747-400 versus 747-8

[SEMI_287]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
the A-320 is, frankly, a better airplane than the 737. Better takeoff and landing performance for the same passenger count. More room.


I take offense to that!

 

[Astro14]

The 737 was designed in 1964 and started flying in 1967 as a short range economy jet. So cheap that it doesn't even have gear doors.

The 737-800/900 can't fly the distance promised by Boeing because it can't get off the ground with those short stubby gear. So, it really can't replace the 757 as Boeing intended or promised. That's why Boeing is considering the new mid size airplane.

Can't speak for the 737Max. Haven't seen that one in operation.

But the A320 is 20 years newer than the 737. Design began in 1984, first flight in 1987. Think of all the technological improvements in those two decades. The A320 has fly by wire, composites in the construction, better fuel consumption on a per seat mile basis, and a slightly wider fuselage, so the seats are more comfortable regardless of pitch.

737 is a Corvair in technology. A320 is a 944 in technology. Not really comparable airplanes. If the 737 was so good, then the A320 NEO wouldn't have so many more orders. The 737Max is a response to the success of the NEO, which was being ordered at twice the rate of the 737NG.

And they'll finally install real landing gear on the Max...while keeping the dated, tiny cockpit windows, narrow 727 fuselage and noisy, cramped cockpit....so that the 737 guys will still feel right at home...let's hope they keep that DC-3 trim wheel so that it can still make noise and occasionally, smack you in the knee...

 

[Astro14]

I'm a 757 fan, as I've stated many times. I'm a 747 fan, as I've stated many times. I'm not a fan of the 737.

I've criticized the A-380 many times, including in this thread. But the A-320 is a fine airplane.

It's not about one manufacturer over another, it's about good airplanes vs. airplanes that represent the attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[cjcride]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 was designed in 1964 and started flying in 1967 as a short range economy jet. So cheap that it doesn't even have gear doors.

The 737-800/900 can't fly the distance promised by Boeing because it can't get off the ground with those short stubby gear. So, it really can't replace the 757 as Boeing intended or promised. That's why Boeing is considering the new mid size airplane.

Can't speak for the 737Max. Haven't seen that one in operation.

But the A320 is 20 years newer than the 737. Design began in 1984, first flight in 1987. Think of all the technological improvements in those two decades. The A320 has fly by wire, composites in the construction, better fuel consumption on a per seat mile basis, and a slightly wider fuselage, so the seats are more comfortable regardless of pitch.

737 is a Corvair in technology. A320 is a 944 in technology. Not really comparable airplanes. If the 737 was so good, then the A320 NEO wouldn't have so many more orders. The 737Max is a response to the success of the NEO, which was being ordered at twice the rate of the 737NG.

And they'll finally install real landing gear on the Max...while keeping the dated, tiny cockpit windows, narrow 727 fuselage and noisy, cramped cockpit....so that the 737 guys will still feel right at home...let's hope they keep that DC-3 trim wheel so that it can still make noise and occasionally, smack you in the knee...

Looks like you guys woke up the dragon.
737 is a nice plane yet her age is evident.

 

[fdcg27]

The current 737 has a newer wing and empennage than the single aisle Airbus.
I've also talked to crews at your airline, both pilots and FAs, who've expressed a clear preference for Boeing aircraft over those from Airbus.
In the back, there really isn't much to choose between a single aisle Boeing and a single aisle Airbus.
I prefer a five abreast MD or a four abreast CRJ or Embraer.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 was designed in 1964 and started flying in 1967 as a short range economy jet. So cheap that it doesn't even have gear doors.

The 737-800/900 can't fly the distance promised by Boeing because it can't get off the ground with those short stubby gear. So, it really can't replace the 757 as Boeing intended or promised. That's why Boeing is considering the new mid size airplane.

Can't speak for the 737Max. Haven't seen that one in operation.

But the A320 is 20 years newer than the 737. Design began in 1984, first flight in 1987. Think of all the technological improvements in those two decades. The A320 has fly by wire, composites in the construction, better fuel consumption on a per seat mile basis, and a slightly wider fuselage, so the seats are more comfortable regardless of pitch.

737 is a Corvair in technology. A320 is a 944 in technology. Not really comparable airplanes. If the 737 was so good, then the A320 NEO wouldn't have so many more orders. The 737Max is a response to the success of the NEO, which was being ordered at twice the rate of the 737NG.

And they'll finally install real landing gear on the Max...while keeping the dated, tiny cockpit windows, narrow 727 fuselage and noisy, cramped cockpit....so that the 737 guys will still feel right at home...let's hope they keep that DC-3 trim wheel so that it can still make noise and occasionally, smack you in the knee...


Thanks. That's what I wanted to know...the facts.

I will say that the main reason the airlines have ordered more A320's has more to do with purchase costs, than one being a better airplane.

My opinion is that Boeing dropped the ball by putting all the eggs into the 787....while the big seller (737) was left to wait on improvements. Now they are late to the party and Airbus got the jump. If Boeing had the ability at the time the 787 was being started, they should have begun a whole new replacement for the 737 that would have cashed the "older" A320. But they did not. Now they've repeated the whole thing with the new 777. I hope they are right, but you'd think they would have put a priority on an all new 737.

 

[SEMI_287]

I agree the cockpit is small, noisy, and cramped. Also, [censored] the trim wheel. I wish Boeing would have changed the overhead panel in the MAX. Some nice push buttons from the 75/6/77 would be a welcome change. Hopefully if Boeing builds the new midsize jet we wont have to stare at 1965. It is a very well behaved airplane, even if it doesn't hold pitch automatically in a turn.

 

[fdcg27]

Boeing finds itself in an awkward position with its single aisle.
Boeing had talked originally about a clean sheet single aisle, but Airbus jumped quickly to the NEO.
Boeing had to respond quickly and so was forced to do the MAX.
The single aisle Airbus was designed for a different age than was the 737, so it has much taller gear, allowing larger fan diameter as well as better takeoff performance in the longer versions, since more rotation angle is possible without the danger of a tail strike, allowing lower rotation speeds at any given load. This is the reason that the 739 is noted for being a runway hog. Its rotation angle must be less so it must be going faster to get off the runway.
Still, Astro's airline has ordered and operates quite a few of these runway hogs along with a number of single aisle Airbuses.
They also just ordered 75 737-700s, so the 737 can't be all that bad after all.
Airline orders in this segment are often more a matter of delivery availability than anything else. The operating economics of the various 737 models and similar single aisle Airbus aircraft have always been very close and will remain so with the NEO and the MAX.

 

[Astro14]

Boeing made a choice to go with a 737NG several years ago instead of a new narrow body. I think that was a mistake. The "NSA" (new small aircraft) was considered and rejected by Boeing as they focused on 787. The Max looks to be a very modern cockpit (displays particularly) but in the same space as the old airplane. The NSA is still in Boeing's future, and the pressure from airlines to build a 757 replacement has re-opened the NSA discussion.

Don't read a ton into United's decision to buy more 737s. We got them at 1/3 the list price. Boeing greatly undercut Airbus on that deal. UAL was strongly considering the C-series. The deal was a move to try and prevent the C-series getting any major airline market penetration. Naturally, fleet commonality saves some future operating costs, but we got those airplanes very, very cheaply.

You should note that we bought this set of 75 airplanes subsequent to our decision to retain 50 757-200s and 767-300s in the fleet. The economics and performance of those airplanes made them worth keeping in service. Those airframes have the performance for Hawaii, Europe and South America.

 

[fdcg27]

The NG came many years before the 787.
Boeing's problem then and now is in bridging the gap between end of line 737 production and any NSA.
Airbus will face the same dilemma within the next decade, maybe sooner if Boeing does move on an NSA.
I think that the time for Boeing to move on an NSA is now.
The NEO would become an OLDO very quickly, but so would the MAX.
The problem would be in ramping up production quickly enough for this very high volume segment of the airframer industry in concert with the many suppliers, especially the engine builders.
This would be true for any clean sheet design from Airbus as well.
In this way, both of these airframers are painting themselves into a corner. Boeing is just farther back into that corner than is Airbus.
Meanwhile, the orders continue to roll in for the MAX just as they do for the NEO. The A321 is solidly beating the 737-9, but many airlines, like the one for which you fly continue to order and operate the 737-900 model.

 

[NH73]

I often wondered about this. The 757 is a single aisle airplane and was developed in late 70's/early 80's. Is there a reason that they couldn't work with that plane to totally replace the 737? Instead they discontinued the line in 2004.

 

[FowVay]

The 737 is nearly 20% more efficient than the 757. At my company we are using 737-900's to replace the 757-200. The larger -300's have been slowly transforming into ETOPS aircraft and are used for the less busy routes to Europe.

I love the B757 but from a business standpoint its applications are limited.

 

[fdcg27]

Sure, but if you gave the 757 new wings and a new tail as Boeing did with the 737NG and gave it more modern engines as Airbus has done with the NEO and Boeing with the MAX, the 757 could end up as a very compelling package.
The 757 would still have higher structural weight, since the useful load and excess thrust that allows it to fly missions the A321 and 739 can't would require higher OEW.
The question is not whether a 757NG would sell, the question is whether there'd be enough sales to justify the investment.
Boeing apparently thinks not, or the program would already be up and running.
The 757, like the MD twins, will fly until the aircraft are timed out or cycled out.
There will be no direct replacement.
The 757 will be remembered by its flight crews as fondly as the 727 is.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Sure, but if you gave the 757 new wings and a new tail as Boeing did with the 737NG and gave it more modern engines as Airbus has done with the NEO and Boeing with the MAX, the 757 could end up as a very compelling package.
The 757 would still have higher structural weight, since the useful load and excess thrust that allows it to fly missions the A321 and 739 can't would require higher OEW.
The question is not whether a 757NG would sell, the question is whether there'd be enough sales to justify the investment.
Boeing apparently thinks not, or the program would already be up and running.
The 757, like the MD twins, will fly until the aircraft are timed out or cycled out.
There will be no direct replacement.
The 757 will be remembered by its flight crews as fondly as the 727 is.


I had heard that the tooling for the 757 is pretty much all destroyed now anyway.

 

[fdcg27]

New production tooling would be fairly cheap and easy, especially since you'd need new tooling for the expensive bits like the new wings and tail anyway.
The rest of the work needed to bring a 757NG to market would be expensive and difficult.
Could be done, but the market would be small enough that Boeing has not seriously entertained the idea.
The long range single aisle segment has a few current types already out there. None can do the entire 757 mission potential, but they can do enough of it that there will be no new 757.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Sure, but if you gave the 757 new wings and a new tail as Boeing did with the 737NG and gave it more modern engines as Airbus has done with the NEO and Boeing with the MAX, the 757 could end up as a very compelling package.
The 757 would still have higher structural weight, since the useful load and excess thrust that allows it to fly missions the A321 and 739 can't would require higher OEW.
The question is not whether a 757NG would sell, the question is whether there'd be enough sales to justify the investment.
Boeing apparently thinks not, or the program would already be up and running.
The 757, like the MD twins, will fly until the aircraft are timed out or cycled out.
There will be no direct replacement.
The 757 will be remembered by its flight crews as fondly as the 727 is.


Well...sadly, I agree with you.

The 757 is a great airplane, but there aren't a lot of companies that need a 180 passenger single aisle with long range. We use our 757-200s for Europe and our 757-300s for Hawaii and high-density routes (like EWR-MCO).

Even our network guys know the performance limits of the 737-900 in comparison with the 757. The -900 routinely goes to Hawaii from LA with 40 empty seats due to weight restrictions imposed by its takeoff performance, but even in that ridiculous situation, it's cost-competitive and burns less gas.

That fuel burn difference doesn't have the impact with today's oil prices, but it will make a difference when prices go back up (and they will).

Still, replacing the 757 with a 737-900 feels a lot like getting rid of an older LS400 with a V-8 and buying a new Corolla. Makes perfect economic sense...but it sure feels wrong...and you'll notice the dramatic drop in performance.

Except that the 737 isn't a new Corolla...it's a 1964 design with lots of modifications...so, it's more like getting rid of your 1984 Mercedes in favor of a heavily modified 1964 Falcon...sure, it's got Bluetooth, and new leather seats, and a new engine...but you just can't hide the 1964 economy car chassis on which it's built...

 

[fdcg27]

Your 737 as ancient economy car analogy is a little overplayed, as I've pointed out in other threads.
The 737 model has a longer cycle and hour life limit than does any Airbus. The 737-200 can also be equipped to legally operate from gravel strips, as it did and does. Try that with a 757 or any Airbus. Of course, the -200 uses much smaller lower bypass engines than does any later model.
The 737 is relatively slow as compared to the 757 or any widebody, but can cruise as fast as any single-aisle Airbus.
Cruise speed is, after all, limited by the wing and not the engines, but you already know that.
A better analogue for the 737 might be an old pickup.
Maybe an old design, but plenty tough and capable within its limitations.
There is not much to choose between Airbus and Boeing single aisle aircraft for the airlines that buy these aircraft as well as the passengers who fly on them.
One of the most significant errors your airline made in the past decade was to retire a large fleet of 737-300 and -500 aircraft with no replacement other than regional contractors, but you already know that.
The new 737-700 aircraft will help in remediating this, as will many other future deliveries from both A and B as well as maybe a certain Canadian company.

 

[FowVay]

You guys have a good debate going. For those not too familiar here are some specifications from my fleet. These are between ETOPS certified 757-200 and 737-900:

-------------------757 ---------- 737
aircraft range: 2854 nm's ----- 2870 nm's
max land weight: 198000lb ------ 157300lb
max taxi weight: 241000lb ------ 188200lb
max t/o weight: 240000lb ------ 187700lb
max zero fuel wt:185400lb ------ 149300lb
max airfield elv: 8400ft ------ 8400 ft

We use Pratt 2037's on our 757's and CFM56-7b's on the 737. There's a considerable variation in power output between these two powerplants. As of today we had 141 737's and 149 757's so we're fairly evenly matched.

 

[fdcg27]

So the 757 can handle ~35K pounds more payload at MZFW than can a 739?
Quite a difference.
What's the difference in OEW?
I'm also surprised to hear that DL still has 149 757s in service, although we have flown on a few of these aircraft and you do see a bunch of them when your travels take you through ATL.
I do prefer the 757 (or an MD even when misnamed as a 717) since any 737 or single aisle Airbus seems so generic.

 

[FowVay]

haha, I think we bought every 717 on the market. We have 91 of those things and we recently started an entire engine overhaul line for the BR715. I think the big D plans on getting their moneys worth.