Tomorrow Boeing will roll out the 737-9.

The latest 737 version is a 2.6m stretch over the 737-8 MAX being test flown as we speak.

It will offer superior efficiency compared to it predecessor the 737-900ER.



The 737 has come a long way since the roll out of the 737-100 slightly more then 50 years ago.



Congratualtions to Boeing, Lionair and United!

Leeham on the subject:

Boeing 737-9 roll-out–Nothing Special in the Air

It may be nothing special from a commerrcial standpoint. But as an avgeek i think every roll out and first flight is something to be celebrated!

Since I do not have the knowledge to judge this airplane in any other way than how it looks, I must say that the UNITED image above is the nicest looking 737 I have seen. 737's have never been an aircraft who's aesthetics appealed very much to me, but the MAX is nicer looking (IMHO)

I think it's length helps as does the new cone shaped fuselage tail, I only wish that the nose cone and cockpit windows were tweaked not to look like the original "707-like" and a bit more 787-like (but, I do realize those things do not matter). One question, does the 737-MAX have larger windows that all previous 737's? Does the interior sport the current "sky" ceiling and overhead bins, or is there an even newer design? THANKS FOR POSTING.

VC10er wrote:

Since I do not have the knowledge to judge this airplane in any other way than how it looks, I must say that the UNITED image above is the nicest looking 737 I have seen. 737's have never been an aircraft who's aesthetics appealed very much to me, but the MAX is nicer looking (IMHO)

I think it's length helps as does the new cone shaped fuselage tail, I only wish that the nose cone and cockpit windows were tweaked not to look like the original "707-like" and a bit more 787-like (but, I do realize those things do not matter). One question, does the 737-MAX have larger windows that all previous 737's? Does the interior sport the current "sky" ceiling and overhead bins, or is there an even newer design? THANKS FOR POSTING.

I believe ths MAX will feature the same sky interior that NG's have. Window sizes will remain the same.

KarelXWB wrote:

Leeham on the subject:

Boeing 737-9 roll-out–Nothing Special in the Air

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

smokeybandit wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Leeham on the subject:

Boeing 737-9 roll-out–Nothing Special in the Air

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

Haha, I think he has made it clear he doesn't like the 737-9 or the 737 MAX at all. When Scott Hamilton is pontificating his opinion is often appears rather negative, but it is his blog and he is entitled to share his opinion like anyone else. Regardless of that and KarelXWB posting the same link in three different threads, I think it is exciting to see another airplane rollout.

smokeybandit wrote:

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

He puts a new spin on what NSA means - Nothing Special in the Air

We have had lots of discussions in the past about the landing gear limitation and rotation limiting field performance, he seems to be just saying what most people were already thinking.

zeke wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

He puts a new spin on what NSA means - Nothing Special in the Air

We have had lots of discussions in the past about the landing gear limitation and rotation limiting field performance, he seems to be just saying what most people were already thinking.

Basically he's repeating what people in these forums have been saying for a few months now. The article was overly opinionated and brings no new debate to the table.

Newbiepilot wrote:

Haha, I think he has made it clear he doesn't like the 737-9 or the 737 MAX at all. When Scott Hamilton is pontificating his opinion is often appears rather negative, but it is his blog and he is entitled to share his opinion like anyone else. Regardless of that and KarelXWB posting the same link in three different threads, I think it is exciting to see another airplane rollout.

Whether he likes the plane or not is irrelevant. The article provides some good arguments: with the MAX 200 now available, the MAX 9 doesn't add much additional seats over the MAX 8.

MileHFL400 wrote:

zeke wrote:

smokeybandit wrote:

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

He puts a new spin on what NSA means - Nothing Special in the Air

We have had lots of discussions in the past about the landing gear limitation and rotation limiting field performance, he seems to be just saying what most people were already thinking.

Basically he's repeating what people in these forums have been saying for a few months now. The article was overly opinionated and brings no new debate to the table.

With such commentary, I think that is why so many of us were shocked that Westjet converted 737-8s into 737-9s.

Regardless of Scott's opinion of the 737-9 being nothing special, there are airlines who have purchased the 737-9, who have not purchased the 737-900ER and he did acknowledge that. So far the list of airlines that have acknowledged that they purchased the 737-9 is Air Canada, Alaska, Aeromexico, Copa, Lion, Monarch, Okay Airways, Tui, Turkish, United, and Westjet. The 737-9 isn't the most popular narrowbody and might be replaced or supplemented with a 737-10, but nonetheless, I am happy to see it rollout.

Who cares what a blogger on Leeham thinks. Especially when he offers only opinion and nothing new at that, certainly no facts.
As avgeeks we celebrate all new aircraft on a roll out. Regardless who makes it.

garpd wrote:

Who cares what a blogger on Leeham thinks. Especially when he offers only opinion and nothing new at that, certainly no facts.
As avgeeks we celebrate all new aircraft on a roll out. Regardless who makes it.

Couldn't agree more

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole. They won't be making money on the latest 747 either given airlines wanted large twins.

They need to leapfrog Airbus which is increasing its hold on the narrow body market. Yep it will cost lots of money but they are losing ground big time, suck it up and do the work to build the next narrow body.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole. They won't be making money on the latest 747 either given airlines wanted large twins.

They need to leapfrog Airbus which is increasing its hold on the narrow body market. Yep it will cost lots of money but they are losing ground big time, suck it up and do the work to build the next narrow body.

Right, because Boeing are really struggling with selling the 737 MAX 8 right?

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

An ill informed opinion and nothing more. The MAX is selling fine and has even captured some A320 customers. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your warped opinion!

As for being 50 years old: To its core, perhaps. But aside from resemblance, there is little in common with the MAX with the original 100 series.
I think the flightdeck windows and overall fuselage is about it. The NG is already quite a different beast to the 100 series and the MAX only furthers that difference.

I personally think the MAX is a stop gap measure that allows Boeing to sell aircraft and stop Airbus taking the entire market for itself, all while quietly working on a new design.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole.

Yeah, the 787 was certainly that, nothing new there

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole. They won't be making money on the latest 747 either given airlines wanted large twins.

They need to leapfrog Airbus which is increasing its hold on the narrow body market. Yep it will cost lots of money but they are losing ground big time, suck it up and do the work to build the next narrow body.

And Airbus created that financial monstrosity called the A-380. Late and a complete financial money pit for them. Not knocking the airplane itself because it's great to fly on, but get off your high-horse regarding the 787 being late.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Yes, except for not really no...

The 737 Max actually doesn't have much at all in common with the 737-100.
- The wings are different: much larger, more efficient and optimized for significantly longer average flight length than the originals.
- Flight controls are different: Same basic concepts but the flaps are different (triple slotted to double), slats are different (revised shape and more of them), additional spoilers, the list goes on.
- The engines are different and mounted differently: 737-100/200 had low bypass Pratt & Whitney engines basically mounted right to the bottom of the wing, now they are much newer high bypass CFM engines with the more traditional pylon style mounting.
- The empennage is different: Larger, cleaner aerodynamics, new tail cone shape.
- The gear is different: Noticeably taller for ground clearance and designed for significantly higher weights.
- The cockpit is different: Original cockpits were steam powered, and in many ways a basic copy/paste from the 707/727. New ones are all computers and glass screens.
- The hydraulics and other such systems are different: Lots and lots of re-arrangements, new features, improvements, etc. between generations.
- The interior is different: The standard interiors have been replaced with new designs a couple times over now. Other than standard seating being 3x3 there's not much resemblance left to the typical layouts of the -100/200 series.
- Construction methods are much different: The fuselage looks about the same, but it's manufactured using completely different methods than the original -100s.
- Airlines are clearly not running elsewhere. The 737 Max is still in the roll out and testing phase, and they've already sold more of them than they did 737-100/200s during their entire production run.

About the only thing left is the basic fuselage shape (and even then it's been stretched to the point of carrying double what the original 737s did) and the classic Boeing cockpit windows. I hope those never change, hands down the 707/727/737 has the best looking front end of all the jetliners designed so far.


I personally don't care much for the plain vanilla, standard layout, all look the same design of most modern jetliners, but they are very good airplanes so I wish Boeing and it's customers all the best with their new 737 Max.

Actually the 320 is not all that new in its basic structure.

The thread that needs discussing: How does Boeing recover it's long term strategy?

CanadianNorth wrote:

About the only thing left is the basic fuselage shape (and even then it's been stretched to the point of carrying double what the original 737s did) and the classic Boeing cockpit windows. I hope those never change, hands down the 707/727/737 has the best looking front end of all the jetliners designed so far.

Whole heartedly agree!
When I look at the nose of a 737 as I walk toward it, I see experience, ruggedness, adaptability and character. I see a design that has outlasted many of the engineers that designed and built it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

It's certainly classy but inside it is quite tight and noisy and not really made for todays screen sizes and panel areas needed. It works fine and it's good to keep it but a new designed cockpit would certainly look different. Just take some 787 cockpit.

Noshow wrote:

It's certainly classy but inside it is quite tight and noisy and not really made for todays screen sizes and panel areas needed. It works fine and it's good to keep it but a new designed cockpit would certainly look different. Just take some 787 cockpit.

Of course, a clean sheet design today would look different I suspect the eventual 737 replacement will look like a 787 in narrow body form.

As for the noise, I call several 737 jockeys good friends and they say the latests NGs are much better for that, but a good pair of headphones help too.

Boeing is clearly not ready to launch a. NSA/MOM.This could be for a range of reasons.Sales/Marketing,technological or indeed financial.Probably a combination of all 3.
They decided to 'MAX' the 737 and must stick to their guns now -at least for the next few years.The launch of the '10' tells us exactly that.
Had they 'NSA'd pre mac (they were clearly considering it as they were making presentations to airline customers).I think it is entirely possible they would have gone 'too small'.The success of the A321NEO and now the LR has probably been an invaluable piece of learning which was not very obvious back then.
So yes the 9/10 will be a little meh.But that's fine for now.

I still think it offers additional floor space for an attractive price, and the range of the Max8 is not always needed. That's why United chose it and mybe we'll see a customer here in Europe.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole. They won't be making money on the latest 747 either given airlines wanted large twins.

They need to leapfrog Airbus which is increasing its hold on the narrow body market. Yep it will cost lots of money but they are losing ground big time, suck it up and do the work to build the next narrow body.

"COMING SOON TO AN AIRPORT NEAR YOU. THE 767MAX" Why not, the 737 had several makeovers as did the 747 and 777. 5000+ mile range, 200+ seating and with an open assembly line, the lowest cost option and quickest to EIS.

It's the competitor that is building a substantial number of gliders. But commentators like Scott with a financial interest backing a client never really point out that issue. Will Airbus manage to build 12 NEO per month and deliver them this year? The NEO program has already cost them customers and hence market share. The 9max and 10max will probably help Boeing pull in pending opportunities with solid legacy users like southwest and Ryanair. We will see on Alaska but the Airbus fans claiming the 321NEO that were in final assembly already and too late to cancel are some sort of real threat I think are deluding themselves.

texl1649 wrote:

It's the competitor that is building a substantial number of gliders. But commentators like Scott with a financial interest backing a client never really point out that issue. Will Airbus manage to build 12 NEO per month and deliver them this year? The NEO program has already cost them customers and hence market share. The 9max and 10max will probably help Boeing pull in pending opportunities with solid legacy users like southwest and Ryanair. We will see on Alaska but the Airbus fans claiming the 321NEO that were in final assembly already and too late to cancel are some sort of real threat I think are deluding themselves.

We have to see. Boeing is no longer specifying -800s and -900's in their backlog. So theoretically it could be 1000 737-9's on order or more.

keesje wrote:

We have to see. Boeing is no longer specifying -800s and -900's in their backlog. So theoretically it could be 1000 737-9's on order or more.

If that were the case they wouldn't be talking about a max 10.

Anyway, the fanboyism on this thread is really quite shocking.

Having 40% of the market with a 50 year old design is no bad place to be while waiting for game changing technology. I don't know why people see it as a failure. Launching an NSA now that Airbus could easily and far more cheaply counter with an update would be a failure.

garpd wrote:

Who cares what a blogger on Leeham thinks. Especially when he offers only opinion and nothing new at that, certainly no facts.
As avgeeks we celebrate all new aircraft on a roll out. Regardless who makes it.

Scott Hamilton is a bit more than just a blogger though. He has a lot more (insider) information available than most of us do.

And besides:

'The over-arching reason is that the -900ER only carries a few more passengers than the -800. There isn’t enough revenue-gain for the airplane’s extra cost.

Also: Field performance is poor. The take-off runs are longer than the -800/8 because the fuselage plugs mean the -900ER/9 can’t rotate as much as the smaller aircraft.

Fuel economy and range of the -9 is better than the -900ER. But that’s about it.

And the market has spoken. Airbus sold 1,384 A321neos through January. It also sold 1,736 A321ceos through the lifetime of the program. Against about 325-425 MAX 9s, 495 -900ERs and 54 -900 Standards.'

Are all facts.

texl1649 wrote:

It's the competitor that is building a substantial number of gliders. But commentators like Scott with a financial interest backing a client never really point out that issue. Will Airbus manage to build 12 NEO per month and deliver them this year? The NEO program has already cost them customers and hence market share. The 9max and 10max will probably help Boeing pull in pending opportunities with solid legacy users like southwest and Ryanair. We will see on Alaska but the Airbus fans claiming the 321NEO that were in final assembly already and too late to cancel are some sort of real threat I think are deluding themselves.

Which customers have been lost? It's yet to be seen whether that comes to fruition. The MAX9 may get more customers, but the proximity to the MAX8-200 doesn't help it. FR don't seem like the type to go for a -9 or -10. WN...meh, maybe but who knows. Airbus may have had problems on the NEO, but it's not dire, and also not entirely their fault. After all they don't make the engines.

Overall the MAX9 has its place, but it's a relatively small niche for a narrowbody.

KarelXWB wrote:

Whether he likes the plane or not is irrelevant. The article provides some good arguments: with the MAX 200 now available, the MAX 9 doesn't add much additional seats over the MAX 8.

I'm quite excited to hear how passengers will respond to Ryanair's 197-seat B737 MAX 8-200. Ryanair will probably get away with it because they are Ryanair and people expect a miserable experience. But I think Norwegian, Transavia, Westjet etc will benefit more from a 200-seat B737 MAX 9 for longer flights and between larger destinations, pax will appreciate a bit more space and maybe four lavs.

I am lead FA on 186-189-seat B738s and full flights are tiresome, people and way too much cabin baggage everywhere - I can really understand why passengers get flustered and angry. A 200-seat B737 MAX 9 will offer a few inches more breathing space for everyone.

I think the 900ER/MAX 9 looks great

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

Boeing made mistakes with its 787 program and spent 10 years digging itself out of that hole. They won't be making money on the latest 747 either given airlines wanted large twins.

They need to leapfrog Airbus which is increasing its hold on the narrow body market. Yep it will cost lots of money but they are losing ground big time, suck it up and do the work to build the next narrow body.

Here's the thing: The thread title is Boeing 737 MAX 9 Roll Out. If you want to begin yet another diatribe on the inadequacies of the 737, feel free to do it elsewhere. This thread is about the MAX 9 roll out. I'm not sure what you were expecting people to talk about but maybe we've gotten so used to the 737 being bashed here that it seemed wrong to discuss the roll out without at least kicking it in the groin?

keesje wrote:

Tomorrow Boeing will roll out the 737-9.

The latest 737 version is a 2.6m stretch over the 737-8 MAX being test flown as we speak.

It will offer superior efficiency compared to it predecessor the 737-900ER.

The 737 has come a long way since the roll out of the 737-100 slightly more then 50 years ago.

Congratualtions to Boeing, Lionair and United!

Great photos, thanks for posting!

David

KarelXWB wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Haha, I think he has made it clear he doesn't like the 737-9 or the 737 MAX at all...

Whether he likes the plane or not is irrelevant. The article provides some good arguments: with the MAX 200 now available, the MAX 9 doesn't add much additional seats over the MAX 8.

But the MAX-200 is aimed at single-class operators whereas the 737-900ER is aimed at two-class operators so there is product differentiation between them within the 737 operator market.

smokeybandit wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Leeham on the subject:

Boeing 737-9 roll-out–Nothing Special in the Air

Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but, I don't think he likes it.

I had to roll my eyes at this one, on why UA won't buy the MAX-10... "An airplane with a few more seats adds fleet complexity."

Boeing just released a teasing photo:


https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/sta ... 2517069826

garpd wrote:

CanadianNorth wrote:

About the only thing left is the basic fuselage shape (and even then it's been stretched to the point of carrying double what the original 737s did) and the classic Boeing cockpit windows. I hope those never change, hands down the 707/727/737 has the best looking front end of all the jetliners designed so far.

Whole heartedly agree!
When I look at the nose of a 737 as I walk toward it, I see experience, ruggedness, adaptability and character. I see a design that has outlasted many of the engineers that designed and built it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Well looks are opinion, but it is a broke design by today's standards that certainly needs fixing. I know a guy that once flew the 737 and now is on the 757 and he absolutely loathes the thing and he's obviously biased against it, but he says the 737 is the worst for comfort, the worst for ergonomics, and the worst to jump seat in. Again that guy is very biased, Even many of those that fly it and like it say a better nose would be nice. It hasn't lasted because it is a good design but, because it really isn't, in fact Douglas had it beat badly back on the DC-8 and DC-9, but it has lasted because the accountants won and the pilots and engineers lost. It was fine in the 60s, ok in the 80s, but it's 2017 and that old nose is honestly a joke and they only keep it to be cheap. I don't have a problem with people liking the look of it and I will admit it looks fine to me, but it really is a sad excuse after the 757s far superior nose or that on just about any mainstream plane today. They roll out the "new" cockpit, but really it is the same old noisy, cramped, and outdated design that imo is the biggest issue on the 737 besides the gear and honestly is the primary reason why I don't like the plane.

garpd wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

I'm all for celebrating roll outs but when Boeing keeps dusting off a 50 year old design with a few new trinkets, airlines go elsewhere.

An ill informed opinion and nothing more. The MAX is selling fine and has even captured some A320 customers. But don't let actual facts get in the way of your warped opinion!

Sure they have attracted a couple of A320 customers with their 737 MAX, but if you truly analyze how have, it goes to show that the 737 maybe isn't as attractive as the A320. AC for example seemed quite set on the A320neo and then out of nowhere ordered the 737. Why? An insane deal that involved huge discount and essentially a trade for early build 20 E90s. Not so impressive after all considering they had to grease the deal that much to get them to switch. It's even less impressive when you consider how many more customers have gone the other way even though Airbus is actually charging a premium on the A321neo and likely not making deals as huge as Boeing. I will admit I don't like the 737, but a 60/40 market spilt in favor of the A320 and analysis of some of the deals paints a clear picture to me.

I applaud Boeing for rolling out the newest member in its longest running family.

I also applaud Airbus for forcing Boeing's hand to create a revamped 737 while catching them with their pants down.

IMO, Boeing showed signs of being ready to commit to an NSA. Going from NG to MAX is nowhere near as big of a jump as 300/400/500 to NG. I'm willing to bet that Airbus exploited the weaknesses in design of the NG to launch the neo, therefore making Boeing go with the less risk-adverse option of the MAX instead of neo.

Both OEMs should launch their respective NSAs at the same time as a result of this intermediate step in the advancement of their smallest jets, meaning a much me level playing field. The late 2020s are going to be very interesting.

TWA772LR wrote:

IMO, Boeing showed signs of being ready to commit to an NSA.

They were, but airlines would not wait because fuel prices were skyrocketing so they had to jump to MAX or risk losing most of the market to the neo.

Now that fuel is cheap again, airlines seem more willing to investigate an NSA that addresses all of the 737's weaknesses because the need to get fuel-efficient frames into the fleets ASAP is no longer a critical one so they can "afford" to wait a decade for it now when they could not five years ago.

With a backlog of well over 3,000 737MAX, I don't see much need to launch an entire new small airplane. The 737-8 can hold its own. I think this is why we are hearing about a 737-10 and potential new airplane bigger than that.

The 737-9 is a small player in the overall narrowbody market. Not everyone likes it. Some downright seem to hate it. I am happy to see the 737-9 roll out.

Cheers to Boeing and rolling out this 737-9. Looking forward to seeing this bird in the air! The 737 is a icon and engineering marvel that continues to have a heck of a run. The 738 is a very strong and capable frame from which they can offer iterations, -200, -9, -10, etc.

Great mockup of that UA 737-9

767333ER wrote:

Sure they have attracted a couple of A320 customers with their 737 MAX, but if you truly analyze how have, it goes to show that the 737 maybe isn't as attractive as the A320. AC for example seemed quite set on the A320neo and then out of nowhere ordered the 737. Why? An insane deal that involved huge discount and essentially a trade for early build 20 E90s. Not so impressive after all considering they had to grease the deal that much to get them to switch. It's even less impressive when you consider how many more customers have gone the other way even though Airbus is actually charging a premium on the A321neo and likely not making deals as huge as Boeing. I will admit I don't like the 737, but a 60/40 market spilt in favor of the A320 and analysis of some of the deals paints a clear picture to me.

60/40 split is how many thousands of 737s and billions of dollars? Even as someone who "doesn't like" the 737, all those commas on the revenue line surely must impress you.

The beauty of an airplane that is established like the 737, is that you can compete on capital and operating costs. Boeing made AC a great deal, Boeing won the order.

Both the -9 and the (newly rendered) -10 look great IMO. We've had lots of threads to hash out the A321neo vs. the 737-9, but no matter what the orders for each are, I'd say any new design rolling out/ flying is a treat for us aviation enthusiasts!

[quote="767333ER" Again that guy is very biased,
[/quote]
He's not the only one. Most of us in here acknowledge the MAX9's shortcomings but few of us harp as the 737 as derisively as you. Give it a rest. As someone else in here said that's fodder for another thread. This is really about celebrating the rollout of a new MAX derivative Could we please reserve the strident 737 bashing for a more appropriate thread? Thank you.

"- The cockpit is different: Original cockpits were steam powered, and in many ways a basic copy/paste from the 707/727. New ones are all computers and glass screens."

They replaced steam gauges with steam gauge screens. Bravo!
over some decades the US car manufacturers created brand new cars by changing chrome trim. Under the hood it remained 1930ties tech.

WIederling wrote:

"- The cockpit is different: Original cockpits were steam powered, and in many ways a basic copy/paste from the 707/727. New ones are all computers and glass screens."

They replaced steam gauges with steam gauge screens. Bravo!
over some decades the US car manufacturers created brand new cars by changing chrome trim. Under the hood it remained 1930ties tech.

The main difference between the Boeing 737 and American cars over the years is that the Boeing 737's engines and aerodynamics have got more advanced.....whereas american cars......

767333ER wrote:

I will admit I don't like the 737

Should have just stuck to posting that instead of that long diatribe.

WIederling wrote:

They replaced steam gauges with steam gauge screens. Bravo!.

Completely inaccurate. However -

Regardless of whatever perceived or imagined shortcomings this new derivative may have, I am happy to see her roll out.

Instead of complaining about how this 50 year old design might not be comparable to more modern aircraft, I would rather acknowledge the fact that a design conceived over 50 years ago can still be competitive.

But that's just me.

barney captain wrote:

Instead of complaining about how this 50 year old design might not be comparable to more modern aircraft, I would rather acknowledge the fact that a design conceived over 50 years ago can still be competitive.

But that's just me.

Myself also as I completely agree!

Noshow wrote:

It's certainly classy but inside it is quite tight and noisy and not really made for todays screen sizes and panel areas needed. It works fine and it's good to keep it but a new designed cockpit would certainly look different. Just take some 787 cockpit.

Yes...and some tail-deice...and modernize the overhead panel...and an EICAS would be great.

This design I reluctantly admit has been great for Boeing and has proven to be safe and reliable no doubt. But the FAA's allowance of this design to creep along with incremental changes while still maintaining the type has prevented it from being even better and safer in ways that we already know how to do with proven technology that has been around for decades.

The FAA should either clamp down the flying techniques change required from a 100 -> 900max is "minor" but going from switches to buttons to operate aircraft systems is a major change requiring a new type! P-lease!

Either clamp down and force Boeing into a new type certification process with all the safety/human factors benefits we would gain. Or loosen up completely and realize that pilots are pretty smart on average and can easily change to an EICAS from this stupid "six-pack" system where each pilot only has half of the system warnings presented to them and the other pilot has the other half. Really! It's safer to keep the six-pack then have an EICAS for fear of what exactly? Let Boeing change the site picture slightly so we can have a properly designed 7 hour cockpit instead of the 2 hour range mil-spec (i.e. no human factors considerations) cockpit design that Boeing is stuck to.

Give me those 2 things and I will stop praying for the end of the 737 every night before I go to sleep.

barney captain wrote:

Instead of complaining about how this 50 year old design might not be comparable to more modern aircraft, I would rather acknowledge the fact that a design conceived over 50 years ago can still be competitive.

But that's just me.

It's not just you. We can add to that that the 737 is the most widely produced jet transport ever, will be the first jet transport to pass 10,000 deliveries, and if it stays in production at the high rates throughout the 2020s, may just pass the DC-3/C-47 to be the most produced transport of all time as it celebrates its 60th birthday in 2027. The A320 will, I imagine, reach a similar milestone as it celebrates its 40th birthday in the same year. Two types which maybe decried for being respectively old and bland, but which really have done more to make air travel accessible than any other type.

As for those who want to moan or skite or boast about how one is so so much better than the other, well what can one say? If it makes you sleep better at night that the A321 hands down beats the 737 Max 9 over long ranges while having an extra 6" of girth, or that the 737 Max 9 beats the A321 over an 800nm leg while carrying less structural weight, so be it. Thankfully airlines worth their salt don't go in for such simplistic analysis, but rather look at how the overall package meets their needs. Some will find the A320 is the best, others the 737. Many times it isn't the performance and specs as much as the associated financing and production availability which make the difference one way or the other. The last 25 years of near parity suggest the differences aren't that significant. The orders looking forward suggest the A321 may finally be starting to take advantage of the fact its family is 20 years younger than the 737-9's to cement a decent market advantage. Meanwhile in the centre of the market the A320neo and 737 Max 8 continue to draw more or less even. All that said, I had really hoped Boeing would have given the 737 a nose job for the sake of the hearing of tens of thousands of pilots who will fly the Max throughout its life.

V/F