Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the mid 1990's Boeing retooled the three decade old 737 and developed what they called the Boeing 737-next generation. It's first flight was February 9, 1997. The original B737-700 was introduced in 1998 with Southwest Airlines, and by the fall of that year was ready for it's first transcontinental flight.
So it has been only 18 years since SWA began it's BWI - OAK (2,447 mile) nonstop flight on a B737, shocking the industry. Twenty years after deregulation transcontinental flights were still the reserve of the legacy carriers and were conducted with widebodies or B757s, but certainly not the B737. Pundits at the time said that Southwest could not transition from it's short flights which were sold as alternatives to driving to the transcontinental market. Passengers expected more from a trip of that length than the "bus treatment".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southwest to test $99 fare to coast No-frills airline threatens to capture cross-country routes
October 25, 1998
But all over the country, airline executives will be watching.
When Southwest Airlines Flight 735 touches down, it will be the first time in the scrappy Dallas carrier's 26-year history that it has flown an airplane full of people from one side of the country to the other without stopping.
While company officials call it just a "test flight," industry observers figure Southwest isn't testing for nothing.
The one-way fare for the flight is $99 -- the lowest transcontinental fare in the business. And if the airline with a reputation for driving fares downward starts scheduling regular nonstop, transcontinental flights, the passenger airline business could be in for a ride of its own.
Why not... I sometimes took a 757 to Europe, not that much different to the A321 in terms of seating, cabin size an everything a passenger would notice. An A321 transatlantic would be a good option for Tier2 cities in the US as well as in Europe to be connected, where a widebody would not fill up.
But I wonder if it will be possible to have enough business passengers on those airplanes, as C class seats can not be that comfortable as in a widebody, unless one puts 1-1 config which then leads to less profit for the airline.
IcelandAir was always one of the cheapest airlines to Europe with 183 seats on a B757, but they are often undercut by Wow airlines which runs all economy class flights out of Iceland as well (with 200 seats on an A321).
Num pitch, width, Class name
200 30-31" 17" Economy WOW A321 (3-3)
Icelandair's Saga class is 22 recliner seats in a 2 by 2 configuration which resemble old first class domestic seats. They can't begin to compair with flat seats, but the cost is a tiny fraction. People who don't want to fit into a 17" seat in 2-4-2 row are happy to pay for Saga class instead of shelling out for lie flat seats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Dakota
But I wonder if it will be possible to have enough business passengers on those airplanes, as C class seats can not be that comfortable as in a widebody, unless one puts 1-1 config which then leads to less profit for the airline.
But if WOW is setting standards then they simply won't bother with business class. It might mean flying to resort destinations like Cannes France or Malaga Spain instead of trying to compete at London Heathrow or Paris's Charles De-Gaul.
I still think that Boeing slit its own throat by giving the 73G transcon range and is getting squeezed on both sides as a result. By doing that, they killed both the 757 market *and* the short hop demand for Boeing products. These are now market sectors where Boeing no longer has a competitive presence. The earlier 737's (-300/-400/-500) were absolutely perfect for frequent flights of the Los Angeles-Las Vegas or Phoenix-Denver variety. The -700 is simply too heavy to profitably and efficiently do service like that. That's part of the reason the RJ's like the CRJ-9000 and ERJ-170 have been able to flourish, with the C-Series about to also go after a piece of that pie. Those are the planes that run where the -300 once did.
The -800 is and was perfect as a 727 replacement. Even though the -700 was intended to replace the -300, it was too much plane. That's why the -700 is something of an unwanted albatross now. I'm sure that Southwest regrets buying as many of them as they did. Boeing had to practically give them away to United just to keep the lines running until the MAX series begins to ramp up.
By letting the 757 slip away, the A321 is now taking over a good chunk of that market. Previously, Boeing had it mostly to itself.
I hope that with nothing on the short/frequent >130 seater side and nothing in the 175-250 seat segment either, that there is enough of an offset factor for Boeing.
I still think that Boeing slit its own throat by giving the 73G transcon range and is getting squeezed on both sides as a result. By doing that, they killed both the 757 market *and* the short hop demand for Boeing products. These are now market sectors where Boeing no longer has a competitive presence. The earlier 737's (-300/-400/-500) were absolutely perfect for frequent flights of the Los Angeles-Las Vegas or Phoenix-Denver variety. The -700 is simply too heavy to profitably and efficiently do service like that. That's part of the reason the RJ's like the CRJ-9000 and ERJ-170 have been able to flourish, with the C-Series about to also go after a piece of that pie. Those are the planes that run where the -300 once did.
The -800 is and was perfect as a 727 replacement. Even though the -700 was intended to replace the -300, it was too much plane. That's why the -700 is something of an unwanted albatross now. I'm sure that Southwest regrets buying as many of them as they did. Boeing had to practically give them away to United just to keep the lines running until the MAX series begins to ramp up.
By letting the 757 slip away, the A321 is now taking over a good chunk of that market. Previously, Boeing had it mostly to itself.
I hope that with nothing on the short/frequent >130 seater side and nothing in the 175-250 seat segment either, that there is enough of an offset factor for Boeing.
I agree that the "one fits all" approach from Boeing has some disadvantages, because using a streched or short 737 for all kinds of jobs from regional to transcon and even transatlantic does not meet the market demand. Airbus has the same, with nobody ordering the heavy A318. From an economical perspective, streching an airplane is always more protitable than shortening due to strucutral weight issues.
But I do not think that a 733/735 was more profitable on short hops than the 73G. It was just that at the time when the classic 737 were flying, there was simply no competitors offering more efficient planes, such as the CRJ and Embraer today.
Another thing why regional jets are more and more taking over the market is unions. The big unions in the major carriers negotiated quite good contracts, making staff on mainlines very expensive. On the other hand, the contract says that only airplanes up to a certain number of seats are allowed to be operated by other carriers without union contracts. So it is often cheaper to let an Embraer or CRJ from Republic, Compass, or whatever are their names fly twice and offer more frequencies.
The next task for both Airbus and Boeing will be to find a replacement for everything between the biggest 737 or 320 variant and the smallest 787/330/350 variant. As you mentioned, that will be the 757 market, which is still important for transcon flights, but also of international relevance. They cannot stretch the 737 or 320 even longer, and the basic frame of both, especially the 737, is just too old to compete even one more generation.
I agree that the "one fits all" approach from Boeing has some disadvantages...
Airbus has tried to build airplanes that are aimed at smaller markets. Everything from the Concorde to the A380 to the Baby Bus more suited to shorter inner city airports like London City. By and large such efforts are financially catastrophic.
Although it offends our engineering sensibilities, financially it is probably better to let the smaller markets go to competitors and concentrate on the "one fits all" money-makers.
========================
The Prius Plug-in Hybrid (ZVW35) allows an all-electric range of 23 km (14.3 mi) sold in U.S. in late February 2012.
The Toyota Prime allows an all-electric range which is expected to reach 35 km (22 mi), sold in U.S. end of 2016.
The Nissan Leaf introduced in Japan in December 2010, with the 24 kWh battery has an electric range of 135 km (84 miles).
For maybe 95% of all trips, the ideal car is the Leaf, with the 135 km range, but the Toyota Prime is more conventional for those troublesome 5% of trips when unexpected traffic conditions means it takes you hours to get home.
I think you are better off shooting for nonspecialized markets.
Airbus has tried to build airplanes that are aimed at smaller markets. Everything from the Concorde to the A380 to the Baby Bus more suited to shorter inner city airports like London City. By and large such efforts are financially catastrophic.
Both Concorde (built by ancestors of Airbus, but not actually BY Airbus) and the A380 were planes designed and built purely for pride, image, ego, and nationalistic reasons only. Not because either made any sense from the financials.
The rest of what you're saying isn't quite true. I agree that 'shrinks' from the original baseline design have almost always been a flop. But they are extensions of an existing, otherwise successful design.
So while planes like the 747SP, MD-87, 737-600, F-70, and A318 on their own look like flops, they were part of the bigger family and so cannot get all the blame.
Indeed the only planes I can think of that were both shrinks of a baseline design *AND* sold in decent numbers were the 737-500 and the A319.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
