Boeing Shows 737-8ERX Concept

tortugamon · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:24 pm

A voice of reason in this frantic thread. Great comments by Stitch.

This is a tiny cost option that Boeing is floating. Stop thinking of this as a 757 replacement. When 1 new airplane gets launched every decade not every sector/market gets the best efforts. In the 2010s its the 757 that is the red-headed step child. $50 million for the 737-8ERX or $15 Billion for the new 757 replacement for a market that is less than a recent Air Asia order? Its worth a try. And who knows, this could lead to something.

tortugamon

UA444 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:28 pm

Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 48):

They'll buy it blindly, just because it's from Boeing.

B777LRF · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:31 pm

Quoting HiFlyerAS (Reply 31):
Move that friggin' L1 door back so you can have a real FC cabin...not one with everyone traipsing through it during boarding.

Great idea. Apart from the minor detail, that the space in front of the door could be used for paying passengers due to evacuation rules. And, no, the R1 door can't do it alone.

BoeingGuy · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:39 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 51):
They'll buy it blindly, just because it's from Boeing.

That's the most insightful, well thought out, and intelligent comment I've seen on this thread. I'm sure large airlines make multi-billion dollar decisions blindly all the time.

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:41 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 51):
They'll buy it blindly, just because it's from Boeing.

Of course, you must be joking.

jetblue1965 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:44 pm

If *this* is Boeing's response to the A321LR, then they're not trying hard at all.

FriendlySkies · Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:59 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 51):
They'll buy it blindly, just because it's from Boeing.

Blind or not, it could actually be a good fit for Hawaii flights that can't support a widebody. Same for AS.

bgm · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:00 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 53):
I'm sure large airlines make multi-billion dollar decisions blindly all the time.

They do, or use to at least. It was called the "Gentleman's Agreement"

JetBuddy · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):
Well Leeham says it's being touted by Boeing as a response to the A321LR.

But... but.. I thought Airbus were only trying to catch up to the 737-9 with their A321LR?

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 17):

I think this will be attractive for the likes of Ryanair, Norwegian, Transavia et al, they will then be able to fly 197 pax from Northern Europe to Canary islands, Egypt etc year round.

Yes, Norwegian/Kjos has talked about using the 737-8 MAX for TATL from secondary airports in Scandinavia for a while. I've been doubtful about if that was doable with a full load. But this concept could probably do that. The Leeham article estimates 168 seats in a Norwegian configuration, and 15% less direct operating cost than the 787 (per seat I assume?).

Icelandair has already put in an order for the MAX, and many (including myself) have been saying it's the wrong choice because it doesn't have the range of the 757. But this one does.. it could be a very good option for Icelandair (if it can carry all the fish!), and so is the A321LR.

Monarch's 737 MAX order also could use some of these.

Maybe Ryanair would be interested in a 737-8ERX / 737 MAX 200 fusion. Could fly 200 pax probably 3000 nm +. Poor pax...

[Edited 2015-03-12 11:19:33]

TheRedBaron · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:22 pm

Quoting btblue (Reply 11):
Of course, this could be an exercise in 'smoke and mirrors' ala Sonic Cruiser...

they will need lots of mirrors and a lot of smoke...

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 15):
Boeing is putting lipstick on a pig to see who bites. If no one bites, the 321NEO-LR might force Boeing to start B-NSA against their will. I wonder if the B-NSA could do the same thing to A320NEO?

first I think that if the make a 757 replacement, the real market for it is 500 to 700 frames, and I don't think Boeing will pour 12 billion to make such an aircraft.
Second, I bet they wont be pressured into the NSA project, because there is no engine to make it so much better than the MAX, and if they do, by 2023 Airbus will have the chance of launching its next generation with a newer and better engine, so they would be even worse in the long run, I bet they are willing to concede the market to the 321Neo LR, and avoid falling into a hole, in the mean time they will offer I am sure a 73X max version that will cover some of the performance missions of the 757 with obvious penalties, but some customers that use 100% Boeing products will order such a plane. But I bet the orders will not go over 150 frames (Fish or no Fish involved)!!

Quoting bgm (Reply 21):
Looks like Boeing is clutching at straws. Clearly, they missed the boat with this one.

That is what happens when you upgrade an already upgraded product from the 60s, but they have saved millions and millions, so they might have missed the boat on this one, but clearly the market thinks they are correct in the other part.

TRB

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 45):
Which neither exists.

Says who? ...you?
Hmm, that's an even less authoritative source than the ones you're lambasting here.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 46):
when a 757NEO would be a perfect fit.

That no airline remotely wanted. When they closed the line, there had been 9 orders over two years, with no one clamoring for an update/refresh. There's no way Boeing could've justified holding a line open (when it could instead be used for 737s, which were actually selling) to its shareholders, if no one was ordering or expressing any interest.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 47):
The airlines had the ability to build up massive 757 fleets and keep them going

karadion · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:32 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 60):
Says who? ...you?

Says Boeing's own press release site for example. The only citation that is here is Leeham. Boeing did not make the image above. Leeham used stock footage from Southwest and a number of other sites. Any person with half a brain will realize that rumors or claims does not mean it's true. Half the fanboys on this forum comes up with many different concoctions of their ideal airplane design and then some how people misread that as a serious proposal like most of the people in this thread is doing. If you have an independent corroborating source outside of Leeham, feel free to provide the citation. The only response from Boeing is the canned statement which it sounds obvious that they have no clue what Leeham is talking about but gives their general statement.

By comparison, car manufacturers could come up with concept but does that mean it's going to be mass produced? 99% of the time, no.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:48 pm

Quoting bgm (Reply 57):
They do, or use to at least. It was called the "Gentleman's Agreement"

Long since ceased.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 61):
Boeing did not make the image above.

No one's claiming they did.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 61):
By comparison, car manufacturers could come up with concept but does that mean it's going to be mass produced?

No one's claiming they will.

I think I see the problem here: you're reading wayyyy too much into what isn't even there. It goes back to the post in #43, you don't seem to understand that OEMs informally shop proposals all the time, with no notice of such made to the public-- in no way does that indicate formal offer.

rotating14 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:52 pm

If you bolted pontoons to the bottom UA could reach Hawaii on a good day. Splash landing required. But seriously, we should not take too much stock into this. This is a concept. With that said, how many concept cars, trucks and airplanes do we see plowing the skies and grabbing asphalt?? Would there be such attention given to this if Airbus leaked a photo of a triple aisle single decker with turbo props the size of wind farm blades to compete with __________?!? If companies aren't thinking outside of the box and trying to get better, then what's the point.

silentbob · Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:54 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
For Airlines that operate large 737 fleets and need a hand full of longer range planes this makes sense. Especially for Boeing, if the only alternative for the ailines is to buy A321NEOLR - and then be open for more A32X NEO.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):

One of the major operators of the 757 over the Atlantic is United. Potentially this allows for a carrier already operating 737NG/737 Max to continue with the 737 family as they retire 757s.

Something like this would be ideal for WN to grow their international flying without having to purchase an additional type. It would make a lot of sense for them, but not for many other carriers.

karadion · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:06 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
No one's claiming they did.

This thread and title is evidence of that. "Boeing Shows..." Leeham says so therefore Boeing must be. This thread is a "Leeham CLAIMS Boeing..."

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
No one's claiming they will.

Anecdotal evidence does not make it so. The 747-500/600X was a concept proposal and was pitched publicly just like the 787-3 was pitched. In this case, we got one group coming up with their own drawing and thinking where Boeing will make the changes AND coming up with their own numbers based on metrics that they devised themselves. Then they turn around and go "Oh how stupid of Boeing to come up with this because it falls way too short."

[Edited 2015-03-12 12:08:12]

29erUSA187 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:09 pm

Has this been announced/confirmed by Boeing? I don't see anything on their site ( http://www.newairplane.com )

karadion · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:15 pm

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 66):

Nope. Just a canned statement to Leeham.

Ab345 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:25 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
I think I see the problem here: you're reading wayyyy too much into what isn't even there. It goes back to the post in #43, you don't seem to understand that OEMs informally shop proposals all the time, with no notice of such made to the public-- in no way does that indicate formal offer.

As was John Leahy doing with an idea of an A321neo that would match the 757 in some TATL ops and then some, something that picked up quite a lot of interest and thus we have the LR

It's been done in various forms for ages.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 65):
This thread and title is evidence of that. "Boeing Shows..." Leeham says so therefore Boeing must be. This thread is a "Leeham CLAIMS Boeing..."

Leeham is certainly not the Bible but it's just as certainly not TMZ or e!online. For Hamilton to go public with this something is there. Two major exclusives he had lately were for the DL order in November and the formation of the above mentioned A321neoLR

roseflyer · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:43 pm

The A321LR is supposed to be a 7,000 - 8,000lbs MTOW increase over the A321neo and increase range by 400nm as projected by Airbus.

The 737-8ERX is looking like a 13,000lbs MTOW increase over the 737-MAX8. That should increase range by more than 600nm.

If the numbers are true, the 737-8ERX is going to exceed the range of the 757, while the A321LR is going to almost match it.

It looks like Boeing is going for more range with the 737-8ERX potentially going a few hundred miles further than the A321LR. Airbus is going for more capacity. Which one would be more popular with airlines?

Stitch · Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:51 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 69):
It looks like Boeing is going for more range with the 737-8ERX potentially going a few hundred miles further than the A321LR. Airbus is going for more capacity. Which one would be more popular with airlines?

I believe both could be.

If the 737-8ERX offers more range, it could allow missions deeper into the EU from North America as well as decrease the number of tech stops westbound when winds are not favorable. It's smaller size could also make it less risky for new services. Once those services become stable and popular, airlines could then upgrade to the A321-200neoLR as well as slot the A321-200neoLR now on routes that currently comfortably support the 757-200W.

The real key, IMO, will be trip and seat-mile costs between the 737-8ERX and the A321-200neo. If they're close, then the advantage is with the Airbus product. Then again, both products are going to be pretty inexpensive for each OEM so even low interest in the 737-8ERX might be enough to justify building it.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:00 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 69):
Which one would be more popular with airlines?

If I had to guess, I'd with 99.9% certainty say: "capacity"

Doubt the extra 100nm or so would make much of a difference in any operational capacity or airlines' margin calculation... but an extra 24-30 seats sure would.

mjoelnir · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:08 pm

If you look at this possible frame as neither a direct 321LR competition and nor a "replacement" for the 757 this 737-8ERX concept could be interesting to some airlines.
For example for Icelandair it would be an extraordinary step to buy Airbus frames, I see them flying rather the 757 for years more. So getting a longer ranged 737, a frame from Boeing that could do long very thin routes, could be an interesting addition to the orderedd 737-8/9MAX.
If this frame is than the basis for the 737BBJMAX , what is the risk?

tommy1808 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:12 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 71):
Doubt the extra 100nm or so would make much of a difference in any operational capacity or airlines' margin calculation... but an extra 24-30 seats sure would.

and if you need those 100nm range, you can block 20 seats and still fly with about the same per seat costs.... an additional 100nm beyond if you need to.

Best regards
Thomas

EPA001 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:14 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 69):
while the A321LR is going to almost match it.

The A321-LR would also exceed the range of the B757. By about 200 NM.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:15 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 65):
This thread and title is evidence of that. "Boeing Shows..."

Give it a rest.

Boeing is not going to make a public release saying "Hey, we're tossing out some ideas to see who bites"..... no amount of trolling by you, over completely pointless semantics, will change that.

flightsimer · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:21 pm

Are we all forgetting that there already is a 737-800ERX? It was the basis of the P-8A Poseidon... Everything that this 737-8ERX MAX is is the same thing the P-8 is except for its the "Max" variant and no raked tips or Bomb bay.

There is nothing new with this idea.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
It might and it might not. It depends on what the load factors look like normalized over an entire year.

lightsaber has been of the opinion that the 737-8 and A320-200neo could "re-fragment" TATL travel much as the 767 and A330 did. The 737-8ERX sounds exactly like what he was describing and the smaller capacity might make it a more "safe" proposal, especially for new missions.

Honestly, the 737-8ERX and the A321-200neoLR could complement each other as much as they could compete with each other in airline fleets.

I completely agree.

This is exactly why in the 777 upgrade / 757 replacement thread that is going on I said I believe the NSA's smallest aircraft will have a range of at least 4,000nm.

We are talking about an economical aircraft that will now be able to be used on markets it previously did not have the range for. Initially it will be small, just like TATL 757's were, but I think once the airlines realize the potential of it, it will grow into a much bigger market.

packsonflight · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:37 pm

If what Leeham is reporting is true, does that mean that all this talk about MOM aircraft is smoke and mirrors and the next new aircraft from Boeing after the 777X will the 737 successor?

karadion · Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:38 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 75):

Trolling? I think you need to brush up on your definition of trolling. Do however you feel like but when I disagree with the title in question and don't put much credence in Leeham just like all these market analysts out there. The Delta and A321LR were pretty obvious and doesn't take much brain power to see that it was going to happen. Too many people here and other places were saying that Airbus does have the capabilities and what do you know, viola it happens. Since the only source on this story will be Leeham alone, it's a Leeham story, nothing more.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:02 pm

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73):
and if you need those 100nm range, you can block 20 seats and still fly with about the same per seat costs.... an additional 100nm beyond if you need to.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 74):
The A321-LR would also exceed the range of the B757. By about 200 NM.

Without winglets. 752 with winglets is at 4100nm.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 78):
I think you need to brush up on your definition of trolling.

Why, when you're basically giving us a textbook refresher?

Stitch · Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:08 pm

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 77):
If what Leeham is reporting is true, does that mean that all this talk about MOM aircraft is smoke and mirrors and the next new aircraft from Boeing after the 777X will the 737 successor?

Boeing is currently evaluating both NSA (New Small Airplane - the 737 replacement) and MOM at the moment. The launch of the MAX probably has kicked the launch of NSA down the road by a decade (2030s instead of 2020s), so if the market supports it, I expect MOM to launch before NSA (say mid-2020s for MOM and early-to-mid 2030s for NSA).

BaconButty · Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:31 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 65):
This thread and title is evidence of that. "Boeing Shows..." Leeham says so therefore Boeing must be. This thread is a "Leeham CLAIMS Boeing..."

"Internet Browser indicates that a Web Site purporting to be that of Leeham Co claims that Boeing are showing a concept of a long range variant of the 737-8 max to other companies that may or may not be Airlines".
That just about covers it. Can't be too certain.

solnabo · Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:40 pm

Grow some legs and give me proper Engines, 737- Whatewrrr

Mike //

B777LRF · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:01 pm

Any airline considering this 'proposal', if it ever becomes such a thing, would not spend a very long time dwelling over a spreadsheet to figure out, that the competition still has a better offer based on pure performance. But if Boeing get the profit margin sufficiently close, it might be enough to persuade some airlines not to dip into the Airbus pool. It is not always the aircraft with the best performance numbers who wins the days; there are a multitude of additional factors playing in. None of them, however, include putting on blinders and pressing '1' on the speed dial to connect with Randy.

But it's pretty hard seeing how moving 135 seats over 3500NM can be more profitable than moving 165, when it's done at more or less the same costs; at 88 tons MTOW, the 'proposal' is just 9.5 tons less than the 321LR. And it hasn't got the GTFs.

Ab345 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:12 pm

Quoting Karadion (Reply 78):
The Delta and A321LR were pretty obvious and doesn't take much brain power to see that it was going to happen.

Emm....no

If you go through the threads at the time and most of the gossip up until a day I think that the order was announced the strongest rumors were that it was going to be a mixed order (25 of each), and since the 788 was (and weirdly still is

) on order, most of us were assuming the 789 and one of the Airbus offerings. DL said afterwards that the A330neo was always in the mix and they squared off the 359 and 789 for the Pacific. They chose the 359 because as they stated "the 789 can fly a little further but the 359 can pretty much do the same and carry more pax. Some users were surprised that Anderson didn't stage a party after the 330Neo launch although in the background it was as good as ordered.
None of these later facts were.."obvious" IMO.

The A321neoLR was totally their exclusive (which was later reproduced in other sites like Flightglobal etc) and I do not recall anyone on a.net at least saying that a LR version of the A321 is being conjured up. There was though a lot of talk for the 757 replacement since last summer that included both the 321neo and the 739Max.

Anyway defending Leeham is not my main concern just stating some facts, and as far as the main topic is concerned, the MAX continues to do well (although not as well as the neo ) but more and more relying on one member of the family and although kudos must been given to Boeing for making this fine plane, it cannot take on both the 320neo and the 321neo. The 737 in my opinion has already maxed out at the -8 frame/size and Boeing should squeeze every last Dollar possible out of it to go to the NSA.

BoeingGuy · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:28 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
Quoting bgm (Reply 57):
They do, or use to at least. It was called the "Gentleman's Agreement"

Long since ceased.

They were not gentleman's agreements. AA, DL and CO made business decisions to sign exclusivity contracts with Boeing. The contracts ceased as an EU condition with the McDonnell Douglas merger.

They were business decisions, not "gentleman's agreements".

rotating14 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:35 pm

This is eerily similar to what happened when AA pushed the hand of Boeing into developing the MAX. To this point it has been a good bet and what juice was left in the MAX was Squeezed out in the O'Leary-liner. I really don't get why Boeing feels it must win every order at any cost. Granted it's UA and the same energy probably wouldn't be exhausted for say TAP in Portugal or a poach of Peach in Japan.

While this might not be no more than your regular brainstorm sketch but if Boeing is Wise they'd see the whole forest rather than the probable if possible benefit of doing this. We'll have to see how this pans out.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:36 pm

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 85):
They were not gentleman's agreements. AA, DL and CO made business decisions to sign exclusivity contracts with Boeing. The contracts ceased as an EU condition with the McDonnell Douglas merger.

They were business decisions, not "gentleman's agreements".

You're confusing two different things.

The exclusivity contracts between the three and Boeing were broken in 1997, the "gentleman's agreement" went on for years later, individually with each carrier, until their respective mergers.

Heck, Larry Kellner still referenced it as of 2006 in his weekly phone message to employees, so one could surmise it was in place at least a decade after the binding obligation was broken, at least for CO.

ODwyerPW · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:38 pm

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 28):
So this is basically a 737-9 MAX without the fuselage plugs. Or, if you prefer, a civilian P-8 MAX. Seems like a minimal-cost response that might capture a sale here and there.

Exactly. No one at Boeing is going to pretend they've reinvented narrowbody hauling on long thin routes. It's simply an alternative for present operators who need just a bit more range using existing pieces.
Boeing is aware the A321NEO is going to take allot of busines.... this plane might salvage a few sales campaigns...

Passedv1 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:39 pm

Quoting beachbum1970 (Reply 48):

Quoting Web500sjc (Reply 15):
Boeing is putting lipstick on a pig to see who bites

Oh please god, PLEASE don't show this to United Airlines...

Or Alaska

32andBelow · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:40 pm

Quoting passedv1 (Reply 89):
Or Alaska

Japan!

Passedv1 · Thu Mar 12, 2015 10:42 pm

Where would they put the fuel tanks...Airlines have always had the option of putting aux tanks into their 737s...and nobody takes them because of the loss of cargo space. I don't see how this fixes any of that.

BravoOne · Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:39 pm

This airplane is a joke. Poor Boeing is so strapped after the 787 debacle that they can't come up with anything other thatn rehashed airframes. The once great Boeing is on the ropes regarding fresh ideas and when the sales start slowing down look out for more cost cutting except for the higher ups in management.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:51 pm

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 92):
This airplane is a joke. Poor Boeing is so strapped after the 787 debacle that they can't come up with anything other thatn rehashed airframes. The once great Boeing is on the ropes regarding fresh ideas and when the sales start slowing down look out for more cost cutting except for the higher ups in management.

And the Oscar for best melodrama goes to......

Boeing778X · Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:58 pm

Quoting Ab345 (Reply 84):
The 737 in my opinion has already maxed out at the -8 frame/size and Boeing should squeeze every last Dollar possible out of it to go to the NSA.

And Boeing should probably do it sooner than later. The title "MAX" means a myriad of things, and I suppose the 737 MAX has only a short period of time.

Boeing should has the NSA up and running before 2030, the way I see it.

29erUSA187 · Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:07 am

For the second time, this plane has not even been announced officially yet, although I would love to see it materialize.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 74):

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 86):

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 92):

I find all of the Anti-737ERX, pro A321neoLR comments to be quite funny. Someone already mentioned in another thread (I forget which one) that "A.netters think the A321neoLR can do everything short of curing cancer." This seems to be the case. This plane (if it actually comes to fruition, could open up new routes on LCC's across distances that are too long for most planes, but don't have enough of a market for a wide body. Who knows? We could see Monarch or someone start up MAN-PVD, BHX-MHT, or some other oddball route.

RickNRoll · Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:14 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 95):
I find all of the Anti-737ERX, pro A321neoLR comments to be quite funny. Someone already mentioned in another thread (I forget which one) that "A.netters think the A321neoLR can do everything short of curing cancer."

Hardly, it is a carefully targeted refinement of the A321. Airbus have shown they have the ability to extract the maximum ability out of their planes over time. As do Boeing, for that matter.

In the case of the 737ERX vs A321neoLR, the limitations of the 737 mean that their response to this particular Airbus initiative is lacking, since 737-9 cannot match the A321neoLR. It will probably get a few sales if it materialises. Both companies will sell a lot of planes either way.

It is going to be interesting to see how many sales the LR gets compared to the standard A321neo. We will just have to wait and see.

[Edited 2015-03-12 17:16:36]

eaa3 · Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:26 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 72):
For example for Icelandair it would be an extraordinary step to buy Airbus frames

You really think they're that stubborn. it's just business. It's not a love relationship. Airlines buy the aircraft that best fit their business. If they don't then there is something very wrong and investors should divest.

Ab345 · Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:28 am

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 95):
I find all of the Anti-737ERX, pro A321neoLR comments to be quite funny. Someone already mentioned in another thread (I forget which one) that "A.netters think the A321neoLR can do everything short of curing cancer."

You can find that in the a.net "Big book of myths, fables, stories, opinions (and sometimes facts)", alongside with the 77W and the 75W

Just roll with it

On a similar humorous note though, when you have crap you make crappe

(Crap being the situation Boeing is squeezed into, having to produce an idea like this, something that wasn't in their top priorities I m sure). It seems to me that the MAX8 being a fine machine as it is , will try to cover all the needs of its' customers being produced in a MAX200 configuration and now this (if it does materise of course). One frame suits all

2travel2know2 · Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:58 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 20):
One of the major operators of the 757 over the Atlantic is United. Potentially this allows for a carrier already operating 737NG/737 Max to continue with the 737 family as they retire 757s.

UA could theoretically fly B737-700 right now between GLA/EDI/BFS/DUB/SNN and EWR, but UA would need to re-configure seat lay-out and then have a modified cabin B737-700 sub-fleet.
Also, as with UA B757 flying west winter-time, those B737-700 may require tech-stops in eastern Canada a few days per year.

That Leeham's B737-8ERX concept has CM written all over. CM is desperate for new B737 able to fly PTY-SFO/SEA/YYC/YVR non-stop.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net