In order to fend off the CS300 aircraft, Boeing will add two more seating rows to the 737 MAX-7. More range capabilities will be added too.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 8292094977
https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/sta ... 4143213569

KarelXWB wrote:

In order to fend off the CS300 aircraft

For what it's worth, Boeing's 'cheif salesman' says it isn't about the C Series:

“It’s not so much about responding competitors out there. It’s much more about responding to our customer needs,” says John Wojick, Boeing’s chief salesman. “I don’t know that it dramatically changes the sales” outlook for the 737-7 variant.

Yet VP Marketing says:

Boeing vice-president of marketing Randy Tinseth notes the stretch of the 737-7 follows the example of the larger 737-800, which entered service in the late-1990s. The 737-800 represented a stretch of two seat rows over the 737-400.

The new pairing of the 138-seat 737-7 and the 160-seat 737-8 now “brackets our competition quite well and I like that part”.

So I guess you can pick your favorite spin.

It seems he's quoting the two class numbers, WN would probably be at 148 for the -7 and 189 for the -8.

Ref: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... gn-427190/

Why bother. The 737-8 is still the sweet spot and anything smaller won't be that efficient anyway. I think that customers will continue to order the 737-8 as the range and performance is good enough for almost everything they would need and can hold much more. It sounds like they they are doing it just because WN wants it. Is that the end of the 737-7.5 then?

Does this give the 7MAX the rumored TATL range? If so, I can see West jet (for sure), and even UA and AA tacking on some orders.

767333ER wrote:

Is that the end of the 737-7.5 then?

I thought this was the 737-7.5.

It's the end of the originally planned 737-7.

All these 737 MAX variants are very confusing.

adamblang wrote:

All these 737 MAX variants are very confusing.

Not that confusing. 737-7 (which was increased by 2 rows today); 737-8 / 737 MAX 200; and 737-9.

jbs2886 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

All these 737 MAX variants are very confusing.

Not that confusing. 737-7 (which was increased by 2 rows today); 737-8 / 737 MAX 200; and 737-9.

So is the MAX 7.5 a thing?

adamblang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

All these 737 MAX variants are very confusing.

Not that confusing. 737-7 (which was increased by 2 rows today); 737-8 / 737 MAX 200; and 737-9.

So is the MAX 7.5 a thing?

That's what this thread is about. This was the "7.5" but is the -7 (the "old" -7 is gone).

767333ER wrote:

It sounds like they they are doing it just because WN wants it

Pretty much. WN and WS are the only ones with orders.

WN has 490 of the 737-700s and are adding 40 more used frames according to ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#Fleet ). They also have 30 737-7MAX on order and presumably they still feel the size suits them well otherwise it seems logical that Boeing would just cancel the -7, since them and Westjet (with 25 orders) who have ordered the model.

adamblang wrote:

So is the MAX 7.5 a thing?

MAX-7.5 was never an official label. It was the shorthand used in A.net threads to denote the lengthened MAX-7 when the rumors about it started to emerge. As of today, the official specs of the MAX-7 have been changed to that larger size. The first MAX-7 has not been built yet, and we have just learned that it will be larger when it is built. That's all. We can probably stop using the MAX-7.5 label now.
(Of course, I'm suddenly tempted to start calling the original, now-abandoned design the MAX-6.5 now...)

767333ER wrote:

Why bother. The 737-8 is still the sweet spot and anything smaller won't be that efficient anyway. I think that customers will continue to order the 737-8 as the range and performance is good enough for almost everything they would need and can hold much more. It sounds like they they are doing it just because WN wants it. Is that the end of the 737-7.5 then?

How do flight attendant numbers compare? Will the -7 need one less? Obviously WN and WS think theres a way to make $ with the plane, even though they will be orphans. If Boeing says this is a response to existing customers, the idea is that over the long term by having more parts commonality with the far more common -8 it will make operations with such a rare subtype easier. Plus it probably saves Boeing some $ on production costs. If its a straight shrink it'll be like the 777-8 - a low development cost niche airplane for a small set of customers with specific needs.

There is no MAX 7.5. They just changed the original -7 to make it slightly longer. All -7's will be that big.

Very happy to hear the MAX-7 has increased capability . Its really the only optimised 150pax airliner available now. It will allow these greater passenger counts while maintaining 32"-33" of pitch

An airline like WN can now deploy 150pax planes with 3 flight attendants or 175pax planes with 4 flight attendants, with the same level of comfort, to better match the route requirements.

Good way to max the potential of the bottom end of the 737. Wonder if we will see increased capability at the top end of the 737 to help it better compete in the shortterm.

Shortterm stopgaps like these are probably needed at the moment. However, Hopefully, they are also ready to move on to the 797x NSA/MOM combo for longterm replacement of this fine plane before the mid 2020s.

gregn21 wrote:

There is no MAX 7.5. They just changed the original -7 to make it slightly longer. All -7's will be that big.

Well, spotting at KDAL will be a little more interesting in the futire with all these different 737 models
coming and going

So when is the first 737-7.5 test frame suppose to roll out?

ODwyerPW wrote:

Very happy to hear the MAX-7 has increased capability . Its really the only optimised 150pax airliner available now.

Nope. A320neo also is.
And, to certain degree, CS300.

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Nope. A320neo also is.
And, to certain degree, CS300.

An A320neo is single class is 162. So either you add the flight attendant that the MAX7 doesn't need, or you remove 12 seats and fly around more steel than you need for 150pax.

I'm not saying the A320neo is not a tough competitor (it's a fantastic plane.. this fact is undisputed.)... I'm only saying that it's not as perfectly optimized for 150pax single class, 3 flight attendent operations the way the MAX7 will be. That's all.

It should also have very good range, as well as hot/high and shortfield performance. If you can't fill all the seats on a route or you need the additional performance, it will be a better fit than the MAX8.

I'll be honest, I haven't educated myself on the CS300 much. I only know it has a capacity equivalent to that of the present 73G planes at decent pitch (not high density).

This is good news. For single class and 2-class (with a cramped Y), this is good 3 F/A economics.

So now the Max-6.5 T threads...

Seriously, the -7 requires more revenue generation than the -6.5 proposed vs. the CS300 (certified today). With the new A320NEO shortfield kit, the A319NEO is done.

Lightsaber

Are WN systems upgraded enough to be able to handle 143 seat -700's and 150 seat (upgrade spec) Max 7's?

IIRC while they were changing the configuration of the 700's to the current 143 count, for the longest time they were selling seats based on the old seat count? Will they now keep selling at 143 even as the first 150 seat Max 7 (upgraded spec) start arriving within 18 months?

One thing none of the announcements have mentioned, is whether or not this new 7MAX is a shrink of the 8MAX or just a growth of the original 7MAX (MAX6.5?)?

The earlier discussions regarding a 7.5MAX clearly mentioned it would be based off of the 8MAX (therefore a shrink). I imagine we are seeing that idea manifested here.

On the FBShow Boeing Order thread, I read that the weight penalty by using more 8MAX derived parts for wing and wingroot will be significant. Anyone have any data on what the weight difference was for the 73GNG and 738NG wing and wingroot structures?

This isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. This is still a specialty niche model for airlines wanting extreme field performance, a specific capacity for crew cost purposes, or better narrowbody range. Southwest wants this aircraft for the first two reasons. For most operators, the -8 will be better optimized.

But in that limited context it's a win-win. Boeing wins because this model is more closely based on the -8 and they don't have to MAX-ize all of the specific -700 bits, reducing engineering and production cost. Southwest wins because they get enough additional seats to offset the little bit of additional weight, and they still get their phenomenal field performance.

There have been reports of stretching the Max 9. Realistically, could that airframe be stretched without a redesign of the wing?

ODwyerPW wrote:

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Nope. A320neo also is.
And, to certain degree, CS300.

An A320neo is single class is 162. So either you add the flight attendant that the MAX7 doesn't need, or you remove 12 seats and fly around more steel than you need for 150pax.

I'm not saying the A320neo is not a tough competitor (it's a fantastic plane.. this fact is undisputed.)... I'm only saying that it's not as perfectly optimized for 150pax single class, 3 flight attendent operations the way the MAX7 will be. That's all.

The 737-700 has a maximum capacity of 149 (WN's config seats 143). If this is a two-row stretch, then that brings the capacity to 161.

[/quote]

coronado wrote:

Are WN systems upgraded enough to be able to handle 143 seat -700's and 150 seat (upgrade spec) Max 7's?

IIRC while they were changing the configuration of the 700's to the current 143 count, for the longest time they were selling seats based on the old seat count? Will they now keep selling at 143 even as the first 150 seat Max 7 (upgraded spec) start arriving within 18 months?

I'm not sure how WN's systems work, but I could see it having a problem due to only seeing an airplane type, a -700, and therefore having no way to distinguish how many seats it had. I assume the MAX 7 will be in as a different airplane type, and not just a -700, so the system will know it has a different number of seats.

ODwyerPW wrote:

One thing none of the announcements have mentioned, is whether or not this new 7MAX is a shrink of the 8MAX or just a growth of the original 7MAX (MAX6.5?)?

All previous articles have said this was going to be a shrink of the -8MAX. One of the operational ad cost challenges of the -700 is its specialized parts that are not shared with the -800. My guess is the weight savings from lighter individual parts apparently doesn't offset their extra cost. Also, it sounds like airlines want this airplane for its performance. Stretching a -700 would've hurt its performance, whereas shrinking the -800 helps turn it into a hot rod.

seabosdca wrote:

This isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things. This is still a specialty niche model for airlines wanting extreme field performance, a specific capacity for crew cost purposes, or better narrowbody range. Southwest wants this aircraft for the first two reasons. For most operators, the -8 will be better optimized.

But in that limited context it's a win-win. Boeing wins because this model is more closely based on the -8 and they don't have to MAX-ize all of the specific -700 bits, reducing engineering and production cost. Southwest wins because they get enough additional seats to offset the little bit of additional weight, and they still get their phenomenal field performance.

While I absolutely think this airplane is a niche model, I think the market may be a bit more than just WN and WS. UA, AA, and DL all have hot high and short field ops (with each having at least one hub in a hot high western city) both in the states and in Latam where they may find the extra performance helpful, especially if their seating configurations will allow one fewer flight attendant. The same would go for some Latam operators, where -700s are not uncommon. Looking at the list of -700 operators, I also see a sizeable number in China, but I'm not sure how much of that is based on performance needs.

Although not a huge market, the bizliner market is also not small and its one Boeing has done very well in, having sold over 160 planes, with many of those likely being far higher transaction prices than airline sales. bizjet owners won't care as much about oew and associated cost increases, but they do care about range, cabin space, and runway performance so as to be able to access closer in airports. One nice trait about the BBJ1 is its incredible jackrabbit takeoff runs that (based on runway length) allow it operate out of many of the same airports that Globals and Big Gulfstreams do. The BBJ Max 8 will likely suffer in takeoff run vs the -700, something that could hurt sales among current operators, despite its more spacious cabin. For current BBJ1 customers, the -7 offers BBJ1 performance wth a bigger cabin (albeit smaller than the -8). The BBJ Max 8 also didn't provide a range increase over the BBJ1, and bizjet max ranges are growing at Gulfstream and Global. If they can push the BBJ to at least 6500nm, if not close to 7k, it will help keep it competitive against the G650, G650ER, and Global 7k/8k.

Great I guess.  Most airline will stick with the 738.  I guess with two extra rows of seats the 737 will now be right sized.  I would suggest that Boeing just add the two rows of seats and call it the 737-7 Max and forget about the old configuration.

Beatyair wrote:

I would suggest that Boeing just add the two rows of seats and call it the 737-7 Max and forget about the old configuration.

That is exactly what they are doing.

[quote="hOMSaRThe 737-700 has a maximum capacity of 149 (WN's config seats 143). If this is a two-row stretch, then that brings the capacity to 161.[/quote]

True, but that's not at a seat pitch that the likes of WN or WestJet want to use. These carriers do not use HIGH Density configurations, but rather single class configurations with reasonable seat pitches. The 143 at WN is possible because they used slimline seating with Evolve interior redo and reduced pitch to 31". However, with the 7MAX, WN will do what few carriers do, that is to make the seating/pitch a bit more tolerable. Employing the 7MAX at 148/150 pax, Boeing will improve comfort to 738/8MAX levels (which at 175 are not the max of 189/198 either).

It really sounds like they did just because WN wanted it. I don't see more orders coming specifically because of this.

The many variants of the 737 reminds me of the DC-8. A lot of different variants of that plane too!

I think this model was built with Southwest Airlines and possibly RyanAir in mind. And for a niche model, it could result in a production run of 250+ planes if WN wants it as a true 737-700 (73G) replacement.

RayChuang wrote:

I think this model was built with Southwest Airlines and possibly RyanAir in mind. And for a niche model, it could result in a production run of 250+ planes if WN wants it as a true 737-700 (73G) replacement.

I agree WN drove the the changes. I doubt RyanAir had much input as they seem ready to up-gauge from the 738.


That this does is allow Boeing a far more attractive plane for the big network airlines: AA, DL, and UA will all look at the new -7. IAG is looking... The new -7 is a much better fit than the old one. Sigh, I cannot help but think of this MAX as the -7.5 and the old as the -7. For when I type -6.5, I am reminded of all the features changing that make the new -7 MAX not so analogous to the old 73G....

Lightsaber

I think in effect, given that Boeing has yet to build the 737 MAX 7 in the first place, this is now the "official" 737 MAX 7 design.

gregn21 wrote:

There is no MAX 7.5. They just changed the original -7 to make it slightly longer. All -7's will be that big.

Actually the new -7 will be an -8--
The -700 model base ( with all its bespoke parts ) is discontinued.

A submodel of the MAX8 will be introduced that will have slightly shortened fore and aft fuselage segments.

Next step will be to discontinue the -9

[

tjh8402 wrote:

I'm not sure how WN's systems work, but I could see it having a problem due to only seeing an airplane type, a -700, and therefore having no way to distinguish how many seats it had. I assume the MAX 7 will be in as a different airplane type, and not just a -700, so the system will know it has a different number of seats.

By the time the aircraft is built , WN's new reservation system will be online. The finishing touches are being done and should be launched sometime next year. I assume the ability to support different aircraft types while be built in.

The new MAX 7 range is 3,915 nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4333355008

More details

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 2950239232

KarelXWB wrote:

The new MAX 7 range is 3,915 nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4333355008

It's a pretty effective slide, emphasizing the A321 numbers need three tanks to be achieved, whereas in practice airlines rarely carry more than two.

Of course I have no idea if any 'dirty tricks' were played to make the Boeing product look better than the Airbus.

It'll be interesting if JL and team come back with a retort.

Wow, if it can do 3,900 miles, then those UA 757 routes from EWR to the UK and Ireland could be handled by the 737 MAX7.

Currently the WN computer system can book seats on a 137 seat -300 as well as a 143 seat -300 so I don't think it will be an issue booking seats on a 143 seat -700 or a 150 seat -7 MAX.

KarelXWB wrote:

The new MAX 7 range is 3,915 nm.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4333355008

If this slide is correct, all airlines are stupid when they buy the A321NEO. Although there might be a few stupid airlines, I just don't believe they are all stupid, so the numbers have some questionable assumptions built in.

Revelation wrote:

Of course I have no idea if any 'dirty tricks' were played to make the Boeing product look better than the Airbus.

Yeah... because the market are buying more of the inferior aircraft and paying a higher price to do so.

Amazing that they don't look at Boeing's slides before getting out the cheque book!!

Revelation wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

The new MAX 7 range is 3,915 nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4333355008

It's a pretty effective slide, emphasizing the A321 numbers need three tanks to be achieved, whereas in practice airlines rarely carry more than two.

Of course I have no idea if any 'dirty tricks' were played to make the Boeing product look better than the Airbus.

Three auxillary tanks in each 737 MAX variant vs. no tanks in A32xneo. Easy to figure out. Anything to fudge numbers in own product's favor.

KarelXWB wrote:

The new MAX 7 range is 3,915 nm.


https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 4333355008

Oh... near-TATL range! We have a new set of markets to open up. We could see WN, FR, and others go TATL. For FR a minor MTOW boost is required, but that is all.

A much larger potential market thanks to reduced 'bespoke' parts, 3 F/a, and range.

Both WN and FR could be very flexible in how they used the planes... Short hops until the long haul. TATL (DUB!), To South America (WN).QR could expand in Europe....

Why I considered the -7.5 a done deal.

Lightsaber

BlueSky1976 wrote:

Three auxillary tanks in each 737 MAX variant vs. no tanks in A32xneo. Easy to figure out. Anything to fudge numbers in own product's favor.

According to the slide only the 737-9 has any aux tanks (one to be exact).

It should be noted though, that the numbers for the 737 are after a "Improved Performance Level" that will be available in ~2021.

N62NA wrote:

Wow, if it can do 3,900 miles, then those UA 757 routes from EWR to the UK and Ireland could be handled by the 737 MAX7.

Every 757 could be operated by thus -7.

Frequency...
Much lower cost per flight...
New destinations...

The -7Max and A321LR will kill off 757 long haul by 2025.

This is a game changer.

Lightsaber

N62NA wrote:

The many variants of the 737 reminds me of the DC-8. A lot of different variants of that plane too!

But only 3 fuselage lengths and passenger capacities. The -10 through -50 all had the same fuselage, as did the -61 and -63 which were stretched 37 feet. The long-range -62 was 7 feet longer than the early models.

N62NA wrote:

Wow, if it can do 3,900 miles, then those UA 757 routes from EWR to the UK and Ireland could be handled by the 737 MAX7.

Perhaps we'll see WN to Europe in the future!

lightsaber wrote:

Every 757 could be operated by thus -7.

Frequency...
Much lower cost per flight...
New destinations...

The -7Max and A321LR will kill off 757 long haul by 2025.

This is a game changer.

Lightsaber

All those wonderful things but less passengers, right? Unless you go all Y in which case a full service carrier will not offer any premium seating. If you add some Y+ and J seats you would be looking at 80 seats per flight, or something like that.

I would not get too excited about that graphic. It compares as 2021 spec. 737MAX to today's A32X NEO with LEAP engines.