3 ms·
The larger point is that the 737 is a highly antiquated design by this point. The cockpit has screens that emulate old analog displays to maintain common type r
by CydeWeys 8y ago
The larger point is that the 737 is a highly antiquated design by this point. The cockpit has screens that emulate old analog displays to maintain common type rating, even though much better ways of displaying that data now exist. The plane's controls are highly manual, which are a negative now that fly-by-wire and autopilots are mature and very good. Hell, the entire plane sits so low to the ground because it was designed to support a non-jetway use case (which is now non-existent), and as a result 737s are more susceptible to foreign object damage from debris sucked up off the runway.
The 737 is riddled through with legacy design features and needs to be put to pasture once and for all. And designing a replacement wouldn't be from scratch; there are plenty of other modern airliners to base a new one off of.
- kortilla 8y ago>so low to the ground because it was designed to support a non-jetway use case (which is now non-existent) Complete bullshit. I’ve boarded/deplaned without a jetway in Beijing, SLC, JAC, and AMS in the last couple of years alone.
- raverbashing 8y agoIt's not a "non-jetway" case, it's a non jetway and no airport stairs case and/or manual loading of cargo An embedded staircase is an option on the 737
- CydeWeys 8y agoI meant to say "no ground support whatsoever". I've deplaned 737s and 320s on the tarmac recently too (at big airports), and they used mobile stairs. It's the stairs integrated into the aircraft itself that the 737 was designed around, and that's what's antiquated. Hell, just flying the stairs around with you is very fuel inefficient.
- hirowan 8y agoI think it's a little bit of everything (stairs, tech, loading/unloading) but the main reason prrrobably was being able to throw bags into the cargo hold without the need for GSE - the airstair could've easily been made taller.