Boeing appears to finally drop 737-600

Boeing has updated its price list and for the first time, the price for the 737-600 is missing. Boeing hasn’t sold a 737-600 since 2005. In June, Boeing told us the model was still being offered. Not any more, apparently. We’ve sent an inquiry to Boeing for an official statement.

Update, 12:30pm: Boeing gave us this statement at 0900 but we’ve been away from the computer until now:

  • Should customers request to order a Next-Generation 737-600, BCA Sales will work with the customer to meet their requirements.
  • The Next-Generation 737-600 model will continue to be supported by the 737 Program.

We note that this statement doesn’t really confirm or deny the discontinuation of the 737-600 offering.

Update, 3:45pm: Linda Lee, the 737 program spokesperson, got back to us with this slightly expanded response from that offered by a non-program spokesman earlier today. Lee said:

Should customers request to order a Next-Generation 737-600, Commercial Airplanes Sales Teams will work with the customer to meet their requirements.
As you probably have checked on our Orders & Deliveries website, we don’t have any orders for the Next-Generation 737-600s in the order stream. Our families of Next-Generation 737-700/-800/-900ER (Extended Range) are meeting the requirements of our customers worldwide.
A fair interpretation is that Boeing would steer the customer to the other 737-Series airplanes.
Old $mm New $mm Diff$mm % Diff
B737-600 59.4 0 -59.4 -100%
B737-7 MAX 77.7 82 4.3 6%
B737-700 70.9 74.8 3.9 6%
B737-8 MAX 95.2 100.5 5.3 6%
B737-800 84.4 89.1 4.7 6%
B737-9 MAX 101.7 107.3 5.6 6%
B737-900ER 89.6 94.6 5.0 6%
B747-8 332.9 351.4 18.5 6%
B747-8F 333.5 352 18.5 6%
B767-200ER 151.5 160.2 8.7 6%
B767-300ER 173.1 182.8 9.7 6%
B767-300ERF 175.4 185.4 10.0 6%
B767-400ER 190.2 200.8 10.6 6%
B777-200ER 244.7 258.8 14.1 6%
B777-200F 280.1 295.7 15.6 6%
B777-200LR 275.8 291.2 15.4 6%
B777-300ER 298.3 315 16.7 6%
B787-8 193.5 206.8 13.3 7%
B787-9 227.8 243.6 15.8 7%

49 Comments on “Boeing appears to finally drop 737-600

  1. As we all know, list prices are totally without any meaning, at least for the B737 and the A320 families. With reports that AA and SWA are paying $40m or less per aircraft, a raise of list prices just means that discounts will go up further.

  2. Randy Tinseth told us at Farnborough that 130 seats was now the bottom of the range (but that Boeing watched the regional-jet market to see what wannabe competitors were doing…). Among sub-variants, Boeing seems less rigid these days about 20% incremental steps in capacity and more concerned about matching actual range requirements especially among widebodies, which no longer have a general 8,200 nm target..

  3. Even though the B-736 was offered for sale, Boeing has not been pushing that model as it has the sister jets in that family. IIRC Boeing only sold about 65 of them since it was launched in the late 1990s.

  4. Most shrink variants end up being ordered and produced in far fewer numbers than their more optimized and stretched brethren. This is the nearly inevitable prospect for any shrink aircraft.

    737-600 – 69 built with the last delivered in 2006
    A318 – 81 built over a decade with a backlog of just 3 aircraft
    747SP – Just 45 built
    A340-200 – Just 28 built
    777-200LR (effectively a shrink of the -300ER) – Just 57 built
    A350-800 – only 118 orders (compared to 368 for the A359)

    The A330-200 is the only truly successful shrink I can think of, effectively matching the A330-300 in orders over time.

    • I think you mean double shrink… which ARE very difficult to pull off. If you just look at shrinks, then you also have to count the A319 and 737-700 which have done pretty well.

      The thumb rule is that a modest shrink can be good… too much is TOO MUCH.

      • Wasn’t it industry practice at one time to launch aircraft with the Series 200 model, leaving the -100 prefix for later smaller variants? (Of course, that’s fallen by the wayside since Airbus — and subsequently Boeing — began to start with -800 (-8) variants.) I’d suggest that the 747SP was a different sort of shrink, since it surely was driven by a damand for range rather than reduced capacity?
        And isn’t the 777-200LR a long-range -200 rather than a shrunken -300ER? The A350 and ither recent new projects seem to have taken a different tack, since they’ve been launched as multi-variant families, rather than as shrunken (or indeed stretched) models a few years after EIS — 757-300, for example. And is the A330-200 really a shrink: didn’t it come before the -300? Some variants, or at least their labels, don’t make it, of course. Anyone remember the 777- and A330100X sketched out for SQ (or CX?)? IIRC the A330-100 was renamed -500 to appear less regressive, and then gave way to the A350, which…

    • CM – Totally agree on your point, but one detail about the 777-200LR: You could call it a shrink of 300ER or a gross weight increase of the 200ER. The important thing is that it is the basis for the 777F and in that respect it should be considered successful.

      I don’t have the fact check on this, but wasn’t the A300 and A310 on the price list long after they were dead?

      • We don’t specifically know the answer to the question about A300 and A310 but we do know the A300-600RF remained on the pricing table through delivery of the last to UPS. The A310-300 was one of those mirthful examples of Airbus wish-listing: there remained a backlog of 5 A310s to Iraqi Airways loooong after the 1991 Gulf War. Nobody but Airbus believed Iraqi would ever take the airplanes. We sort of recall them being canceled (and along with it, the program) after the second Gulf War, or something like that.

        Airbus also kept the A340 program “alive” long after it was “dead.”

    • CM, the A330-200 traded the sometimes inadequate range of the A330-300 for size. It’s somewhat like the 787-9 and 787-10 except the stretch came first. Airbus original strategy was that twinjets were for medium haul and quadjets for long haul. The 767 changed all that.

      The A319 is a curious thing because it was very popular but isn’t now, even though the fundamental economics of the plane remain the same. My interpretation is that the trend to higher yields at the expense of frequency combined with the higher cost of oil, means the key driver is now per seat cost whereas it was purchase cost before. So it’s more to do with the market changing than the plane itself.

    • A340-200 and A330-200 aren’t really shrinks of then established models.
      They were entry level models to tide over towards improving engine efficiencies
      and other improvements for longer ranges.
      (look at the EIS dates ) Same goes for the 770-200ER specimen.
      -200ER/-300ER show the same “type swapover” we see on the A330-200 to -300.
      ( note that spec shifts in the A330 line have no/less reflection in type tags )

      737-600 A318 and 747SP fit well. IMHO the A350-800 can’t be judged yet.

  5. Fascnating updated price-list, with $300+ mill aircraft!
    I remember the late 50’s, when a 707 cost about $3-4 Million and we at Boeing
    were talking about a supersonic aircraft, if it came, would have to cost about
    $25-30 million and thus NOT a coming threat to the 707!
    We were right about the supersonic, but not one of any of us at Boeing could
    have immagined $300+ mill airplanes in our lifetime!
    What’s more fascinating, however, is the fact that these $300+ Mill airplanes
    carry hundred-millions people more from around the world every year, at a cost/
    mile, far less than it did 60 years ago, in terms of average incomes today!
    That’s real progress and also a major contribution to living-standards and pease
    worldwide, not wthstanding the local cremishes in some parts of the world today.
    The landing of “Discovery” on the backside of Mars yesterday, 250 Mill miles
    away, is another fascenating example of the rapid changes “for the betterment
    of mankind,” we hope!

  6. I don’t see why everyone is getting all hot and bothered. Airbus is going to be ending the A318 as well, with the NEO conversion. They aren’t NEO-ing the A318, not even sure if they are sharkletting it either.

    • We agree with Howard; the A318 will survive only as a business jet and not as a commercial airliner. It is not being “neo-ed.” Airbus did not rule out sharklets for the A318 but as yet hasn’t gone forward with them, either.

      Where the difference comes, Howard, is Boeing has not sold a 736 since 2005 but still, for some reason unbeknownst to anyone outside Boeing, continued to list it in the pricing and until recently as an active airplane program on the website. Why not just own up and acknowledge the 736 is done?

      Airbus continues to sell the A318 as an ACJ to this day.

      • “Where the difference comes, Howard, is Boeing has not sold a 736 since 2005 but still, for some reason unbeknownst to anyone outside Boeing, continued to list it in the pricing and until recently as an active airplane program on the website. Why not just own up and acknowledge the 736 is done?”

        Hmmm? You seem personally aggrieved that Boeing hasn’t included you on their internal business descision making.

        I have a guess as to why I am one of the “unbeknownst”. Unless I’m in the market to purchase one, they really don’t care what I think and prefer to offer what they choose to.

      • Hamilton, contrary to what you always claim, you sure sound as if you have a “beef” with Boeing!

      • Airbus sells A318 as ACJ, but very very few, and BBJs don’t come as -600 base models. The only reason Airbus will sell an A318 ACJ is because they can get a premium price, which makes the A318 actually profitable, but only since they can get a premium price from a Biz jet, no airline would pay the stupid price of an A318 Airbus would need to charge to actually make money at it.

        Double shrinks stink as commercial planes. They are far too uneconomical to operate commercially. They also cost more to build.

    • Well could it be a A318 NEO would need a new engine that noone will develop in the next years.
      The A318 use not the same engines as the other members of the A320

      • It would be relatively easy to develop a variant of the GTF engine to fit an A318neo. But the airplane would still be too heavy for the number of passengers carried.

        The CSeries (and to a certain extent the E-Jet) would still offer better performances and operating costs for about the same capacity.

      • The A318 uses the PW6000, but also the CFM56-5B. The same engine as is available to the rest of the A320 family, papered down in thrust.

    • Howard – Don’t forget that an A318 bound for a corporate/private customer will be sold as a green airframe. Also, every sale requires a buyer and a seller who have agreed the price. Or perhaps you’re thinking of that photo of a new airline customer signing the purchase agreement for his first aircraft with a flourish and a loud “Done!,” while the salesman standing behind him mouths a quiet “You certainly have been…”

  7. @Litter and AVC,

    You can search the Web for a more objective blogger than Scott, you wont find one. I don’t see any beef against Boeing here. But there is some meat in his argument that after six years of inactivity the model can be considered long dead. But the 800 is alive and kicking; which gives credence to what CM says above concerning shrinks.

  8. It probably does Boeing (and Airbus) little harm if lay analysts/researchers, surfing around to check the 90- to 120-seat market for incumbent competition against Bombardier, Embraer (et al) ambitions/aspirations, find 737- and A320-family variants (still) listed.

    • Yes, but it can also play against Airbus and Boeing when the same analysts/researchers find the sales figures for those models.

  9. SAS shouldn’t order dash 600 at first place. It makes sense to order MD-95 as F28 and DC-9 replacement. As far as I know Boeing made a hard push and sold dash 600 for less than 20m per plane. Later SAS convert some of the option to dash 700 and 800.

    I’m just curious, if Boeing made some money in the process?

  10. Boeing’s statement seems like managementspeak to me, trying to avoid at all cost words like “discontinuation”, “cancellation” etc.

    “Should customers request to order a Next-Generation 737-600, Commercial Airplanes Sales Teams will work with the customer to meet their requirements.”
    In my experience, phreses like these basically mean you may as well try to buy a 737-500, i.e. it’ll be an uphill battle for you if you really did want to buy a -600. Not that I can quite see why you would want to in the first place 😉

  11. Both A318 and B737-600 were invented in a time when commonality was more important than fuel cost. Both designs have a terrible empty weight per seat (A318: 285kg/seat, A320: 229kg/seat). Crew and maintenance doesn’t scale down when you remove some frames. The only real cost saving is the lower placard MTOW, which reduces charges at airports and for navigation.

    Also: they both look miserable.
    The A318 is the only Airbus ever conceived which is wider than it is long. At least one record.
    The B737-600 actually has the very same fuselage length as the -500 and the -200.

    Remark: the seat-specific weights are official OEW from publically available documents (so, probably wrong) divided by maximum certified seating. So, don’t take ’em too serious … and especially: don’t compare with Boeing.

  12. Sorry, one more comment:
    Boeing removes the B737-600 after 7 years of zero-success.
    If Boeing was consistent, they could trash the B767-200ER as well.
    Boeing has not delivered one since 2001.
    Any ideas why it still is one the list?

    • ‘Tis surely related to the line (and supply chain) remaining open for the tanker?

    • Good question. It was the original basis for the KC-767-type tanker, so maybe that’s why. The KC-46A tanker is six feet longer than the -200ER and is a new “minor model,” the 767-2C, which might be offered as a commercial freighter someday.

  13. Schorsch :

    The A318 is the only Airbus ever conceived which is wider than it is long. At least one record.

    Not really true. The A380 is wider than long with a 79.5 m wingspan and just 72.7 m length

  14. aeroturbopower :
    The A320 wing is higher loaded than the B737 wing…

    Nobody says Boeing is unable to learn. 😉
    Dreamliner goes in the same direction( and the 777 started the change for B)

    • Ah yea… Airbus Uber Alles. Why the visceral hatred of Boeing and all things American? Why are you such an Airbus fanboi when you don’t even have skin in the game? It would be partially understandable if you even worked for Airbus, or even EADS, but you don’t. Why the hatred?

      • What hatred ? Anything less than 100% applause for Boeing is “hatred” in your eyes? That makes interacting with foreigners really difficult.
        People that are so easily offended are regularly completely tonedeaf to their own offensive presentation style.

    • Not sure what was implied here – higher wing loading is better? I think the general trend the last 20 years or more has been to use larger wings (hence lower loading). I believe wing loading peeked in the DC-9/727 era.

      Larger wings carry more fuel and allow for simpler high lift configuration. 737NG uses a larger wing that has lower loading and simpler flap configuation than 737-300/400. I’m pretty sure the 777/787 have lower wing loading than the 747/767.

      • What was implied is what you say: modern wings have a lower loading, which is better for the reasons you give. The A320 was introduced with a low wing loading. Followed the 737NG with an even lower loading.

      • So I tried to fact check that “AB has…Lower Wing loading…”. On Single Aisles. 727-200Adv = 122 lb/SqFt, 737-300 126, MD-88 124, A320-200 129, 737-700 114. Twin Aisles: A300-6 135, A330-200 131, A380 138. 767-200ER 129, 777-200 118, 777-200ER 142, 747-400 156, 787-8. 125. I don’t think there is any real trend here other than HGW derrivatives have as expected higher wing loadings.

        • A stretch, or shrink, will have a higher, or lower, wing loading if the same wing is used.

      • Of course wing loadings go up with higher gross weight derivatives. I tried to account for that by using the baseline configuration (neither a shrink, stretch or HGW) for each model. Uwe’s contention was that A design’s were more advanced due to lower wing loading (and span and cleanliness). This data shows that the A320 had higher wing loading than any of it’s contemporaries, and significantly higher than the 737NG. On the twin aisles it is less obvious because there are HGW models listed (747-400, 777-200ER), but there is nothing to support that A’s wing loadings are lower than B’s. Data comes from AvWeeks annual comparision showing MGW and wing area.

      • Uwe – you didn’t read my comment – most of them are in there. 737-700 is the baseline configuration, the -800 is a higher gross weight design and they are the same at 129 lb/sq ft. A380 is a baseline design with plans for higher gross weights; 747-8 is not a new design; it. Bottom line is that the A320 wasn’t than the other SA’s, A330 wasn’t better than the 767. The data I was using is from 2001.

  15. OK, Everybody, knock off the personal accusations and questioning of motives. Y’all know well this violates our Reader Comment Rules. Stick to the issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *