3 ms·

You're missing some important details. The A320 and 737 have similar sticker prices, but it's not clear if one is cheaper to buy than the other because the pri

You're missing some important details. The A320 and 737 have similar sticker prices, but it's not clear if one is cheaper to buy than the other because the prices paid for planes tend to be around half of the sticker price but the real prices aren't public. The A320 is around 10k lbs heavier than the 737 and the A320 series burns more fuel per passenger mile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft). The A321 NEO is nearer the efficiency of the Boeing 737-900 than than the 737 MAX 10. The passenger comfort of the 'human focused' designs often comes at the cost of fuel efficiency. You're right that the 737 is loud and an old design. I don't dispute that Boeing messed up their one job (making safe planes) but to call the 737 secular stagnation when the newest version is nearly three times as efficient (in terms of fuel burned to move a passenger one miles) as the original 737 misunderstands "stagnation".

PaulHoule 7y ago
Up to a point the 737 got better, but the same things that made it get better (longer range) made it get worse (worse comfort) An engineering prof I worked with years ago said that the 737 NG was already long in the tooth https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-problems-63629 https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-problems... and has a great quote from Tony: "Boeing are (sic.) stuck with a design that they want to fly forever."
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  The second gen 737 was long in the tooth. IIRC, the 737 NG has a much better wing than it needs because its landing gear is so short that the plane can't get the right angle of attack on the airfoil during rotation. It's kind of deliciously ironic that Boeing's attempts to cut corners are going to cost them more than a clean sheet redesign, but I really wonder what's going to replace the 737. We're at the point where we're doing inappropriate things with single aisle aircraft - it's just not great that we're about to have 9 hour flights on A321XLRs. It seems like there's a natural limit of 140-160 passengers on single aisle aircraft but and hubris has us cramming 220 people in them. Hopefully someone figures out composites enough to create lifting wide bodies but we'll see.

PaulHoule 7y ago

Up to a point the 737 got better, but the same things that made it get better (longer range) made it get worse (worse comfort) An engineering prof I worked with years ago said that the 737 NG was already long in the tooth https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-problems-63629 https://www.newsweek.com/boeings-737-airplane-prone-problems... and has a great quote from Tony: "Boeing are (sic.) stuck with a design that they want to fly forever."

tastygreenapple 7y ago
The second gen 737 was long in the tooth. IIRC, the 737 NG has a much better wing than it needs because its landing gear is so short that the plane can't get the right angle of attack on the airfoil during rotation. It's kind of deliciously ironic that Boeing's attempts to cut corners are going to cost them more than a clean sheet redesign, but I really wonder what's going to replace the 737. We're at the point where we're doing inappropriate things with single aisle aircraft - it's just not great that we're about to have 9 hour flights on A321XLRs. It seems like there's a natural limit of 140-160 passengers on single aisle aircraft but and hubris has us cramming 220 people in them. Hopefully someone figures out composites enough to create lifting wide bodies but we'll see.