Newbiepilot wrote:

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.

Read your post again. You said

the 737-800, which when equipped with the short field performance package has better runway performance than either the A320

which is incorrect. You weren't specific and you didn't limit the context to 'short field'.

And yes, 62t for the A320 out of Santos Dumont vs 59t for the 738sfp on standard day*. Though, I think the 737sfp for GOL was more about reducing approach speeds and landing distance.

(*Not taking into consideration any limitations that may be posed by width/length/weight/ARFF etc)

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737-900ER can take a full passenger load from a 7,000ft runway for a 1 hour flight.

Maybe it is the definition of "full" that is different? "Full" generally means all Y @ aircraft exit limit in Europe. Remember there is usually the same seats at the same pitch in European business class as in Y class. A MTOW problem with the 737-9/-10? To little thrust for the 737-9/-10 to have good runaway performance when "full"?

Chaostheory wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Chaostheory wrote:

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.

Read your post again. You said

the 737-800, which when equipped with the short field performance package has better runway performance than either the A320

which is incorrect. You weren't specific and you didn't limit the context to 'short field'.

And yes, 62t for the A320 out of Santos Dumont vs 59t for the 738sfp on standard day*. Though, I think the 737sfp for GOL was more about reducing approach speeds and landing distance.

(*Not taking into consideration any limitations that may be posed by width/length/weight/ARFF etc)

I admit my post was wrong regarding the A320neo vs 737-800. Don't listen to pilot rumors without looking up the numbers.

You should be comparing payload, not MTOW. The 737-800 has better payload range than the A320, it's nearly 3,300pounds lighter OEW and burns less gas.

The 737-800 carries less and burns more but has larger fueltanks, so better payload-range.

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.nl/2011/ ... n.html?m=1

Varsity1 wrote:

You should be comparing payload, not MTOW. The 737-800 has better payload range than the A320, it's nearly 3,300pounds lighter OEW and burns less gas.

Well duhhhhhhhhhhh!

Payload is dependant on take off weight available. In the examples I gave above where aircraft are TOW limited due to performance, even with the 737's small weight advantage, the A320 could potentially carry 30+ more pax out of Gassim (38c is pussycat temperature for that field, 45c+ in June/July). On the fuel burn front, there is a whisker's difference between the two types and it's not worth arguing the toss over.

keesje wrote:

The 737-800 carries less and burns more but has larger fueltanks, so better payload-range.

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.nl/2011/ ... n.html?m=1

Well one errant comment by me and we are now talking 737-800 vs A320. I don't know what you mean by the 737-800 carries less and burns more. The 737-800 carries between 6 and 16 more seats than the A320 depending on airline configuration.

Regarding weight, there is no easy comparison because the difference in OEW between two different 737-800s can be 2,000lbs. There is overlap between the A320 and 737-800, but the 737-800 carries more seats and has a longer fuselage.

If you read the comments from the blogpost, you can see that the conclusion from that post is rather questionable from aeroturbopower doing a crude ACAP comparison. In fact there is a comment from a pilot who has flown both the A320 and 737-800 who says theA320 is 500kg heavier and burns more fuel, so there is no clear answer on which plane burns more fuel. I think the answer is that it depends.

Getting back to the 737-10, I believe that the goal for Boeing is to have lower fuel burn and lower trip costs than the A321neo. The airplane may sacrifice performance and may not match the A321LR range. The average 737NG flight is about 1000 miles, so top end performance may not matter to many airlines. They may be eager to get an airplane that burns less fuel and has lower trip costs and may sacrifice top end range and runway performance.

Newbiepilot wrote:

They may be eager to get an airplane that burns less fuel and has lower trip costs and may sacrifice top end range and runway performance.

Don't they already have one that fits that bill in the MAX9? Surely that has at least the lower trip cost.

KarelXWB wrote:

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.

Over 200 either in service or on order between these two carriers alone isn't exactly small potatoes, though.

Chaostheory wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

You should be comparing payload, not MTOW. The 737-800 has better payload range than the A320, it's nearly 3,300pounds lighter OEW and burns less gas.

Well duhhhhhhhhhhh!

Payload is dependant on take off weight available. In the examples I gave above where aircraft are TOW limited due to performance, even with the 737's small weight advantage, the A320 could potentially carry 30+ more pax out of Gassim (38c is pussycat temperature for that field, 45c+ in June/July). On the fuel burn front, there is a whisker's difference between the two types and it's not worth arguing the toss over.

Gassim? Why not compare Nome Alaska while were at it? Are there any more anecdotal extremes you would like to pull into this stupid nonsense?

Varsity1 wrote:

Gassim? Why not compare Nome Alaska while were at it? Are there any more anecdotal extremes you would like to pull into this stupid nonsense?

The airport was in my mind:

- I'm heading out there next week

- I'm aware of the performance limitation of the field.

If a foreign sounding airport is too much for you, just imaging I'm referring to Phoenix or Albuquerque.

I'm all ears if you've got something constructive to add along the lines of real-world ops experience. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

Chaostheory wrote:

I'm all ears if you've got something constructive to add along the lines of real-world ops experience. Otherwise stop wasting my time.

Dude, I appreciate your contributions. Seriously, I do. They add value to the discussion. But one small request.... Could you just play nicer? Seriously. I mean this in the most constructive way possible. There are probably just a handful of folks who are paid to participate on this forum. The rest of us do it for the love of aviation and a good discussion. You're a bit rougher to those who don't share your opinion than is necessary.

KarelXWB wrote:

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.

......and if we go back ten years the A321 had a very small customer base. Things change!

Id suggest Boeing want to develop the 737-10 as part of their narrow body strategy to take them up to 2030.



,

According to CFM, sfc of the CFM56-7B is ~4% higher then a CFM56-5B. The BPR is a big contributor. But the MAX will improve here, the LEAP of the MAX will have a fan almost an inch larger than the CFM56-5B!

Boeing really has nothing to lose with the max-10. If it scavenges -9 sales, so be it...and not really a huge loss. The -9 is pretty much a stretch of the -8 so they it wasn't a huge investment...and the sales it has now will probably pay for the model.

The -10 has a much greater chance of additional sales than staying just with the -9. I don't think the -10 is as finally configured as we might think. I believe that they are working very hard at making the -10 a very capable aircraft. They know as even better than we do that what the -10 really needs is taller gear and bigger engines.

Maybe some trailing link magic can do something about the rotation angle, but it still needs more power if it's going to have much of a chance to be successful.

I wonder how much more GE can squeeze out of the Leaps.

travelhound wrote:

......and if we go back ten years the A321 had a very small customer base. Things change!

How small is 'very small'? How many A321 operators were there in 2007?

keesje wrote:

According to CFM, sfc of the CFM56-7B is ~4% higher then a CFM56-5B. The BPR is a big contributor. But the MAX will improve here, the LEAP of the MAX will have a fan almost an inch larger than the CFM56-5B!

Do you have a source to backup those numbers?

MrHMSH wrote:

travelhound wrote:

......and if we go back ten years the A321 had a very small customer base. Things change!

How small is 'very small'? How many A321 operators were there in 2007?

As per Wiki:

A321 - 422 deliveries 1994 - 2007 (14 years).
A321 - 1056 deliveries 2008 - 2017 (10 years).

As per Boeing:

737-900 - 86 deliveries 2001- 2005 (4 years).
737-900ER - 426 deliveries 2007 - 2017 (11 years).

If the 737-10 can follow the same A321 sales trajectory, it is quite possible the model can be successful in its own right.

If we look at the 737 market there should be quite a few existing operators who can use the type.

For airlines like QANTAS this model (with improved runway performance) could be used as the mainstay aircraft for its Golden Triangle Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane route network. We can argue that the A321NEO is a better aircraft, but in reality if field performance is improved the 737-10 should be just as economical to fly as the A321NEO. For an Island market like Australia the added range of the A321 will not be required (unless you want to fly into the sea). The US, South America and Africa all have similar core market route profiles.

travelhound wrote:

As per Wiki:

A321 - 422 deliveries 1994 - 2007 (14 years).
A321 - 1056 deliveries 2008 - 2017 (10 years).

As per Boeing:

737-900 - 86 deliveries 2001- 2005 (4 years).
737-900ER - 426 deliveries 2007 - 2017 (11 years).

I'm guessing the number of operators is hard to find, but when talking about 'customer base', sales numbers don't tell us everything. I'd wager that the A321's customer base will be wider at all points along its timeline compared to the -900/-900ER. After all, I make it 270 -900ERs at just 3 airlines, AS, DL, UA. Over half of all -900s and -ERs.

If the 737-10 can follow the same A321 sales trajectory, it is quite possible the model can be successful in its own right.

If it follows the sales trajectory, then yes, it'll be successful. But there's no indication at all that this will be the case. The A321 picked up because its performance was improved. Getting that improvement on the MAX10 will be very hard, because the plane is close to its limits.

If we look at the 737 market there should be quite a few existing operators who can use the type.

Sure. But then there should be plenty of existing operators who could use the MAX 9... they haven't chosen it en masse.

[/quote]For airlines like QANTAS this model (with improved runway performance) could be used as the mainstay aircraft for its Golden Triangle Melbourne-Sydney-Brisbane route network. We can argue that the A321NEO is a better aircraft, but in reality if field performance is improved the 737-10 should be just as economical to fly as the A321NEO. For an Island market like Australia the added range of the A321 will not be required (unless you want to fly into the sea). The US, South America and Africa all have similar core market route profiles.[/quote]

There are airlines that could use it on some routes with good results. But on the other hand, performance increase will come with a penalty somewhere else, whether it's commonality or efficiency. And as above, if the range/performance isn't so much of an issue for airlines, why haven't they ordered the -900ER/MAX9 already? It's all very well saying that airlines don't need the range/flexibility, but that's not what I see in the real world. In the real world the flexibility is one factor that's made the A321 a success over the -900ER, and the -900ER's siblings over it as well.

Relevant to your specific example: QF could easily pick either, as they have both in-house. But the A321neo can do literally everything the MAX9 or MAX10 can do, at virtually the same cost, but can also offer missions that the others cannot (SE Asia). So unless priced very competitively, the A321 has a big advantage.

I'd suggest the additional capacity of the 737-900ER is not big enough to justify the disruption associated with bringing the aircraft into airlines fleets. We also have to consider the core attributes of the market. Only five years ago the airlines had the 737-700 and A319 in their fleets. Today they are being phased out. As such the market is evolving to larger aircraft.

I am not too sure where the penalty you talk about is coming from. If it is field performance, than fair enough, but as we know Boeing are working on a revised landing gear to (try and) rectify this problem.

travelhound wrote:

I'd suggest the additional capacity of the 737-900ER is not big enough to justify the disruption associated with bringing the aircraft into airlines fleets. We also have to consider the core attributes of the market. Only five years ago the airlines had the 737-700 and A319 in their fleets. Today they are being phased out. As such the market is evolving to larger aircraft.

Maybe not, but then I don't think that's the reason, I think it's the performance more than the size.

I am not too sure where the penalty you talk about is coming from. If it is field performance, than fair enough, but as we know Boeing are working on a revised landing gear to (try and) rectify this problem.

If Boeing makes a change to make the field performance better, a compromise has to be made somewhere else. Longer lander gear for example means commonality goes down and weight goes up, narrowing its weight advantage. Maybe they can find a way around it, but it's unlikely, as making no change would result in worse performance than the MAX9, and that's no good if the performance is already what holds the 9 back.

travelhound wrote:

......and if we go back ten years the A321 had a very small customer base. Things change!

The A321neo gathered some 70 customers, versus 14 on the 737 MAX 9. So we are seeing that the A321neo follows the A321ceo sales pattern, and the MAX 9 seem to be repeating the -900ER.

That doesn't look like things are changing.

There is a reason why Boeing is looking at the MAX 10 stretch.

MrHMSH wrote:

I'm guessing the number of operators is hard to find, but when talking about 'customer base', sales numbers don't tell us everything. I'd wager that the A321's customer base will be wider at all points along its timeline compared to the -900/-900ER. After all, I make it 270 -900ERs at just 3 airlines, AS, DL, UA. Over half of all -900s and -ERs.

The number of operators for the A321 is over 100 and for the 737-900/ER about 20.

John Leahy on the MAX 10:

Leahy hopes Boeing launches the 737-10. (This is likely to happen at the Paris Air Show.)

“I hope they do it,” he said. “I think it’s a very marginal airplane. I’m reminded of the 767-400 and the 757-300. They’ve done all sorts of things with products where they’ve tried to squeeze a few extra seats and gave up range and performance. They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes. I think this would be a good competitive move for them to make.”

https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/05/boein ... says-leahy

'They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes'

What on earth does that mean, is he going senile?

fcogafa wrote:

'They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes'

What on earth does that mean, is he going senile?

He was speaking of the 757-300 and 767-400 that both sold very little. None of them very popular.

“I hope they do it,” he said. “I think it’s a very marginal airplane. I’m reminded of the 767-400 and the 757-300. They’ve done all sorts of things with products where they’ve tried to squeeze a few extra seats and gave up range and performance. They market never accepted any one of those airplanes. I think this would be a good competitive move for them to make.”

But I'm a bit confused about what he says in the last paragraph, is he being ironic?

KarelXWB wrote:

John Leahy on the MAX 10:

Leahy hopes Boeing launches the 737-10. (This is likely to happen at the Paris Air Show.)

“I hope they do it,” he said. “I think it’s a very marginal airplane. I’m reminded of the 767-400 and the 757-300. They’ve done all sorts of things with products where they’ve tried to squeeze a few extra seats and gave up range and performance. They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes. I think this would be a good competitive move for them to make.”

https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/05/boein ... says-leahy

Nothing in the article is that surprising. I am not surprised to see Leeham news (which tends to look favorably at Airbus) posting an article where John Leahy is critical of the 737-10. His job is to sell the A321 and disparage the 737-10 and new MOM plane under consideration. Of course he is going to imply that the 737-10 will be like the 767-400 or 757-300 and have a limited customer base. He wants the to prop up the A321 whereas I expect Boeing will launch with a much bigger order backlog than the 767-400 or 757-300 did to convince the market that the 737-10 is a desirable plane.

fcogafa wrote:

'They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes'

What on earth does that mean, is he going senile?

He probably said: "The market never accepted any of those airplanes".

Newbiepilot wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

John Leahy on the MAX 10:

Leahy hopes Boeing launches the 737-10. (This is likely to happen at the Paris Air Show.)

“I hope they do it,” he said. “I think it’s a very marginal airplane. I’m reminded of the 767-400 and the 757-300. They’ve done all sorts of things with products where they’ve tried to squeeze a few extra seats and gave up range and performance. They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes. I think this would be a good competitive move for them to make.”

https://leehamnews.com/2017/06/05/boein ... says-leahy

Nothing in the article is that surprising. I am not surprised to see Leeham news (which tends to look favorably at Airbus) posting an article where John Leahy is critical of the 737-10. His job is to sell the A321 and disparage the 737-10 and new MOM plane under consideration. Of course he is going to imply that the 737-10 will be like the 767-400 or 757-300 and have a limited customer base. He wants the to prop up the A321 whereas I expect Boeing will launch with a much bigger order backlog than the 767-400 or 757-300 did to convince the market that the 737-10 is a desirable plane.

Airbus said that the 777x was a paper airplane, it's heavy, and that it was a knee jerk reaction to the A35K, until Airbus said that it was studying ways to stretch the A35K in order to compete with the 777x. Same goes for the MOM/NSA that Boeing is doing studies on. It'll never work, yada yada, we have the MOM market with the A321neo, LR etc. Yet, they'll pull out the blueprints of the A322 if it gets any market traction.

My point is that it's a soap opera with these two. They say whatever fits the speakers agenda.

JetBuddy wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

'They market ever accepted any one of those airplanes'

What on earth does that mean, is he going senile?

He was speaking of the 757-300 and 767-400 that both sold very little. None of them very popular.

“I hope they do it,” he said. “I think it’s a very marginal airplane. I’m reminded of the 767-400 and the 757-300. They’ve done all sorts of things with products where they’ve tried to squeeze a few extra seats and gave up range and performance. They market never accepted any one of those airplanes. I think this would be a good competitive move for them to make.”

But I'm a bit confused about what he says in the last paragraph, is he being ironic?

Well he's on to something referecing the 767-400, but he's wrong about the 757-300.

QuarkFly wrote:

Don't do it !! Still won't match the A321 in performance or efficiency, The landing gear sounds kluged. Will not have much compatibility with other 737-MAX versions. Save the bullets for a 200-250 passenger all new aircraft for the 2025 timeframe.

For Airlines that already fly the B737? They would have a choice which might very well cut the A321 out of the picture.
At my airline we fly both the A320 and the B737. I doubt that the A321 could even get a "peek".
I think We're waiting for the MoM to replace the B757. Especially since management already ruled out the A330 series.
I think they're looking for the MoM to be the Trans-con and California to Hawaii work horse to replace the B767-300 &-400.

Boeing is sharing specs (characteristics) of the MAX family now. With right sizing the MAX7 and adding the MAX10, the lineup looks like this around the MAX8

MAX7 length: 116'8" (35.6m)
MAX8 length: 129.8" (39.5m)
MAX10 length: MAX9 length 138'4" (42.2m) + 5'6" Stretch = 143'10"

MAX7 is a 13' shrink of the MAX8 and MAX10 is a 14'2" stretch of the MAX8

MAX9 is an interesting plane. It's a real 200 seater at single class 32/33" pitch (it's 204, but let's yank that one row to fit it at 200), so it's optimized to take advantage of four flight attendants. However, I guess I'm in the minority that find that interesting... Looking forward to seeing how the MAX10 does.

strfyr51 wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

Don't do it !! Still won't match the A321 in performance or efficiency, The landing gear sounds kluged. Will not have much compatibility with other 737-MAX versions. Save the bullets for a 200-250 passenger all new aircraft for the 2025 timeframe.

For Airlines that already fly the B737? They would have a choice which might very well cut the A321 out of the picture.
At my airline we fly both the A320 and the B737. I doubt that the A321 could even get a "peek".
I think We're waiting for the MoM to replace the B757. Especially since management already ruled out the A330 series.
I think they're looking for the MoM to be the Trans-con and California to Hawaii work horse to replace the B767-300 &-400.

You might as well just say United man, you basically have it up haha.

Boeing is lining-up United Airlines, Lion Air, Jet Airways, Copa Airlines and CDB Leasing as launch customers for the 737 MAX 10.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -10-launch

KarelXWB wrote:

Boeing is lining-up United Airlines, Lion Air, Jet Airways, Copa Airlines and CDB Leasing as launch customers for the 737 MAX 10.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -10-launch

Rather surprised to see no Delta as I assume they would be very interested in such a plane for the domestic 757s they will retire next decade.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Rather surprised to see no Delta as I assume they would be very interested in such a plane for the domestic 757s they will retire next decade.

It is a little too early. Delta is expected to launch an RFP for MAX/Neos later this year/early next year.

Another marketing slide has found its way to the internet:


https://twitter.com/airwaysmagazine/sta ... 7782680579

Aibus must really give away those neos to be able to outsell the so much more efficient 737's

The MAX 9 was already so much more efficient than the 321neo that I am surprised Boeing isn't claiming gouging by Airbus. I mean what other reason can there be?

Taking my sarcasm hat off - these slides are lapped up by the uninformed and restated so often that it becomes the accepted answer.

StTim wrote:

Aibus must really give away those neos to be able to outsell the so much more efficient 737's.

Taking my sarcasm hat off - these slides are lapped up by the uninformed and restated so often that it becomes the accepted answer.

One just needs to read the fine print. In this case, it is two classes and stage lengths of 800nm. The 737-7 and 737-8 are larger than the A319neo and A320neo so they can hold more people in two classes (2+2 and 3+3). They are also lighter frames, so on shorter stage lengths they enjoy lower fuel burn. Taken together, that shifts the efficiency towards the 737.

For Airbus, they use single class to narrow the seat count (or increase it in the case of the A321, which is bigger than the 737-9) and choose longer stage lengths where their fuel burn is better than the 737. Taken together, that shifts the efficiency towards the A320.

I know how it works Stitch - I just review these statements (from both sides) with a mixture of amusement and despair!

StTim wrote:

I know how it works Stitch - I just review these statements (from both sides) with a mixture of amusement and despair!

True dat. Using marketing slides to make your point is well, pointless. Feel the spin! John and Randy are well paid to push this crap. Lapping it up like gospel and puking it back on A.net is just kinda sad.

So they are really going to build this10-Max...just as they are testing the 9-Max now, which is only two rows shorter. One or the other is just taking development $$ from a decent midrange 250 seat product.

Yet again, this looks like A running circles around B... just like the original NEO forced B's hand with MAX...new A321-NEO capabilities is forcing B into 10-MAX...Same story.

Well then, at least show us this spiffy 10-Max wheel-rearward landing-gear and how it fits in the aircraft during flight?

QuarkFly wrote:

So they are really going to build this10-Max...just as they are testing the 9-Max now, which is only two rows shorter. One or the other is just taking development $$ from a decent midrange 250 seat product.

Yet again, this looks like A running circles around B... just like the original NEO forced B's hand with MAX...new A321-NEO capabilities is forcing B into 10-MAX...Same story.

And yet they're making great profits and have years worth of production booked. Go figure.

QuarkFly wrote:

Yet again, this looks like A running circles around B... just like the original NEO forced B's hand with MAX...new A321-NEO capabilities is forcing B into 10-MAX...Same story.

The 737 is not as effective a growth platform as the A320 is so until Boeing (and the airlines) are ready for NSA, they have to make the best of it.

Regarding the 10MAX, i could see WN ordering it. Seriously. 200 pax at comfortable 32/33" pitch, 4 bathrooms, 4 flight attendants, long cross country trunk routes. You are talking about 25 (14%) more seats than the 8MAX. There are probably allot of routes where that makes sense.

Look at lengths:
1556 inches total length 8MAX
1718 inches total length 10MAX
That's a 162 inch difference, totally dedicated to cabin space. At 32/33" pitch, that's 5 rows. Now that fourth bathroom doesn't come free, so we will loose 3 seats somewhere, so 4 1/2 rows. 4 1/2 rows gives us 27 seats.. 175+27 = 202. so, we'd either loose two rows to the bathroom for 199 seats, or elect to have 2 rows of 4 seats instead of the 8MAX's 1 row of 4 seats, to reach exactly 200. This gives you the ability to schedule the 10MAX just like the 8 in terms of crewing, providing you aren't flying out of challenging airports (e.g. talking runway performance). Note: My 10MAX seat plan assumptions are based on the 8MAX having the same 175pax seating plan as the 800NG.

WN would then have the following options:
700NG - 143pax slimline, 3 flight attendants
7MAX - 150pax 32/33", 3 flight attendants, longer routes than the 700/800.
800NG - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants.
8MAX - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, longer routes than the 800.
10MAX - 200pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, 4 bathrooms

There was just never a strong enough case to do this with the 9MAX. Anyway, it was a fun exercise.

ODwyerPW wrote:

Regarding the 10MAX, i could see WN ordering it. Seriously. 200 pax at comfortable 32/33" pitch, 4 bathrooms, 4 flight attendants, long cross country trunk routes. You are talking about 25 (14%) more seats than the 8MAX. There are probably allot of routes where that makes sense.

Look at lengths:
1556 inches total length 8MAX
1718 inches total length 10MAX
That's a 162 inch difference, totally dedicated to cabin space. At 32/33" pitch, that's 5 rows. Now that fourth bathroom doesn't come free, so we will loose 3 seats somewhere, so 4 1/2 rows. 4 1/2 rows gives us 27 seats.. 175+27 = 202. so, we'd either loose two rows to the bathroom for 199 seats, or elect to have 2 rows of 4 seats instead of the 8MAX's 1 row of 4 seats, to reach exactly 200. This gives you the ability to schedule the 10MAX just like the 8 in terms of crewing, providing you aren't flying out of challenging airports (e.g. talking runway performance). Note: My 10MAX seat plan assumptions are based on the 8MAX having the same 175pax seating plan as the 800NG.

WN would then have the following options:
700NG - 143pax slimline, 3 flight attendants
7MAX - 150pax 32/33", 3 flight attendants, longer routes than the 700/800.
800NG - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants.
8MAX - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, longer routes than the 800.
10MAX - 200pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, 4 bathrooms

There was just never a strong enough case to do this with the 9MAX. Anyway, it was a fun exercise.

The problem with WN ordering the 737-9 and 737-10 is that two of their hubs are at MDW and HOU. Both airports have shorter than average runway. WN doesn't really do transcons, but they do float their planes around the network which would make it a bit harder for them. UA and DL are able to use the 737-900ER from LGA, so we know it is possible to operate effectively from 7000ft runways, but it may be less desirable.

Newbiepilot wrote:

The problem with WN ordering the 737-9 and 737-10 is that two of their hubs are at MDW and HOU. Both airports have shorter than average runway.

900ER really needs about 7500' to takeoff w/ good pax load and fuel (esp for my transcon scenario). Haven't heard anything about the 9MAX changing that. I can't see the 10MAX improving on that significantly (even with the cantilevered landing gear to improve rotation angle).

So yeah, MDW's 6500' runways are an issue. Of course if you are landing/takingoff at MDW, you aren't really doing transcon, so you can tank less fuel... but again, that probably doesn't improve the takeoff performance much. I thought MDW's runways were 7200'... not sure why I had that stuck in my head..

I'm not so sure they would invest in a subfleet that would basically need to flyover the MDW and HOU hubs. My 10MAX idea is probably a non-starter..

Newbiepilot wrote:

ODwyerPW wrote:

Regarding the 10MAX, i could see WN ordering it. Seriously. 200 pax at comfortable 32/33" pitch, 4 bathrooms, 4 flight attendants, long cross country trunk routes. You are talking about 25 (14%) more seats than the 8MAX. There are probably allot of routes where that makes sense.

Look at lengths:
1556 inches total length 8MAX
1718 inches total length 10MAX
That's a 162 inch difference, totally dedicated to cabin space. At 32/33" pitch, that's 5 rows. Now that fourth bathroom doesn't come free, so we will loose 3 seats somewhere, so 4 1/2 rows. 4 1/2 rows gives us 27 seats.. 175+27 = 202. so, we'd either loose two rows to the bathroom for 199 seats, or elect to have 2 rows of 4 seats instead of the 8MAX's 1 row of 4 seats, to reach exactly 200. This gives you the ability to schedule the 10MAX just like the 8 in terms of crewing, providing you aren't flying out of challenging airports (e.g. talking runway performance). Note: My 10MAX seat plan assumptions are based on the 8MAX having the same 175pax seating plan as the 800NG.

WN would then have the following options:
700NG - 143pax slimline, 3 flight attendants
7MAX - 150pax 32/33", 3 flight attendants, longer routes than the 700/800.
800NG - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants.
8MAX - 175pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, longer routes than the 800.
10MAX - 200pax 32/33", 4 flight attendants, 4 bathrooms

There was just never a strong enough case to do this with the 9MAX. Anyway, it was a fun exercise.

The problem with WN ordering the 737-9 and 737-10 is that two of their hubs are at MDW and HOU. Both airports have shorter than average runway. WN doesn't really do transcons, but they do float their planes around the network which would make it a bit harder for them. UA and DL are able to use the 737-900ER from LGA, so we know it is possible to operate effectively from 7000ft runways, but it may be less desirable.

Hobby has 2 7600 ft runways and a 6000 ft runway, which should be enough to hit most of WNs network from HOU given its midcontinent position.
Midways are shorter with 2 ~6500 ft and a 5500 ft runway but should be fine for milk runs to NYC, BWI, and DAL.

It looks like we can add Ryanair to the list of airlines seriously considering the 737-10

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1942B5?il=0

Ryanair must smell a bargain basement price!