New Boeing 737 - 496 overall orders

[dicko]

And a side-stick and tray table. I mean, this is the 21st Century, isn't it?

Thank you. The yoke is only a marginally useful place to hang the newspapers I steal.

The A/T work fine. Especially on takeoff.

 

[carl p]

I'm still waiting for the 717 NEO announcement...

 

[SLUF4]

yeah; i've only jumpseated on a 737 but it looks to me like they could get rid of half the junk on that overhead...why do y'all still need a cabin pressure gauge?

 

[dicko]

why do y'all still need a cabin pressure gauge?

So you have something to stare at, as you realize you've forgotten the packs and your career just took a nasty turn.

That's my theory anyway.

 

[boxjockey]

And a side-stick and tray table. I mean, this is the 21st Century, isn't it?

Give me a yoke, or give me death!!!

box

 

[Tomct]

I will take a yoke on a Boeing Wide body any day. But as far as a new 737....they need to rethink that little cockpit! Has to be one of the worst designs ever....

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

A quiet cockpit, windowshades and maybe a re-designed overhead panel is what I'd like to see in the new 737.

They have shades. I've just never seen an American airline buy them.

 

[dicko]

They have shades. I've just never seen an American airline buy them.

All AirTran 737's have shades. They will be removed by SWA due to the advanced and incomprehensible nature of the design.

:bawling:

 

[igneousy2]

Replacing switches for buttons would be great. Shouldn't those avionics fans just switch automatically to alternate.....half the stuff on the overhead should be selectable on the screens...APU while it's running, electric bus voltages, pressurizaiton panel, slat positions, all the caution lights...all gone or on the screens.

 

[DH106]

You know, the 7N7 of the late 1980s/early 1990s was supposed to be the 737-200/300 replacement... an advanced 737 airframe with the 757 nose section and avionics suite. But, the 737NG got built instead... same noisy, cramped nose section.

Things I'd love to see in a better 737 cockpit are:
- More comfortable seats that don't require gymnastics to get in and out
- Windshield wipers that actually remove the rain in the area that your eyes look out of
- Lower wind noise
- Seats that can move fully aft without needing to tilt the seat-back full-forward so they don't rip-up the circuit breaker panel
- Two jumpseats that can actually be used
- A luggage area that doesn't break your back or your luggage

But, with the 737 MAX, it looks like the design features of the late 1950s and early 1960s are here to stay for decades... or forever.

I don't think we're going to see the narrow-body 787 at all.

 

[flythere]

You know, the 7N7 of the late 1980s/early 1990s was supposed to be the 737-200/300 replacement... an advanced 737 airframe with the 757 nose section and avionics suite. But, the 737NG got built instead... same noisy, cramped nose section.

Things I'd love to see in a better 737 cockpit are:
- More comfortable seats that don't require gymnastics to get in and out
- Windshield wipers that actually remove the rain in the area that your eyes look out of
- Lower wind noise
- Seats that can move fully aft without needing to tilt the seat-back full-forward so they don't rip-up the circuit breaker panel
- Two jumpseats that can actually be used
- A luggage area that doesn't break your back or your luggage

But, with the 737 MAX, it looks like the design features of the late 1950s and early 1960s are here to stay for decades... or forever.

I don't think we're going to see the narrow-body 787 at all.

Good Luck, you can thank the largest 737 operator for the status quo!!

When Boeing first announced the 787, there were two airplanes, I thought the smaller one was supposed to be a replacement for the 737? Once the project fell behind, it seems they dropped the 737 replacement to focus on the big-boy.

Since they've cracked the code on that 787, I hope they will re-consider a new design. An airplane that could carry between 140-180 PAX up to 3,000 nm at .82 efficiently would be a game changer!

 

[DH106]

Since they've cracked the code on that 787, I hope they will re-consider a new design. An airplane that could carry between 140-180 PAX up to 3,000 nm at .82 efficiently would be a game changer!

Boeing won't reconsider a new design.
- For the 777, they won't build an advanced replacement.
- For the 747-400, the 777 is the replacement.
- For the 747-8, it's just a low-selling competitor to the A380.
- For the 767, the 787 is the replacement.
- Finally, for the 757, the 737-9 MAX is the replacement.

That leaves the "old technology" 737 MAX and 777, and the "new technology" 787. Period. They'll phase-out the 747-400.

While Boeing builds the 737 MAX for the next 20 years, they are NOT going to build a replacement for it at the same time! The 737 MAX is here to stay for decades.

The big question, then, is why did Boeing develop all this 787-based technology, with no intent to use it on development of further airplanes? It would appear that Boeing's going to build the 777 and 737 MAX lines till kingdom-come, with the 787 line as a sole, separate technology. With the 737 MAX decision, they have no new airplanes with which to use the 787 technology on!

 

[Ky.BrownBourbn]

All AirTran 737's have shades. They will be removed by SWA due to the advanced and incomprehensible nature of the design.

:bawling:

And they'll sell them to some sucker who wants to buy them....maybe throw in the set of window shades when you buy a set of tires. (yes, you'll do a walk around on a brand new airplane and it'll have old tires on it. They sell them and lease tires per landing.) laugh if you want BUT they've got it figured out!

KBB

 

[flythere]

Boeing won't reconsider a new design.
- For the 777, they won't build an advanced replacement.
- For the 747-400, the 777 is the replacement.
- For the 747-8, it's just a low-selling competitor to the A380.
- For the 767, the 787 is the replacement.
- Finally, for the 757, the 737-9 MAX is the replacement.

That leaves the "old technology" 737 MAX and 777, and the "new technology" 787. Period. They'll phase-out the 747-400.

While Boeing builds the 737 MAX for the next 20 years, they are NOT going to build a replacement for it at the same time! The 737 MAX is here to stay for decades.

The big question, then, is why did Boeing develop all this 787-based technology, with no intent to use it on development of further airplanes? It would appear that Boeing's going to build the 777 and 737 MAX lines till kingdom-come, with the 787 line as a sole, separate technology. With the 737 MAX decision, they have no new airplanes with which to use the 787 technology on!

If Boeing wanted to replace the 757 with a -900ER/MAX, they really screwed the pooch on that one!! There is no way the -900 could come close to the 757, the -900 is a pig without the lipstick!!!

Try topping the tanks of a -900 with 46K of fuel, filling every seat plus bags and see how far you get! Barely 2500 NM. I've never flown the 757, but those I've talked to really like the performance of the airplane. I've flown the -900, and it's a true pig!

The 757 can easily make it in and out of Maui, Lihue and other shorter runways, the -900 could never make from the west coast and land at these runways or take-off from one of these airports and fly to the west coast.

 

[HalinTexas]

Most of you would fly a C172 with steam gauges if someone paid you enough. I know I would.

I've flown the L10, the B75 and B73 to/from HI. Yes, the B757 is the best type to fly out there from the west coast. The B73 is not a well-suited ETOPS plane. However, you fly what you got, and try and be competitive. Unfortunately, the only way to make money flying to HI is with cargo, and the B75 is the best compromise. No wide-body can make it out of LIH or OGG to the west coast, they never even tried.

If you don't like the B73, don't fly it. Quitchyerbitchin. I was happy to fly the -800 for the rest of my career, and be glad to fly it for you. With the 27k engines and carbon breaks, it performed well. I fly the B757, again, now. It's very very capable, but Boeing stopped making them because no one wanted to pay what they were asking for it. Lots of wasted cube space you're paying for if you don't haul cargo, which fewer and fewer do. The -900 is a thin-route airplane and like the A321 it's not a great performer, but it's cheap enough on short-to-medium routes with 8000'+ runways. That's why they sell and companies buy them.

Most airplanes aren't built for pilots. They're all compromises.