft.

I suppose the 'perfect' aircraft by today's standards are in pax terms 150/200/250.Boeings products hit 2 of these and the 10x will get close to the third.Range wise they cover everything except tatl (although the max8 ERX will do this too).So not a bad effort.

However looking forward Boeing does see the need for a full 250 seater with 5k range and a further size stretch at 270/280.For this market they clearly envisage a new aircraft requirement.
One imagines they see the existing range (7/8/10?) continuing to cover the 'classic' market - particularly as they can be cranked out so cheaply (V important due to competition).The new aircraft is in a new market sector and has no direct competition so can charge a (small) Premium.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8515
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 11:03 am

Revelation wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I guess the -10 really is going to happen, wonder who is onboard for it.

The AvWeek article I posted makes it clear that Boeing needs to get enough interest in order to launch the project. The fact that they point this out suggests there is some unspecified amount of doubt about the launch being a sure thing. To me the MAX-10 fits in line with Boeing's current approach to product development, like it or not, but that doesn't mean it's a sure thing. The amount of money they're spending on developing the gear isn't huge and is probably a justifiable R&D expenditure even if the MAX-10 isn't launched.


If the gear works well, but the 737-10 does not sell, they can sell the gear on the 737-9 to improve field performance.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 11:10 am

Im still surprised that Boeing did not cover this MAX size from the very beginning.
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1380
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 11:10 am

reidar76 wrote:

The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.


Maybe it telescopes out only during the take off run to reduce tail strike risk. The plane would weigh less then that when stationary. "Ground clearance" would be unchanged presumably because it is measured when stationary.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 11:14 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I guess the -10 really is going to happen, wonder who is onboard for it.

The AvWeek article I posted makes it clear that Boeing needs to get enough interest in order to launch the project. The fact that they point this out suggests there is some unspecified amount of doubt about the launch being a sure thing. To me the MAX-10 fits in line with Boeing's current approach to product development, like it or not, but that doesn't mean it's a sure thing. The amount of money they're spending on developing the gear isn't huge and is probably a justifiable R&D expenditure even if the MAX-10 isn't launched.


If the gear works well, but the 737-10 does not sell, they can sell the gear on the 737-9 to improve field performance.


That would create 2 different versions of the 737-9 on a small order base, they would have to get quite a bit of support to do that.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2221
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 11:18 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.


Maybe it telescopes out only during the take off run to reduce tail strike risk. The plane would weigh less then that when stationary. "Ground clearance" would be unchanged presumably because it is measured when stationary.


The telescoping mechanism makes sure the gear can fit into the wheelwell. The gear is designed to touch the ground further back on the fuselage, increasing rotation angle. The ground clearance will be similar I believe. .
 
travelhound
Posts: 1864
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 1:05 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.


Maybe it telescopes out only during the take off run to reduce tail strike risk. The plane would weigh less then that when stationary. "Ground clearance" would be unchanged presumably because it is measured when stationary.


The article is behind a pay wall so I haven't read it, but from the comments here it sounds like they could be testing a 2 piece offset hinge. This would be quite interesting to see in action.
 
User avatar
ro1960
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:19 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 2:36 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
reidar76 wrote:

The redesigned gear will not increase the ground clearance. The telescoping ability is to make the gear smaller once airborne, so it can fit in the existing gear bay.


Maybe it telescopes out only during the take off run to reduce tail strike risk. The plane would weigh less then that when stationary. "Ground clearance" would be unchanged presumably because it is measured when stationary.


The telescoping mechanism makes sure the gear can fit into the wheelwell. The gear is designed to touch the ground further back on the fuselage, increasing rotation angle. The ground clearance will be similar I believe. .


I think the system is similar to that used on the Concorde (telescopic retraction strut).
You may like my airport photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/aeroports
 
User avatar
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1574
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 2:43 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
That would create 2 different versions of the 737-9 on a small order base, they would have to get quite a bit of support to do that.


I could always be marketed as an FPK (field performance kit) for the 9MAX (no model change at all, just an option). I hesitated to say short field performance kit, because who knows how much shifting the fulcrum back will approve rotation angle and takeoff.

However, at the very least, you'd expect that we will see this gear flight tested on a 9MAX or 9ER, before a 10MAX is built. Those flight tests would attract allot of Anet interest no doubt.
learning never stops.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 487
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Wed May 03, 2017 6:00 pm

If it's moving the axLe center rearward, could this also be a fix for thE tendency that 737 have to tilt back on their tails when unloaded wrong without a kickstand?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26394
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737-10MAX

Wed May 03, 2017 6:03 pm

AvObserver wrote:
Sadly, agree with all of these caveats but also want to add that Boeing's credibility is on the line because they won't build a MAX fully competitive with the 321NEO. Customers see that and take note.


If they built a MAX fully competitive with the A321neo, it wouldn't be a 737, much less a MAX.

And airlines had their chance back in 2011 to get a plane at least as good as an A320neo by choosing NSA - they chose not to wait for it and preferred getting MAX sooner because fuel was so expensive and looked like it would only go up over time so the money they saved with MAX was worth more to them than what they would have spent waiting for NSA (plus what they would have paid more for NSA over MAX).
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Thu May 04, 2017 9:30 pm

Steven Udvar-Hazy on the MAX 10:

"We're more interested in the 797 than another derivative of the 737," says lessor ALC chair Hazy.


https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/860243061762392066
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Thu May 04, 2017 10:13 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Steven Udvar-Hazy on the MAX 10:

"We're more interested in the 797 than another derivative of the 737," says lessor ALC chair Hazy.


https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/860243061762392066


I would think that's true for most airlines and lessors. A small stretch of an existing frame vs an all-new aircraft aimed at a possible profitable niche - pretty much a no-brainer I'd think.
-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.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Thu May 04, 2017 10:20 pm

The proposed MAX 10 is nothing more than a MAX 9.5 just like the MAX 7.5 (longer MAX-7). They really should just dump the standard length MAX 9 if they go ahead with this.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26394
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Thu May 04, 2017 10:44 pm

SCAT15F wrote:
The proposed MAX 10 is nothing more than a MAX 9.5 just like the MAX 7.5 (longer MAX-7). They really should just dump the standard length MAX 9 if they go ahead with this.


I see the MAX-10 appealing to single-class operators, just as the new MAX 7 does. MAX-9 is probably of appeal to two-class operators. So having both in the family could cover more bases.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Thu May 04, 2017 11:14 pm

The 757 and 767 sized new production passenger aircraft faded away almost 20 years ago for good reason...On the bottom-end, better performing narrow bodies and the rise of LCC carriers...on the top-end, the A332 entry in the 1990's. I don't know if there will be any passenger 757/767 left to replace if MOM enters service after 2025. The equation has not changed on the bottom end with NEO and MAX (especially A321, sorry 737-10 !). But the 787/A333 sized aircraft have pushed passenger counts starting close to 300 for wide-bodies.

B should not do a 737-10...it would end up like the MD-90, barely 100 built. -- But if they build a MoM...the entire 737 line still needs replacement starting around 2030 -- otherwise carriers are unlikely to commit to an airframe that will still be in service a century after it first took to the skies and hardly technologically compatible with a new MoM. So ideally a family would be best...like the 757/767. So B really has to offer to a line of NB and MoM...from 150 to 250 passengers. The new MoM 40K thrust engine technology can be scaled down for new NSA.

B wanted to do a NSA five years ago when it pitched an all new narrow-body to AA ...they said no way -- engines not airframes matter -- then Airbus grabbed 60 percent of the NB market, soon more. The stock buybacks and dividends have to stop -- this will be a 30 billion investment, MoM around 2025, NSA following about 2030.
.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:16 am

Quarkfly, i think you have a rather pessimistic view towards the Boeing product line. You are not alone, and there are a number of people on this forum who don't think very highly of the 737, but I am not one of them.

I don't think your prediction of only 100 737-10s being built is accurate. If Boeing does launch the airplane, I fully expect them to launch with more than 100 orders in the first year. I doubt they would launch unless they had letters of intent on 150 or more 737-10s from multiple airlines. They probably would launch with around 200 or 300 verbal commitments for new orders or conversions.

There are actually more 767-300s built than A330-200s. There are not many parked 767-300s. Now more and more 767a are getting converted to freighters, but that market did not disappear.

Regarding the 737 needing replacement in 2030, I think the market will decide. Currently the backlog is about 4000 airplanes. That doesn't imply the airplane needs phasing out. Regarding Your comment about Airbus us grabbing 60% market share and soon more, preventing that is the whole point of the 737-10. Boeing has continued to sell 737MAX airplanes this year and at least so far, the Airbus market share has not increased this year. If a 737-10 launches, Boeing might be able to outsell the A320NEO this year.

And finally regarding your comment about stock buybacks and dividends, Boeing is a publicly traded company in the United States that can decide how they use their money. If they stopped the dividend you can be assured the whole board of directors would be gone along with many of the senior executives. The company has the cashflow to pay its shareholders. The company also has about $10 Billion in cash. While raising dividends and buy backs doesn't make much sense when they want to launch an airplane, the company has money. They have been cutting costs recently as shown in the most recent financial report.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1864
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:47 am

QuarkFly wrote:

B should not do a 737-10...it would end up like the MD-90, barely 100 built.


Lessors are not airlines!

I can see the three US majors and other 737 airlines of considerable size being interested in the 737-10, simply because of its increased capacity. It would fundamentally allow airlines to better service their markets without the need of introducing another aircraft type.

For the lessors the 737-10 somewhat confuses the market place and undermines their leasing models. If the majors do decide to buy the 737-10 and own them for twenty years and this size segment ends up representing 20% of the narrow body market, the lessor’s size of market will decrease by a similar amount.

We also have to remember many of the lessors committed to the A321NEO at a time when the 737-10 was not even on the horizon. If the 737-10 reduces the potential A321NEO market by 30%, than the liquidity associated with owning that aircraft reduces making the business case a lot more risky. I am not too sure how much of a premium airlines would be willing to pay to have A321NEO's in their fleets. There will be a risk/opportunity financial equation to consider.
 
User avatar
XLA2008
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:53 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 3:26 am

I used to work on the -900ER a few years ago, I can remember it struggled with certain destinations and I can also remember boarding pax on the -900ER was a pain because you had to board the forward cabin first and deboard the forward cabin last due to the balance of the aircraft, the only other aircraft I ever encountered having to board like this was the 757-300! It was so the aircraft didn't tip! Which if boarding through a jetbridge boarding wasn't so much of an issue however if you were boarding via buses then as you can imagine it was a pain! And vise versa for deboarding!
“For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return.“
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 4:06 am

Remember 5 or so years ago when Boeing was offering the NSA to airlines and lessors? Turns out, they didn't want to wait for an all new aircraft but would rather go for re-engined derivatives.

These guys say all sorts of things but all it takes to get what they want is to make a bloody order. Whining about what you can't have instead of putting your money where your mouth is, doesn't get anything done.
What the...?
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 373
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 6:02 am

XLA2008 wrote:
I used to work on the -900ER a few years ago, I can remember it struggled with certain destinations and I can also remember boarding pax on the -900ER was a pain because you had to board the forward cabin first and deboard the forward cabin last due to the balance of the aircraft, the only other aircraft I ever encountered having to board like this was the 757-300! It was so the aircraft didn't tip! Which if boarding through a jetbridge boarding wasn't so much of an issue however if you were boarding via buses then as you can imagine it was a pain! And vise versa for deboarding!


Working as a Check-In, Gate and Ramp Agent I worked with/boarded both of these types, we never had to board the front cabin first to prevent the aircraft from tipping on its tail!
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 7:09 am

travelhound wrote:
I can see the three US majors and other 737 airlines of considerable size being interested in the 737-10, simply because of its increased capacity.


The important question is: How many new orders will the 737-10 generate? I think many 737-10 orders will just be upgrades of existing 737-8/9 orders, thus not generating more sales.

It seems like those airlines that might be interested in the 737-10 are the same airlines that also would consider ordering the 737-9 or already have the 737-900 in their fleet. There is something about the 737-900/ -9 that makes it appeal to only a small number of 737 operators, and I fear that the 737-10 has the same issues. While the 737-800/-8 is extremely successful all over the world, the 737-900/ -900ER/ -9 has, with the exception of Lion Air, only sold in large numbers to airlines in the US.

Looking at a map over Europe on flightradar24.com, there are several hundred A321 in the air over the continent. At the same time one might see one of KLM's four 737-900 in service, a Ukrainian -900ER, and maybe a few -900ER from Turkish Airlines flying in over Europe from the Middle East. What ever it is that makes all those European 737 operators (and most 737 operators worldwide) avoid the -900/ -9 like it is a plague, these same issues might affect the 737-10. The 737-9 is only ever so slightly larger than the 737-8, so it is amazing that the difference in sales is so huge. It is not that increased capacity is not needed, with reference to the number of A321 in service.

737-900/-900ER over Europe:
Image

A321 over Europe:
Image
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 7:54 am

I think we've done those screenshots before. Obviously the A321 has been more popular, particularly in Europe. I'm not sure how relevant that is though.

The A320 and A321 are quite different in size - there's a compelling reason to get an A321.
The 738 and 739 are quite close in size - there's a less compelling reason to get a 739.
When the MAX 8 and MAX 10 have more room between them, we might see more sales than we otherwise would have without it.
-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.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 8:30 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
When the MAX 8 and MAX 10 have more room between them, we might see more sales than we otherwise would have without it.


Maybe you're right, but the MAX 8 and MAX 10 would still both be in between A320 and A321 size wise. I think the 737-9s poor runway performance is hurting sales. An other observation is that it seems like airlines utilizes the 737-900/-900ER mainly on longer sectors, while the A321 happily does many 1 hour sectors a day, even out of relatively short runways. Lots of the latter in central Europe.

I think Boeing might be better of using this new gear design on the 737-9, to improve runway performance, and dropping the 737-10 in the process.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 9:18 am

I would expect to see the new MLG put on the MAX9.At present the only tatl offering from Boeing has been the Max8 ERX.The problem with that aircraft (other than pax numbers) is Its a 'flying fuel tank' with no luggage space.A MAX9 ERX (if its possible) may resolve this gap in their portfolio,
The dash 10 will never be tatl but it doesn't need to be.It will be very close to the 321 in pax numbers which is what the existing Boeing customers want.
Should they have spotted all this earlier?Perhaps,but nobody has a crystal ball.Their MAX8/200 is the perfect size/range for the bulk of the market and that's what counts.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 21414
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:08 pm

travelhound wrote:
The article is behind a pay wall so I haven't read it, but from the comments here it sounds like they could be testing a 2 piece offset hinge. This would be quite interesting to see in action.

The article I used from AvWeek is not behind a paywall, all it takes is a free registration. At least that was true at the time I posted it. Some of their content migrates to paid after a period of time. Bottom line is I am not a paid subscriber and I did get to see the article. I would say though that there wasn't any more technical detail about the gear than what I posted.

KarelXWB wrote:
Steven Udvar-Hazy on the MAX 10:

"We're more interested in the 797 than another derivative of the 737," says lessor ALC chair Hazy.


https://twitter.com/e_russell/status/860243061762392066

Sure. Now the real question is will he pay the additional costs demanded by a clean sheet approach? Just saying you're "more interested" isn't enough.
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
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:22 pm

travelhound wrote:
Lessors are not airlines!


Revelation wrote:
Sure. Now the real question is will he pay the additional costs demanded by a clean sheet approach? Just saying you're "more interested" isn't enough.


Remember that Steven Udvar-Hazy, also named the Godfather of the aircraft leasing industry, was one of the driving forces that pushed Airbus into making the A350 XWB instead of the original A350 concept.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:37 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Lessors are not airlines!


Revelation wrote:
Sure. Now the real question is will he pay the additional costs demanded by a clean sheet approach? Just saying you're "more interested" isn't enough.


Remember that Steven Udvar-Hazy, also named the Godfather of the aircraft leasing industry, was one of the driving forces that pushed Airbus into making the A350 XWB instead of the original A350 concept.
He was, but I fail to see why Boeing couldn't do both. This 737-10 concept hardly precludes doing the MOM. In fact, it is just the type of project you would do if you wanted to still do the MOM.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
dare100em
Posts: 275
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 12:47 pm

cledaybuck wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
travelhound wrote:
Lessors are not airlines!


Revelation wrote:
Sure. Now the real question is will he pay the additional costs demanded by a clean sheet approach? Just saying you're "more interested" isn't enough.


Remember that Steven Udvar-Hazy, also named the Godfather of the aircraft leasing industry, was one of the driving forces that pushed Airbus into making the A350 XWB instead of the original A350 concept.


He was, but I fail to see why Boeing couldn't do both. This 737-10 concept hardly precludes doing the MOM. In fact, it is just the type of project you would do if you wanted to still do the MOM.


:checkmark: That's the whole point of doing the 737-10Max as Boeing is doing. Minimum effort to free up capabilities for the development of the MOM/NMA/797. If Boeing would have decided otherwise we probably would have seen a much more twerked "Franken" 737-10 Max.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 1:07 pm

reidar76 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
When the MAX 8 and MAX 10 have more room between them, we might see more sales than we otherwise would have without it.


Maybe you're right, but the MAX 8 and MAX 10 would still both be in between A320 and A321 size wise. I think the 737-9s poor runway performance is hurting sales. An other observation is that it seems like airlines utilizes the 737-900/-900ER mainly on longer sectors, while the A321 happily does many 1 hour sectors a day, even out of relatively short runways. Lots of the latter in central Europe.

I think Boeing might be better of using this new gear design on the 737-9, to improve runway performance, and dropping the 737-10 in the process.


I find your post rather contradictory.

You talk about the A321 happily doing many 1 hour sectors a day and the 737-900ER used mainly on longer routes. If an airline truly wants to operate a plane on 10 one hour flights per day, the 737-900ER can operate that way for 20 years. The A321 cannot. The A321 has a service life of 60,000 flight cycles. The 737NG has a service life of 75,000 flight cycles. The A320 was originally certified for 48,000 cycles. The service life has been extended and Airbus hopes to extend to 90,000, but those cycle limits come with a significant number of structural inspections and potentially costly repairs.

You also talk about poor runway performance hurting sales and in the next sentence talk about the A321 doing 1 hour cycles. The 737-900ER can take a full passenger load from a 7,000ft runway for a 1 hour flight. UA is using the 737-900ER on 4 hour flights to DEN from LGA's 7,000ft runway. For short runway operations the 737-700, 737-800 and A319 are all better. For routes over 2000 miles the 737-900ER takes a lot of runway and likely so will a 737-10. The A321 with its bigger flaps has an advantage.

I don't know if airlines are asking for better takeoff performance with the 737-9. All the 737-900ER operators also fly the 737-800, which when equipped with the short field performance package has better runway performance than either the A320 or A321. I don't know if airlines really want better takeoff performance if the airplane weight is going to go up and it is going to hurt efficiency and fuel burn.
 
travelhound
Posts: 1864
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 1:20 pm

reider76 wrote:

The important question is: How many new orders will the 737-10 generate? I think many 737-10 orders will just be upgrades of existing 737-8/9 orders, thus not generating more sales.


For me the more important question revolves around the market and its need for an aircraft on this size category.

With the sales success of the A321NEO, I'd suggest the market is saying we want an aircraft in this size. The problem for Boeing and its 737 customers is if they will be at cost disadvantage to other airlines flying the A321NEO. A 5% cost delta is probably enough to sway quite a few customers to choose another airline.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13178
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 1:53 pm

I think the prime goal is to offer the 737-10 at a sharp price together with a MoM road map & so prevent key customers / MoM prospects from joining the A321 band wagon.

United did an extensive fleet evaluation years ago and based on that selected the Boeing 737-9 to fill its 180-200 seat requirements. And then nobody followed & they've in discussions.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 1:58 pm

keesje wrote:
I think the prime goal is to offer the 737-10 at a sharp price together with a MoM road map & so prevent key customers / MoM prospects from joining the A321 band wagon.

United did an extensive fleet evaluation years ago and based on that selected the Boeing 737-9 to fill its 180-200 seat requirements. And then nobody followed & they've in discussions.


I agree with your first point. I think Boeing has the goal of the 737-10 having lower CASM than the A321neo.

Regarding your second point, you must have forgotten about Alaska and Delta ordering 737-900ERs and about 10 airlines ordering the 737-9. Any or maybe even all of the 737-9 current customers may be interested in the 737-10.

Image
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 2:07 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Regarding your second point, you must have forgotten about Alaska and Delta ordering 737-900ERs and about 10 airlines ordering the 737-9. Any or maybe even all of the 737-9 current customers may be interested in the 737-10.


You're making it sound like the 737-900ER has a large customer base. It has not.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Clydenairways
Posts: 1231
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:27 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 2:20 pm

I'm looking forward to seeing this gear solution on the -10, an interesting engineering challange to see how it comes out.
I think Boeing will shift at least a few hundred of these, I think places like Indonesia and the US market will be the main customers from existing 737 operators.
 
Chaostheory
Posts: 1134
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:09 am

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 4:33 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
All the 737-900ER operators also fly the 737-800, which when equipped with the short field performance package has better runway performance than either the A320 or A321


Does it heck. Funniest thing I've heard all day. From a pilot too!

The 738sfp (27k) doesn't come anywhere near the A320's field performance. Try getting an sfp bird out of Gassim with a decent payload. The 320 does it without issue. Going by latest Gassim metar (38c OAT), here are the performance limits packs off for both:

738sfp (27k) Flaps 5 73.3t
A320 CFM config 1f 76.9t
A320 CFM config 1f 76.8t (sharklet)
A320 CFM config 1f 77.2t (5B4/P engine)
A320 V2500 1f 77t

I didn't check the numbers for config f2 which may grant the A320 even better performance.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 4:51 pm

Chaostheory wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
All the 737-900ER operators also fly the 737-800, which when equipped with the short field performance package has better runway performance than either the A320 or A321


Does it heck. Funniest thing I've heard all day. From a pilot too!

The 738sfp (27k) doesn't come anywhere near the A320's field performance. Try getting an sfp bird out of Gassim with a decent payload. The 320 does it without issue. Going by latest Gassim metar (38c OAT), here are the performance limits packs off for both:

738sfp (27k) Flaps 5 73.3t
A320 CFM config 1f 76.9t
A320 CFM config 1f 76.8t (sharklet)
A320 CFM config 1f 77.2t (5B4/P engine)
A320 V2500 1f 77t

I didn't check the numbers for config f2 which may grant the A320 even better performance.


I said short field, not hot/high. Take a look at the real world airport of Rio De Janeiro Santos Dumont and its 4300ft runway. Can an A320 operate from that airport? Can the 737-800?

You are absolutely right about weights, but when it comes to the real world, which plane is truly being used on short fields?

I will walk my original comment back as an exaggeration.
Last edited by Newbiepilot on Fri May 05, 2017 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Boeing defines 737 MAX 10

Fri May 05, 2017 4:54 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
I find your post rather contradictory.


I'm just describing my observations. I don't have the answers. It is a puzzle to me why the 737-800/-8 is so extremely successful, and why the slightly larger 737-900/-9 is operated by so few airlines. The 737 MAX 200 is another example that the airlines want the capacity of the -9, but with the -8 performance. I fear that the same issues, what ever it is, will also impact the 737-10. It looks like the airlines that is satisfied with the 737-900/-9 are the same airlines that might be interested in the 737-10.

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