Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Oykie
Topic Author
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 7:59 pm

According to Flightgloba, Boeing is looking at a larger 737-7MAX as well as a larger 737-9max. We have already discussed into details about the -7.5Max, but this is a confirmation that Boeing is looking into the concept as well as stretching the -9.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ew-of-two-737-max-variants-424861/

[Edited 2016-05-02 13:00:17]

Edit: at the end of the article it says American is interested in the 7.5Max as well. The earlier thread talked about UA and Siuthwest only.


[Edited 2016-05-02 13:07:00]
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:10 pm

These will be relatively expensive programs (compared to just the NEO/MAX) and whilst much quicker than a clean sheet design will also take some time.

Surely for Boeing the danger is that if they do a -9 stretch Airbus counter with a 322 with a new wing and length that makes it a real MoM squeeze plane.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10456
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:19 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 1):
Surely for Boeing the danger is that if they do a -9 stretch Airbus counter with a 322 with a new wing and length that makes it a real MoM squeeze plane.

I imagine the -9 stretch would bring it up to A321 size. I don't see Airbus spending the money on new wings and a small stretch to to counter that, especially as it would give Boeing a clear competitor to beat when designing and specing the MoM.
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:21 pm

Stretching the -9? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I'm honestly surprised that the 737 can be stretched even farther than it already has been. (Maybe that just means I shouldn't believe all the negative things I read about the 739 on a.net.)
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6593
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:29 pm

Stretching the -9? What would be the effect on field performance? Today's -900ER is already the worst narrowbody on the market in that regard, and it's bad enough to materially affect the plane's ability to attract customers.

An A321-length -9 would be very cheap to fly per passenger, if it can fly at all without a 12,000-foot runway.
 
Someone83
Posts: 4802
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:36 pm

Can the -9MAX actually be stretched much further, without almost created a new and expensive plane? The current model/suggestion has enough draw backs already
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1647
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:46 pm

Why would Boeing launch the 737-Max, only to then considering stretching 2 of the models?

Surely the time to do this would be before it was formally launched?
it's the bus to stansted (now renamed National Express a6 to ruin my username)
 
phlwok
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 11:41 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:47 pm

You men they're not going to restart 757 production? :-p
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 8:51 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 6):
Surely the time to do this would be before it was formally launched?

It would be a real admission that they got it wrong intitially.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2668
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:03 pm

Consider this a hot air attempt at distracting potential Max customers, who are looking too closely at the A321neo for Boeing's comfort.
Signature. You just read one.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2682
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:08 pm

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 3):
Stretching the -9? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I'm honestly surprised that the 737 can be stretched even farther than it already has been. (Maybe that just means I shouldn't believe all the negative things I read about the 739 on a.net.)

IIRC, if you stretch the -9 MAX another 8 feet, you have a twin engine 707 on your hands.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1850
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:29 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 2):
I imagine the -9 stretch would bring it up to A321 size. I don't see Airbus spending the money on new wings and a small stretch to to counter that, especially as it would give Boeing a clear competitor to beat when designing and specing the MoM.

But wouldn't they need to redesign the undercarriage for the 737 to fit longer landing gear? The current 739 is already hampered by its low landing gear and a longer fuselage will need a even longer runway than the current model. So a new design of the landing gear to get to A321 length will cost money, which will impact the selling price which will only mean Airbus can and will undercut Boeing on prices.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19558
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 8):

It would be a real admission that they got it wrong intitially.

Sales show Boeing only had it right on the -8 MAX. The -7 is a dud that must be relaunched. The -9... Needs help and I personally do not know the best solution.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:40 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 6):
Why would Boeing launch the 737-Max, only to then considering stretching 2 of the models?

Surely the time to do this would be before it was formally launched?

That was nearly five years ago. The market conditions have changed. Boeing hasn't cut metal on the -9 or -7, so why not change them if you have information that could lead to a better product?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:44 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
Boeing hasn't cut metal on the -9 or -7, so why not change them if you have information that could lead to a better product?

But they are way down the design of these and I am sure some metal has been cut. Somewhere on the 787 they have long lead time items at 5 years. I don't believe that but it is way more than a year. I remember the first metal for the 320NEO was a pylon well over a year before final assembly. I am not sure of the timeline for the -7 amd -9 but it isn't that far away.
 
chiad
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:46 pm

Quoting oykie (Thread starter):
According to Flightgloba, Boeing is looking at a larger 737-7MAX as well as a larger 737-9max.

Ah this is exciting!
It would be awesome to see a B737-10MAX and Airbus' response, maybe with a A322NEO.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2230
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:48 pm

I thought the landing gear was different and taller thus there in theory could be a bit of room to stretch further. However, the field performance will be even more of an issue.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:50 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 14):
But they are way down the design of these and I am sure some metal has been cut.

Sunk cost.

If the better decision is to change course, then write-it-off and move on.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
StTim
Posts: 3670
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 9:58 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
Sunk cost.

If the better decision is to change course, then write-it-off and move on.
Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):

That was nearly five years ago. The market conditions have changed. Boeing hasn't cut metal on the -9 or -7, so why not change them if you have information that could lead to a better product?

Whilst I might agree with the opinion expressed in your second post it is somewhat at odds with the first. The costs so far to be sunk are not inconsiderable and a huge admission they got it wrong.

A change to stretch the -9 would be a much higher cost as it would need major surgery. It would also require much more design time and much more test expense.

It really would have to be a much better frame to make any sense.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:06 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 18):
Whilst I might agree with the opinion expressed in your second post it is somewhat at odds with the first.

I will admit that I don't know how much metal Boeing has actually "cut" on the -9MAX. I assume none, but it doesn't really matter.

Quoting StTim (Reply 18):
The costs so far to be sunk are not inconsiderable and a huge admission they got it wrong.

Sunk costs are by their nature not to be considered. They could be $1 dollar or $1 billion dollars, but they have no impact on what is the best decision to make today.

Should Boeing really persist with a bad business decision because someone will say they got it wrong the first time? That is stupid. How many revisions of the A350 did Airbus make before getting it right?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
S75752
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:38 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:13 pm

Sooo... 737-10 Max? Potentially prompting an A322 Neo...
 
CRJ900
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:21 pm

The B737-400 was a nice size. Can they use the -400 fuselage with a -700 wing? Would make a comfy 150-seater for WN.
Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:21 pm

The 737-7MAX does not sell and the 737-9MAX only in small numbers. Stretching the 737-7 slightly should not be a big deal and it would replace the current design. I expect the 737-9 still to come as now designed. later Boeing could do a 737-10. It would need a new MLG, could use the bigger fan A320 Leap, a small stretch and perhaps some work on the wing. It would make a same size competitor to the A321. The 737-9 could than be dropped.
 
tomcat
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:28 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 1):
These will be relatively expensive programs (compared to just the NEO/MAX)

I'm inclined to think that the NEO is starting to become expensive for Airbus...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19558
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:29 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
Sunk cost.

If the better decision is to change course, then write-it-off and move on.

Agreed. The -7 is a major mistake. The -9...arguably wrong.

Quoting StTim (Reply 18):
The costs so far to be sunk are not inconsiderable and a huge admission they got it wrong.

Boeing did get it wrong. The -7 MAX is DOA. Delivered planes will not have any resale except possibly to WN.

While the -9 is somewhat viable, there is a reason everyone is talking about the MAX being one model, the -8. The -9 routinely losses out orders to the A321NEO. 38% as many orders as the larger NEO. That kills resale values.

Not admitting you've got it that wrong looks silly.

Yes, the A319NEO is 'wrong too.'. If Boeing upsizes, Airbus will have to look into options including just cancelling the A319NEO. With the A320NEO shortfield kit, there is no need for the shorty. At least not after a thrust bump.


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:30 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Sunk costs are by their nature not to be considered. They could be $1 dollar or $1 billion dollars, but they have no impact on what is the best decision to make today.

That argument only really works when the sunk cost really is lost completely - if the sunk cost was spent making a product which will still turn a profit, thats entirely a different situation to a sunk cost which was spent making a product which will never be profitable.

For example, you wouldnt throw out the 787 program as a "sunk cost" simply because any 797 replacement would be better at this point in time.

Are the -7Max and -9Max likely to return a profit on the incremental investment needed as part of the Max program? Yes? Then those sunk costs most definitely do have an impact on the decision to be made today.

The point of the sunk cost issue is to not throw good money after bad - its not meant to disregard a good investment simply because the investment has already been made.
 
User avatar
redzeppelin
Posts: 1173
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:30 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:44 pm

From the linked FLightGlobal article:

Quote:
Now, Boeing’s product development teams are looking for option that could enter service much more quickly.

Isn't that how we got the MAX to start with? Rushing to find a "good-enough" solution to be competitive sooner? Ugh. I'm cool with the Max7 stretch. But it's hard to see the ROI for any more incremental developments on the -9. Move on already.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9391
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:53 pm

Quoting tomcat (Reply 23):
I'm inclined to think that the NEO is starting to become expensive for Airbus...

Why?
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 6916
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 10:54 pm

OMG...it's happening... MadMAX is morphing!!!   
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21801
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:04 pm

Quoting StTim (Reply 1):

Surely for Boeing the danger is that if they do a -9 stretch Airbus counter with a 322 with a new wing and length that makes it a real MoM squeeze plane.

That and a -9 stretch will be tail strike city. Not to mention no AOA for lifting any payload off the runway. The -9 suffers enough from its long fuselage and short gear as it is.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 11):

But wouldn't they need to redesign the undercarriage for the 737 to fit longer landing gear? The current 739 is already hampered by its low landing gear and a longer fuselage will need a even longer runway than the current model. So a new design of the landing gear to get to A321 length will cost money, which will impact the selling price which will only mean Airbus can and will undercut Boeing on prices.

"Cost money?" That's the understatement of the decade. They'll have to move the attachment points of the gear outboard so that the gear has room to swing inboard without interfering with the gear on the opposite side. That will change all the stress points on the wing spar and so the entire spar may have to be redesigned. That will move other things in the wing box and by the time they're done they might as well have just opened up the 757 line again.

I thought Boeing had a drug-free policy, so what the hell are they smoking up there in Seattle?

Quoting tomcat (Reply 23):

I'm inclined to think that the NEO is starting to become expensive for Airbus...

Not so bad. There are engine issues. Should hardly be shocking for a new engine.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tomcat
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:07 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 27):
Quoting tomcat (Reply 23):
I'm inclined to think that the NEO is starting to become expensive for Airbus...

Why?

Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21801
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:14 pm

Quoting tomcat (Reply 30):

Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment.

When they have 4,500+ frames on order, a 6mo delay is nothing.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 737
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:21 pm

OK, so aside the questions regarding performance, the -9 stretch could work. But really, what is the point of a -7 stretch? I mean, the reason why the -7 is not selling is because of the -8 having similar operating costs and performance while offering more revenue opportunities. How would a -7 stretch, an aircraft even closer to the -8 in terms of size, rectify this???
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
User avatar
crimsonchin
Posts: 559
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 8:16 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:26 pm

Good. This will push Airbus to exploring the potential of the A321 even more. With the A321 clobbering the -9 like a harp seal, there would be no need for Airbus to do anything more, but if this -9.5 turns out competitive, then Airbus will have to respond.
 
tomcat
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:28 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
Quoting tomcat (Reply 30):

Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment.

When they have 4,500+ frames on order, a 6mo delay is nothing.

I'm making a relation between the initial investment of Airbus and the cost of the delay. I don't see how the order book can affect this relation.
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:33 pm

Quoting tomcat (Reply 30):

Delayed deliveries have a cost, no? The NEO was supposed to be a low cost program, so the cost of a 6 months delay must be quite high relatively to the overall investment.

You have to be delusional if you believe that Airbus signs up to delivery contracts with delay penalties but does not have delay penalties written into supply contracts. Airbus will make the supplier who is late eat the delay cost, Airbus is run as a business it has lawyers who write contracts with penalties just like any other business.
BV
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:34 pm

BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

sv11
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21801
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:54 pm

Quoting tomcat (Reply 34):

I'm making a relation between the initial investment of Airbus and the cost of the delay. I don't see how the order book can affect this relation.

The first few hundred frames may be somewhat delayed. After that, they will be delivered on time and so the penalty will be minimal.

Quoting sv11 (Reply 36):

BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

BA does not design or build aircraft. They operate them.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1721
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:57 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
BA does not design or build aircraft. They operate them.

I'm guessing that was a typo and sv11 intended to type AB, as in Airbus.
 
flyabr
Posts: 865
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Mon May 02, 2016 11:59 pm

Quoting sv11 (Reply 36):
BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

Then you might as well go for an entirely new aircraft!
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:11 am

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 28):
OMG...it's happening... MadMAX is morphing!!!   

OMG indeed. Kill this monster before this craziness gets any further. Because:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29):
That and a -9 stretch will be tail strike city.

  

I'm not sure what the intent is here, spend FUD in the marketplace? I understand 7.5 kind of, though I'd argue -8 is the right model for those who do not think is -7 is the right one.

But, -9 stretch... that's essentially a new plane. A plan that Boeing has decided it won't do. So what are they doing now? Really doing it? Claiming that they are doing it, so that not everyone buys Airbus (yet)? Or something else?

The only way the stretched -9 would make sense is a proper but big redesign. I'm not 100% convinced that this would be the right move for Boeing - I'd rather have them spend the time to do a full, totally new design with longevity to fight A320 series for several decades.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15680
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:12 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4):
What would be the effect on field performance? Today's -900ER is already the worst narrowbody on the market in that regard

I think the standard 739 (non-ER) has that dubious honor, actually.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 37):
Quoting sv11 (Reply 36):
BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

BA does not design or build aircraft. They operate them.

Isn't BA the ticker symbol for Boeing?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
BoeingVista
Posts: 2060
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:54 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:35 am

Quoting Yflyer (Reply 38):
'm guessing that was a typo and sv11 intended to type AB, as in Airbus.

Nope

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 41):
Isn't BA the ticker symbol for Boeing?

Yup.

Quoting sv11 (Reply 36):
BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

sv11

So change everything but the toilet flush then?
BV
 
User avatar
Ab345
Posts: 1048
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:44 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 12:36 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
That was nearly five years ago. The market conditions have changed. Boeing hasn't cut metal on the -9 or -7, so why not change them if you have information that could lead to a better product?

Five years in airplane development is hardly considered a ..."long" time. And for Boeing to cut metal..design freeze must be achieved. If it were to start redesigning again I don't see them finishing up anytime soon.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 17):
Sunk cost.

If the better decision is to change course, then write-it-off and move on.

And we all know how much Boeing loves to do write-offs and move along..*cough* 787 *cough*   

Quoting tomcat (Reply 34):
I'm making a relation between the initial investment of Airbus and the cost of the delay

I am under the impression that Airbus actual investement on the neo is at reasonable rates for a plane that has sold 4500 units at EIS. It's basically a ceo with sharklets, spaceflex and some aerodynamic cleanups if I m not mistaken. P&W and CFM made most of the investment. The former to get into the narrowbody market again without IAE and the latter to keep the market share from the ceo and NG. I don't know who paid for the pylon though :p

Quoting sv11 (Reply 36):
BA will probably use the A321neo LEAP engine with 5K more thrust, design a new main landing gear for it, a bigger wing to carry more fuel (4000 nautical miles) and extend the fuselage for more seats.

Is that all or did you forget anything ? With a couple of changes more you d probably have a brand new plane. Joking aside Boeing can "look" all they want on what to do with the MAX9 but truth is market has spoken and they should accept it. MoM it is and let's all move on. Airbus tried to make the A346 as good as they could but no matter what they tried the 77W mopped the floor with it.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:27 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 13):
Boeing hasn't cut metal on the -9 or -7, so why not change them if you have information that could lead to a better product?


MAX 9 stands at 223 orders

321NEO stands at 1108

That is 7 planes short of a 5 to 1 ratio.... 5 A321NEOS for every 1 MAX 9 sold.

I can see Boeing hoping they can tweak their design and see a few cancellations of those 885 sales that Airbus has in excess. Or to win a better share of future sales campaigns.

Note:
The article has now been edited to suggest the MAX 9, as it's scoped, will still be built for the 223 standing orders, but that what Boeing is really considering is a MAX 9.5 or 10.
(the MADMAX) . So it doesn't appear that this will disrupt the timeline for the existing MAX 9.

This is a little different than their plan for the MAX 7.5.. which would replace the MAX 7 outright and the existing 60 sales will either be cancelled or converted.

Quoting kaneporta1 (Reply 32):
because of the -8 having similar operating costs and performance while offering more revenue opportunities. How would a -7 stretch, an aircraft even closer to the -8 in terms of size, rectify this???

We covered that one pretty good in this MAX 7.5 thread:
Boeing Talks With UA & WN Over New 737 Model (by LAXintl Apr 21 2016 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2016-05-02 18:29:38]
learning never stops.
 
EnviroTO
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:11 pm

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:49 am

Maybe stretch the 737-9 to about 153ft, maybe 155ft. To deal with the possibility of tail strikes the rear landing gear further back but if the landing gear wasn't lengthened the engines might need to be high mounted, maybe with a third engine for additional power, or the landing gear could be made longer to prevent tailstrikes and keep the engine off the ground. If they extend the landing gear at the front they will need to figure out a way to fit it in, maybe a new forward fuselage and nose. Either way, you might not recognize the 737-9 with a stretch, or then again maybe you would.

[Edited 2016-05-02 18:52:14]
 
UA444
Posts: 2980
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
es, the A319NEO is 'wrong too.'. If Boeing upsizes, Airbus will have to look into options including just cancelling the A319NEO. With the A320NEO shortfield kit, there is no need for the shorty. At least not after a thrust bump.

The 319NEO has already been built. Too late to cancel it.
 
User avatar
GE9X
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:13 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 1:56 am

As many have noted I don't see how it's possible to further extend the -900ER / MAX 9 fuselage without raising the landing gear and thus affecting wing design, which will be a very costly thing to do. And that's not to mention performance, considering the -900ER already has the longest take off run of any narrowbody and is terrible at hot & high. I'll be very interested to see what clever solutions they come up with. Magnetic levitation to do away with the landing gear altogether?   
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7201
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:12 am

So if Boeing is going to further stretch the MAX9, will it have a taller MLG and larger wing? If not, they made a heavy airframe even more of a pig against the A321.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
sv11
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

Boeing Confirms Review Of Larger -7Max And -9Max - Pt. 1

Tue May 03, 2016 2:17 am

Well a new plane might cost $10bil. Boeing doesn't have the appetite to build one, the airlines are not willing to pay a premium compared to cheap 737-Max,A320neo. So a minimum change would be to extend 737-9 fuselage a few inches, maybe put in a few auxiliary tanks (no change in wing). Putting the LEAP-1A engines would need another 8 inches ground clearance on the main landing gear, maybe Boeing will do a foldable landing gear that would go into the current bay (kind of like the foldable wingtip being worked on 777X).

sv11

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