Boeing 737Max vs. ??

[andrewg]

Just wondering how some of you aviation enthusiasts think the new 737MAX will fare against the new A320neo? I've heard both boast and claim which aircraft has better fuel consumption. Don't really know the truth there yet until they get in the air I suppose. Many folks deride the 737 for being an old airframe.....but is this really any sort of issue against the A320? I know the next completely new 737 replacement will someday be born.....but for right now, which aircraft is going to be the better one (and why)?

 

[HerrStig]

The basic 737 has been around a long and a couple of airlines don't fly anything else. Southwest just ordered a bunch of new ones. That's all they fly.

 

[SuperDave456]

Training and tarmacs cost money. I can see major advantages towards updating older designs instead of having larger airframes that require new facilities for passengers to load and unload. Multiple ways to approach this subject. One is more aircraft that are more efficient, the other is larger aircraft that are more efficient. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[lyle]

You are right, this airframe goes all the way back to the original "dash 80", Boeing has certainly brought the learning curve WAY down on it by now. Both are better, neither are better, it's so hard to quantify which is "better". I'm guessing 30 years from now, someone will have an idea which one was better.

 

[andrewg]

In my opinion if Boeing wants to improve at least the appearance of the 737 airframe, they should modify the nose of the aircraft to resemble that of the 787. It will look FAR more modern and possibly have an aerodynamic benefit. The only downside would be some engineering costs and the loss of commonality of a few parts with the current fleet (nose cone, windshields, etc.). I know they are already changing the tail, wings, engines, and interior.

 

[tommygunn]

Fuel consumption is all that matters these days and this new 737 is suppose to whoop the Airbus Neo.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: tommygunn

Fuel consumption is all that matters these days and this new 737 is suppose to whoop the Airbus Neo.

This whole issue is still up in the air (so to speak). http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/...max-vs-a320neo/

 

[fdcg27]

You could easily craft flights where with a given distance and payload, either paper airplane could have the better fuel consumption per revenue seat mile. So Boeing and Airbus are both right. Either aircraft can be more efficient with a mission profile optimized for it. Any improvement in fuel use for these two quite mature designs will be more a matter of more efficient engines than any improvements to the airframes.

 

[757guy]

Everything depends on the mission the airplane is designed for. How many seats, payload, range, training costs, financing available are all factors that determine the operating costs of the aircraft. At my former Northwest Airlines, the A320's were purchased for an extremely low price initially, but more expensive for purchasing spare parts and replacement items. The airplane was also called the "Bic" airplane because it was considered disposable after 25 years due to the aircraft construction (difficult to replace carbon fiber wingboxes, etc. Cheaper to buy a new airplane.) I flew the A320 for only 6 months so I didn't really get too comfortable with the Airbus philosophy. The A320 was designed by engineers, for engineers. It has a very layered flight controlled computer system, which can cause serious problems if you do not understand what the airplane is doing and why. See the Air France Rio to Paris accident report to see what confusion can do. IMHO, the Airbus cockpit is also "cheaper" in that many materials used were plastic and didn't have that same ergonomic feel that you get in a Boeing Aircraft, i.e., switches, instruments, radar display, map lights, etc. You can tell I am a fan of Boeing. I have flown Boeing products for over 20 years and like how they are built very well, the systems are logical, and the airplanes last a very long time. More importantly, I trust a Boeing. Not too complicated, easy to learn the systems, easy to fly. Just my .02 from a pilots point of view. 757guy

 

[Carbon]

Originally Posted By: andrewg

This whole issue is still up in the air (so to speak). http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/...max-vs-a320neo/

The last two paragraphs of that article seem contradictory.

 

[Carbon]

Delete or ignore previous post please.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: 757guy

Everything depends on the mission the airplane is designed for. How many seats, payload, range, training costs, financing available are all factors that determine the operating costs of the aircraft. At my former Northwest Airlines, the A320's were purchased for an extremely low price initially, but more expensive for purchasing spare parts and replacement items. The airplane was also called the "Bic" airplane because it was considered disposable after 25 years due to the aircraft construction (difficult to replace carbon fiber wingboxes, etc. Cheaper to buy a new airplane.) I flew the A320 for only 6 months so I didn't really get too comfortable with the Airbus philosophy. The A320 was designed by engineers, for engineers. It has a very layered flight controlled computer system, which can cause serious problems if you do not understand what the airplane is doing and why. See the Air France Rio to Paris accident report to see what confusion can do. IMHO, the Airbus cockpit is also "cheaper" in that many materials used were plastic and didn't have that same ergonomic feel that you get in a Boeing Aircraft, i.e., switches, instruments, radar display, map lights, etc. You can tell I am a fan of Boeing. I have flown Boeing products for over 20 years and like how they are built very well, the systems are logical, and the airplanes last a very long time. More importantly, I trust a Boeing. Not too complicated, easy to learn the systems, easy to fly. Just my .02 from a pilots point of view. 757guy

Thanks for the input. Interesting to hear from a pilot that has flown both. A former aircraft mechanic friend of mine said he preferred working on the A320 vs. the 737. He stated that while the 737 was built well....it's construction tended to make some maintenance tasks more difficult. Doors were much more difficult to open and close (heavy) while the Airbus could be done effortlessly. He also noted the build techniques seemed more modern compared to Boeing. The cockpit WAS as you've stated more substantially built on the '37 (much more metals and older style controls). In contrast the Airbus DID have more plastics....but my friend thought that was because of a more modern design similar to modern automobiles having utilized plastics. Personally I'm partial to Boeing, but certainly feel that Airbus is equal in most terms. I still feel however that if Boeing is going to compete and WIN over the A320neo....they'd better make that '37Max look as modern as possible (nose and cockpit area) on the outside, and perform AS PROMISED with those new engines and wing.

 

[Cujet]

I believe the scarebus has a bit wider cabin. From what I understand, some 737 operators choose reduced aisle size to allow for slightly wider seats. An interesting development is that some 737 operators do this by simply installing a wider center seat, with the window and aisle seats at the standard 17 inch width. This gives the perception of additional room and the center pax could be more comfortable. The airbus' wider cabin easily accepts the wider seats and pax are generally more comfortable.

 

[SEMI_287]

Originally Posted By: 757guy

Everything depends on the mission the airplane is designed for. How many seats, payload, range, training costs, financing available are all factors that determine the operating costs of the aircraft. At my former Northwest Airlines, the A320's were purchased for an extremely low price initially, but more expensive for purchasing spare parts and replacement items. The airplane was also called the "Bic" airplane because it was considered disposable after 25 years due to the aircraft construction (difficult to replace carbon fiber wingboxes, etc. Cheaper to buy a new airplane.) I flew the A320 for only 6 months so I didn't really get too comfortable with the Airbus philosophy. The A320 was designed by engineers, for engineers. It has a very layered flight controlled computer system, which can cause serious problems if you do not understand what the airplane is doing and why. See the Air France Rio to Paris accident report to see what confusion can do. IMHO, the Airbus cockpit is also "cheaper" in that many materials used were plastic and didn't have that same ergonomic feel that you get in a Boeing Aircraft, i.e., switches, instruments, radar display, map lights, etc. You can tell I am a fan of Boeing. I have flown Boeing products for over 20 years and like how they are built very well, the systems are logical, and the airplanes last a very long time. More importantly, I trust a Boeing. Not too complicated, easy to learn the systems, easy to fly. Just my .02 from a pilots point of view. 757guy

This.