More 737-900's For Delta
Apr 19, 2017, 7:06 am
#121
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
as a 21-year Boeing alum who put in three years as a flight test engineer (mostly 767) and one in Customer Engineering (777, right after program launch), I can think of two things that were relevant at that time: internal capital to underwrite the key technical constituencies (aero, propulsion, structures, loads, systems, avionics, interiors, manufacturing, subcontracts, certification, flight test, and a few others I e probably forgotten) to collaborate on developing and refining a design, and customer interest (which also requires pre-launch investment in the Sales/Marketing workforce, as well as Customer Engineering once discussions with an airline go beyond the preliminary stages)
it is in no way a trivial process
it is in no way a trivial process
The world changed a ton between when they shut down the 757 line and today. Neither the A321 or MAX 10 truly duplicate what the 757's do but it seems that A321's do a slightly closer impression. I don't want to see Boeing lose the battle for the MOM plane especially when they have the 757 that they could theoretically bring back.
Apr 19, 2017, 7:09 am
#122
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,892
It's amusing how someone can consistently disparage pilots as grossly overpaid bus drivers in every other thread, except when there's an Airbus vs. Boeing argument to be had 
Apr 19, 2017, 9:05 am
#123
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SJC
Programs: DL PM MM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 3,276
Boeing made economic decisions on fuselage commonality circa 1960 (727), 1965 (737), and 1978 (757); I'd suggest that their relatively robust financials have long spoken to the wisdom of those choices
moreover, I'd suggest that it's completely disingenuous to imply that Boeing could or should have anticipated the massive changes in market conditions and the worldwide airline industry in the ensuing years -- much less the evolution of the average passenger physique, and still less the existence of FT where this sort of discussion can happen
Boeing made economic decisions on fuselage commonality circa 1960 (727), 1965 (737), and 1978 (757); I'd suggest that their relatively robust financials have long spoken to the wisdom of those choices
moreover, I'd suggest that it's completely disingenuous to imply that Boeing could or should have anticipated the massive changes in market conditions and the worldwide airline industry in the ensuing years -- much less the evolution of the average passenger physique, and still less the existence of FT where this sort of discussion can happen
I also don't blame Boeing for the airlines installing to many narrow seats in a 777 or 787. Those planes were never designed for 10 and 9 across respectively.
Apr 19, 2017, 9:34 am
#124
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
Wait..
Who said anything about the 787 not being designed for efficiency? I said it was designed and finalized before any airline had dreamed about squeezing extra seats in. It was also designed as a 767 replacement which only seats 7 to begin with.
Knowing what it could do and intending it are two different things. If that was the case, Boeing should have offered it from the get-go and make their CASM look even more fantastic. Think of the 15 wasted years from the introduction of the 777 having 19.5" seats.
Who said anything about the 787 not being designed for efficiency? I said it was designed and finalized before any airline had dreamed about squeezing extra seats in. It was also designed as a 767 replacement which only seats 7 to begin with.
Knowing what it could do and intending it are two different things. If that was the case, Boeing should have offered it from the get-go and make their CASM look even more fantastic. Think of the 15 wasted years from the introduction of the 777 having 19.5" seats.
Agreed ^
Apr 19, 2017, 9:42 am
#125
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that Airbus cares as much about safety as Boeing does. If the AF A330 had auto-thrust linked thrust levers it is likely the accident would have been averted. The plane was flying at a low thrust setting even though the thrust levers appeared to be at their max setting. Had the side sticks been linked it could also have saved the aircraft. The other pilot had no idea that pilot flying was pulling back on his side stick. In a Boeing the other pilots would have known within a couple of seconds that the plane was in a lower power situation and the aircraft was at a very high pitch angle. I'm sure the Boeing system costs more but I'd rather the pilots have as much visual and tactile information as possible.
However, I can absolutely tell you that I think that everybody at both Boeing and Airbus from top management through engineering through production workers care extremely deeply about safety. To suggest that Airbus actually doesn't care as much as Boeing is absurd, shockingly cynical, and reflects sadly on your view of humanity.
AF 447 hit the ground with the trust levers in the TOGO detent and over 100% N1 from both engines. There were both design and human factors involved with that tragedy, but it has nothing to do with your utterly false claim that:
Apr 19, 2017, 9:49 am
#126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Back in Reds Country (DAY/CVG). Previously: SEA & SAT.
Programs: DL PM 1MM, AA PLAT, UA Silver, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 10,334
From my understanding the autopilot controls for the Boeing will be made more user friendly in hopes to prevent the mistake from happening in the future.
The Airbus pilots were unaware that the computers had degraded to direct law. This is why the FO was pulling back on the side stick. Under normal law the computer would limit the pitch and increase power to keep the plane from stalling. In direct law the pilot must make sure he/she has enough power and adjust the angle of attack to prevent a stall. Boeing pilots must practice this on a daily basis during take off and landing (assuming not performing an autoland). Airbus pilots are used to having protections and can therefore be a little more clumsy with their flying skills and not have to worry about it. This is why the Airbus is so popular with many startups in emerging economies such as India. They can take inexperienced pilots and quickly train them. The Boeing is not as forgiving and will require a more experienced pilot. There are soft limits on FBW Boeings such as the 777 or 787, but the pilot can override them.
The Airbus pilots were unaware that the computers had degraded to direct law. This is why the FO was pulling back on the side stick. Under normal law the computer would limit the pitch and increase power to keep the plane from stalling. In direct law the pilot must make sure he/she has enough power and adjust the angle of attack to prevent a stall. Boeing pilots must practice this on a daily basis during take off and landing (assuming not performing an autoland). Airbus pilots are used to having protections and can therefore be a little more clumsy with their flying skills and not have to worry about it. This is why the Airbus is so popular with many startups in emerging economies such as India. They can take inexperienced pilots and quickly train them. The Boeing is not as forgiving and will require a more experienced pilot. There are soft limits on FBW Boeings such as the 777 or 787, but the pilot can override them.
I don't feel any less safe on an Airbus or Boeing aircraft and that's from someone currently working (from the USAF side) with Boeing flight test (yea, I know saying that out loud in the building would get me shunned and beat up.
)
Apr 19, 2017, 10:11 am
#127
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Paradise
Posts: 1,617
I do generally agree with you on this, I'm a big fan of the free market and taking my business where the product suits my desires. This is why I won't fly long-haul on 9-across 787s or 10-across 777s. I did catch your crack about my size though, and if you're curious, I have a 28" waist and still find Boeing's 17" seats to be miserable.
I think the problem is most Americans tend to be broad shouldered where-as other nationalities aren't. I see no difference personally between a 17" or 18" seat, because I fit quite fine in a 17" seat and my shoulders don't overlap. My guess is a lot of other people probably feel the same way and wouldn't even care about the width of the seat.
Apr 19, 2017, 10:13 am
#128
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 233
Both manufacturers would rather not spend billions of dollars on a clean sheet design when they are both raking in the cash and the airlines aren't willing to wait. There are not enough people who can tell the difference between (or care to) any plane for the airlines to not buy what makes the economic sense.
Airbus and Boeing design planes to be slightly different than it's competitor (e.g. the 787 is longer and wider than the A330/767 that is was designed to replace. same with the A350 and the 777). The airbus marketing schtick that they design airplanes to be more comfortable isn't worth the marketing material it's printed on.
Apr 19, 2017, 10:34 am
#129
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL PM, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 8,414
Apr 19, 2017, 10:51 am
#130
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: LON, PDX
Programs: DL PM, AS MVP 75K, HH/SPG/MR Gold, Amex Plat, PRG, CSR
Posts: 2,064
But all of it is completely beside the real point that a 737 has narrower seats than an A320, regardless of the historical background.
Apr 19, 2017, 11:34 am
#131
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: BDL/HPN/JFK/FLL
Programs: DL Diamond Ham Sandwich
Posts: 1,051
Actually when I said "you", I was referencing the general population as whole. Sorry if that may have been misconstrued.
I think the problem is most Americans tend to be broad shouldered where-as other nationalities aren't. I see no difference personally between a 17" or 18" seat, because I fit quite fine in a 17" seat and my shoulders don't overlap. My guess is a lot of other people probably feel the same way and wouldn't even care about the width of the seat.
I think the problem is most Americans tend to be broad shouldered where-as other nationalities aren't. I see no difference personally between a 17" or 18" seat, because I fit quite fine in a 17" seat and my shoulders don't overlap. My guess is a lot of other people probably feel the same way and wouldn't even care about the width of the seat.
So all coach seats are too narrow at this point when there are middle seats, period. So are the upcoming W seats.
Apr 19, 2017, 11:37 am
#132
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSN
Programs: Delta DM, Bonvoy LT Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,987
Am I missing something? I enjoy the 739. I am not a small person (5'11"/180#/33" waist) and I've sat in regular economy from MSP>SMF on a completely full flight and was totally comfortable. If you are next to a bigger person, any plane can be uncomfortable. i wish it had more FC seats but upgrades for a Plat are so scarce on most flights these days anyway. Of course I prefer the Airbus but the 739 is fine.
Apr 20, 2017, 3:15 pm
#134
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mostly living in the basement
Programs: Newly minted free agent; MR LT(!)TE, HH SE, BA SECM, DL MM, UA PS, 2V Fanboi, CBP GE
Posts: 5,106
Furthermore, at that time at least a few airlines had already been operating 777s in 10 across configurations. There's no way Boeing didn't expect the 787 to go 9 across, unless they were completely out of touch with their market, which I guess is plausible given the proposed 3-2-3 config.
Apr 20, 2017, 3:54 pm
#135
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Delta's A321's have overhead bins that are a disaster, I sure hope someone lost their job over those things.
I can only assume the economics of the A321 are not as good as the 737-900's ... otherwise Delta wouldn't have bought them. Are you willing to pay more to fly the A321 than the 737-900? Of course those here on FT maybe would be willing to, but a lot of customers probably wouldn't know the difference between those planes and a DC-3 during the booking process.
I can only assume the economics of the A321 are not as good as the 737-900's ... otherwise Delta wouldn't have bought them. Are you willing to pay more to fly the A321 than the 737-900? Of course those here on FT maybe would be willing to, but a lot of customers probably wouldn't know the difference between those planes and a DC-3 during the booking process.