Happy Valentine's Day! 
Back to Squawk list

United Puts Final Touches on Their Order for 737s

Submitted
United Airlines put final touches on their order for 737s. (www.chicagotribune.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


AccessAir
AccessAir 3
Okay so let me get this straight...United dumped their entire fleet of 737-500s and 300s only to merge with Continental to have a whole fleet of 300s, 500s, 700s, 800s and 900s....And they kept the Airbuses instead...Im sorry but Boeings fly rings around the Buses..
rh77
You really have to hand it to the overall design and flexibility of this aircraft to evolve and adapt over its 45 year history. As a passenger, I do miss the 2-3 seating of the DC-9/MD-80/B717 series, but I'm sure the 73 does the job most cost-effectively when considering narrowbody, non-light equipment (thinking to myself, I hope this doesn't spur an Airbus vs. Boeing discussion). It would be interesting to see what MD would have offered if they survived.
dbrooks84
David Brooks 1
The Boeing design philosophy was based on the 707 fuselage. Re-use of tooling, drawings, etc. and took this concept and applied it to the 720, 727, 737 and was a point of discussion when applied to the 757. Eastern had planned for the 757 to replace the 727s. Since the 707 was 3-3 seating, so it was for 720, 727, 737 and 757.

Trivia time. The original 707, the "dash 7", was 2-3 seating. When Douglas announced the DC-8 with 3-3 seating, Boeing went back and enlarged the "707" to 3-3 seating and 1 inch wider cabin so they could brag that the 707 offered the largest cabin.

The DC-9 was an original design based on requirements which lead to the 2-3 seating arrangement. The DC-9 series, MD-80, MD-90 and B717 are all based off the original DC-9 design and maintained the 2-3 seating. It is cheaper to evolve from a certified baseline rather than a new design requiring new certification.
erp1530
Ethan Pressl 1
I'm not so sure about that theory, maybe you should read this article that was in Boeing's Frontier Magazine back in 2004.

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/february/i_history.html
dbrooks84
David Brooks 1
I did not see anything in the article that conflicts with what I wrote. Re-phasing of some of the language, but I think what they said and I said are in agreement.
rh77
Interesting article -- good History and trivia of the naming convention -- but, I do see David's interpretation for both Boeing and especially MD. Each model essentially built upon the previous for modern tech of the day and customer demands. In contrast, the 777 seems (in my mind) to stand alone as a ground-up design as well as the DC-10 for the Douglas folks (unfortunately resources were lacking for the latter).
dbrooks84
David Brooks 1
It will be interesting to see what the breakdown will be.
erp1530
Ethan Pressl 1
Yeah excited for that coming!
kangforpres
hmm thought they would split it with the A320 NEO like they did between the 787 and A350
erp1530
Ethan Pressl 1
Yeah thought that in the beginning of the talks but then i didn't, and United only split between the 787 & A350, Continental stuck with the 787 so they'll have more 787's
AccessAir
AccessAir 1
United needs to stick with one aircraft builder, Boeing...Dump the buses...They should be ready for the scrap heap soon anyway....

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!