Premium #222 – Is the 737-10X Really a “Mad Max”?

Two weeks ago, at Airbus Innovation Days, John Leahy, Chief Commercial Officer at Airbus, scoffed at a proposed 737-10X by calling it the “Mad Max.” But is this idea really mad, or what Boeing should have done initially with the MAX lineup to better compete with the A320neo family? The Fundamental Problem with the 737 The Boeing 737 first entered service in 1967, when jet engines were cigar shaped, much different than today’s large fans with high bypass ratios. As a result, ground clearance is a problem for the 737, which cannot accommodate the latest large fans. While the MAX landing gear was lengthened by 4 inches to slightly increase ground clearance, it is still inadequate for large engines. And because the larger engines produce more thrust and can carry more weight, the A321neo has a substantial advantage over the 737MAX9, and is outselling it dramatically, with an 80% market share. Since the current MAX9 doesn’t effectively compete with the A321neo, and Boeing can’t introduce a new airplane to replace the MAX, which hasn’t even entered service yet, it needs to modify the MAX to compete. This is exactly what Boeing is doing, which isn’t mad, but rational. When your product isn’t selling well, you go back to the drawing board, which is exactly what Boeing has done. Rather than a Mad Max, this airplane might be a Super Max. Let's review what Boeing has to process as they define another revision of the 737. As we understand it, the thinking is in a state of flux. All Boeing will tell us is: "Regarding your question about a proposed MAX 10 – that’s been something the media has put out there that we haven’t announced or been talking about. We’re in continuous discussions with our customers about the market. We’ll make the right decisions at the right time." The solution has to primarily compete with the A321neo. But as it does so, it also offers a chance to close the MOM gap between the MAX9 and the 787-8. Getting the definition right is crucial because it could solve two problems - and that is why this is a hard job. The airplane has to be longer. More frames of the 737 dimensions could impact stability and control. This also adds to the potential tail strike issue which dogs the 900ER and MAX9. What enabling technologies exist to allow for a MAX10? What will it take to deliver and at what cost? Does this solution focus on A321neo or can it be a step towards closing the MOM gap to 787-8? The MAX10 solution really starts with the engine. The LEAP is likely to be the preferred solution, and a LEAP-1A equivalent would likely be the starting point. Thrust of around 35,000 could be the starting point. This then means looking a higher gear to accommodate the engine. Then comes the wing. It is likely the current MAX9 wing would work - does the heavier engine impact the wing box? Also, if a wing tweak is considered, can this wing be used elsewhere? If the goal is to offset A321neo the answer is likely to focus on using the MAX9 wing. If the MAX10 can act as a MOM option, then perhaps more goes into this wing. Bear in mind Boeing has the new wing facility making the 777X wing. That same facility could play a big role in solving this conundrum. By any measure, that facility is likely to grow into a critical asset for any new wing development. How much does Boeing have to invest in this solution? If it is a band aid to offset the A321neo, then not too much. If it can also close the gap to 787-8, much more is reasonable. Therefore a 737-10 would be larger than the 737-9, with a stretch enabling it to match or exceed the capacity of the A321neo. It will probably utilize LEAP-1A equivalent engine that is currently on the A321neo to provide higher thrust than the LEAP-1B used on the smaller MAX, and will necessarily entail a redesign of the landing gear and wing to provide adequate ground clearance for the larger engine. In some ways, this is what Boeing should likely have done with the MAX initially. Boeing and Bombardier were both surprised when Airbus introduced the A320neo family and secured a key “conquest” order with American Airlines, which was formerly a Douglas and Boeing customer for narrow-body aircraft. The order spurred Boeing for a quick response, which was the MAX program. To save time while playing catch-up, Boeing decided not to change the MAX significantly from the NG configuration. While the existing ground clearance and design were fine for the MAX7 and MAX8, the MAX9 remained a bit under powered, with runway performance limiting sales. With a new larger engine and higher gear, the MAX10 solves the problems at the high end of the narrow-body market, growing the MAX9 by 12 seats. This will result in a very competitive aircraft to A321neo. But this does not come without cost or risk. It is estimated that the new model will cost $1-2 billion, as new landing gear is a major change. In addition, the use of the LEAP -1A instead of the LEAP-1B will mean that engine commonality is lost, a potential detriment to some airlines. The Bottom Line Boeing realized that it is not currently competitive with the MAX9, and is doing something about it. The new airplane, while not an ideal clean-sheet solution, will result in a more competitive aircraft and give Airbus a run for its money in the high-capacity narrow-body market, which also happens to be the most profitable. The battle continues, as Advantage Airbus could move back to Deuce should the aircraft be introduced at Farnborough later this year.

No results