March 6, 2017, © Leeham Co.: Boeing effectively did a soft launch today of the 737-10 MAX at the ISTAT Americas conference in San Diego.
Randy Tinseth, VP-Marketing, revealed basic specifications for the MAX 10, the first time Boeing has done so in a public forum.
Tinseth said the MAX 10 will join a family of 737 MAXes that will fill a product gap in the Airbus line up between the A320 and the A321., giving Boeing a 737 that for the first time is the same size as the A321.
“When this airplane is launched, and we hope it will be this year,” he claimed that the MAX 10 will have more range than the A321neo and carry the same number of passengers as the neo. He dispute the claim by John Leahy, COO-Customers for Airbus, who spoke immediately before Tinseth, that the A321neo carries 10 more passengers.
(By LNC’s analysis, this happens in high density configuration because the MAX 10 hits exit limits before the A321neo does. In standard two-class configuration, we figure the A321neo has a three seat advantage.)
Tinseth claimed the MAX 10 will have 5% lower trip and seat-mile costs than the A321neo., resulting in $1m per year in savings.
IMHO I’ll take Mr. Tinseth’s comments with a grain of salt. People can say what they want but the order book for the A321NEO/A321CEO speaks volumes.
I’m hoping the MAX10 sells in “sufficient quantities” but I don’t really see it anything more than a weak offering.
As mentioned in the other discussion/article, Boeing needs to “bite the bullet” and offer something new (MOM, etc).
Agree with your comments
Rear galley on the A320 séries is 2lavs + trolley
That can translate in 3 more seats.
No clues of the technical solutions for the main landing gear?
@Crise: the main gear wheels trail the oleo instead of straddling it, making the pivot point slightly aft.
For sure, but they will need to rework wheel wells i guess ?
You can’t stay with the same attachement points and the same wells if the overall length is changing
Yes, it seems like geometrically, they will have to move the wheel well to the rear. Also, geometrically, the trailing strut would have to be a partially folding strut as well, to clear the aircraft centerline when stowed. I’m sure they’ve got it figured out, but it will be interesting to see the solution.
Plus, once they have the solution, if it is put on the -9, or a 60″ stretch of the -8. For single class operators like SW who want 190 passengers out of Midway. Or 200 passengers for RyanAir with more room. I’d hold off on the MAX 200 if they have a better landing gear and make the aircraft longer.
It will still be a runway hog and not useable out of hot or high airports.
Too little too late IMHO.
Remember how Randy had the 321noe just catching up to the Max9? He does need a healthy dose of reality.
It looks like the accountants at Boeing together with the accountants at United Airlines designed it in a fancy Chicago restaurant. Lowest cost to haul X pax on som busy morning flights with long runways or short shuttle flights like JFK-BOS-BWI. It might work well in Asia where they are used to cramp into subway trains but Airlines that already operate the A321 will most likely not switch unless the competition operates only 737’s and they have many short flights (like SAS). Maybe Ryanair will order 400 paying less than $40M/ea and switch some 737MAX-200 to the -10’s.
Boeing should consider developing a plug compatible carbon fiber wing for the 737 which could be assembled into the fuselage on the same line as the MAX with the current wing, creating a 737-10 plus. This would allow them to raise the landing gear height to allow larger engines and provide the additional range needed to compete with and leapfrog the 321neo. They would obviously also have to modify the nose gear to match the main gear.
While this would cost several billion to develop, it has a number of advantages. It would mean the MAX would not have to be replaced with the CAPEX and cannibalization of existing MAX orders problem, and would avoid the need for an all new MOM aircraft.
It would also allow carbon fiber wing technology to be inserted into the high volume single aisle production process without having to go all the way to a 60/month level. Eventually the new wing could find its way into the -8 and -9 models as a major upgrade without building a whole new aircraft.
Price would be to expensive as Airbus would undercut every sale easily, and the market is looking at a whole new plane, advanced technology, fly by wire etc.
Remember the existing fuselage is still to small for baggage containers so you would’nt want to continue that. The 737 has a lighter weight now due to its more recent wing design.
If Boeing launches a MAX10+ Airbus will most likely update the A321LR with and launch an A322 (+20 pax?) with a new wing if it pans out to be a real threat.
The MAX10 is another distraction to Airbus. They should look at an A320.5 (+20pax/+2K-Lb Thrust/New wing) that betters the MAX8 and so draw customers over to Airbus with a complete family of single aisles, (A320/320.5-NW/321/321LR-NW/322-NW) with the NEOs’ engines and a New Wing(NW) to some models.
Boeing built the 787, Airbus chose a fuselage that was wider. Whoever chooses the next wing first, the other manufacturer gets the strategic advantage to try to out think them.
One can look at the corollary to that:
Whoever goes first, gets to choose the optimal design while the second guy has to try to avoid being in the “me too” or copycat category.
The MAX 10 to have a longer range than the A321? How would that be possible?
Existing 737s have better range the the A320 series, so the max versions maintain that with the neo.
Effectively identical: 737 MAX 9 is rated at 3515 nm, the A321 neo at 3500 nm. (A321 LR is 4000 nm.)
The 737ng have a bigger fuel tank than the A320 series. B737-900er have more range than A321. The A321 uses an auxillary tank to extend it range due to the greater max tow. All of this transfer to the MAX and NEO.
What will the range be of the MAX10 taking of from airports such as Denver in summer with maximum passengers (if it can get off the ground)?
Just wondering if the technical guys at Boeing is not trying to proof to the “Financial Engineers” and Board that the time has come for a new Single Aisle by putting “Bandaid” 737Max10 proposals on the table?
Denver is the center of US mountain states, so Max 10 doesnt need its max range to reach East and West coast main cities, its less than 3000km to Boston.
Thats correct. A Max 10 would be viable there. I think Boeing are right to table the Max 10, provided they can build it economically and that its genuinely feasible. It would also act as a cheaper alternative to any future Airbus NMA. Good move by Boeing IMO.
Some history here: the B737NG was launched with the -700, actually flew first February 1997. The -800 followed couple of month later. The success of the -800 was partly due to the fact that it already was a stretched -700.
The -900 was a double stretch.
Hence, the -10 is a triple-stretch.
Congratulations Boeing, another world first!
Some might say that the -700 is actually the -300 fuselage, which represents a stretched -200, which is a stretched -100. Hence, the -10 is a stretch^5.
[in Aboulafia-style I could conclude,
‘Til the B737 is limited by the 80m box]
At the same time as Tinseth confirmed the 737-10 Champagne bottles were heard popping in Toulouse.
That was exactly what I was thinking, lol.
Randy has done 10 years in his current job come April. His previous individual plane program was the 747-8I.
He started out with Boeing in 1981 as a flight test engineer and had graduated from Cornell as an electrical engineer.
Thats a few CEO’s hes outlasted
Oh how the might have fallen.
Were they still popping when they heard the B797 is gaining momentum?
Airbus likes to get the 797 Engines availabe to them so. The Airbus ATA70-80 Group popped some bottles.
Dont agree Strato, though I see your reasoning. This is the correct strategy by Boeing provided that it is doable.
The -10 should be good for large sections of extra pitch economy class, configured with 180 to 190 passengers. Or, a premium service configuration for US transcontinental.
Sorry Ted, I feel you are contriving a plausible use to fit the aircraft. Sure it is possible but how likely? I think the MAX10 reminds me of the revamped 727, it will be spat out by the market as too compromised in too many ways. It has too much past and too little guture
With the same empty weight increase per length as the NG (0.76t/m) and 9 more pax, a MAX10 ZFW would be 1,45t heavier than a MAX9. With a 2.9kg/km fuel consumption and the MAX9 MTOW, that means 500km (270nm) less range. In 2020 with PIPs the MAX9 range will be 3,605nm, so the MAX10 range will be around 3,335nm. A bit less than the others MAX, but still better than the NGs and comparable with an A321neo without ACT. But for only 5% increase in seats, the seat cost won’t drop by much, so is it worth it, especially late in the game?
Er, not 1,45t more ZFW but 2,22t (66in not 66cm), so 770km/415nm less range for 3190nm.
I think 1.4t is about right for a 66″ fuselage stretch. But the special landing gear will add more weight to that. So ya, if the range gets eaten up too much….
Plus if it sits 3″ higher (because the landing gear certainly will not be 30″ aft), does the wing evacuation still work?
Maybe the gear will be set aft the same amount as the rear fuselage plug (30″ to 40″), and the aircraft will sit at the same height. If so, the downward elevator force to make it rotate will need another two tons. On landing, this will cause a faster harder impact onto the nose gear once the main gears plant.
Boeing could develop the wing using more carbon for the -10 to carry more fuel and take-off at lower speed thus helping the low rotation angle and low Engine thrust. Reinforcing the wingbox and adding 16ft of wingspan could do wonders, they might even accomodate a folding wingtip mechnism off the 777-9 if needed. Not having fly by wire, contianer cargo and a smaller fuselage Boeing has to sell it for A320 prices.
Wing not optimized to the fuselage, ergo, its not worth it.
All new is needed.
And the ROI is just not there in developing a whole new wing just for the -10. Push up the cost, push out the EIS, and the combination will likely push down the sales potential.
On something totally different. Boeing have currently just over 300 published orders for the 777X, but none is from US Airlines. Makes you think?
So,if it wasn’t for a small geometric problem with the UC, Boeing could get the correct off the shelf engines and easily beat the A321?
The timing for the 737-10X is perfect.
Especially with all the issues with the A321NEO GTF.
D Gates summarized the situation nicely.
Pingback: Boeing 737 MAX 10 analyzed - Leeham News and Comment
Pingback: Pontifications: Boeing MAX 10, "797" NMA dominated ISTAT headlines - Leeham News and Comment