I think that the "economy car" analogy is an inappropriate one.
The 737 was designed for high cycle operation and is capable of more cycles through its operating life than is any widebody or, until quite recently, any Airbus.
The aircraft therefore is actually a pretty rugged design.
The 737-200 can even be equipped for commercial operation from gravel runways and some -200s continue in this role today in the far north.
The main obstacles to longer range use of any 737 are its relative slowness as compared to a 757 or most widebodies as well as the limited seating capacity, neither of which prevent some operators from using the type on longer routes.
The stretch models are yet another example of how the operating economics of any airliner can be improved by adding seats.
Fuel consumption increases at a lower rate than does seating capacity, so operating costs per seat decline.
You still need only pay two pilots to fly the stretch, although you may have to add an FA, or maybe not, so personnel costs aren't significantly higher either.
The 737 was designed for high cycle operation and is capable of more cycles through its operating life than is any widebody or, until quite recently, any Airbus.
The aircraft therefore is actually a pretty rugged design.
The 737-200 can even be equipped for commercial operation from gravel runways and some -200s continue in this role today in the far north.
The main obstacles to longer range use of any 737 are its relative slowness as compared to a 757 or most widebodies as well as the limited seating capacity, neither of which prevent some operators from using the type on longer routes.
The stretch models are yet another example of how the operating economics of any airliner can be improved by adding seats.
Fuel consumption increases at a lower rate than does seating capacity, so operating costs per seat decline.
You still need only pay two pilots to fly the stretch, although you may have to add an FA, or maybe not, so personnel costs aren't significantly higher either.