Old, retired flight attendant here. Worked on both the 727 and 737. My absolute favorite though: Bidding the galley position on the old DC-10. Down in the belly of the aircraft we could roll up our sleeves, crank up the ovens and the radio, ditch the high heels and put our sneakers on and send the trays up and down the food elevator. Oh man those were the days!
Just retired from Mother U. The Tens were still around when I was hired. I definitely remember hearing your opinion voiced MANY times by FA's back then. I sure did want to fly it but never got the chance. 9-11 really dicked up the industry.
The Lockheed L-1011 had a similar gallery downstairs also. My dad was TWA so I got to go in the cockpit at night (Oh, look at the lights...) as well. Different times.
Hey Petter, great video as always, but regarding your sponsor betterhelp, they were found to sell their users data to other companies, while stating that their data would not be shared with anyone according to their privacy policy. That is pretty terrible considering their users were vulnerable to begin with. I'm sure there are a lot of good sponsors who would like to be featured in your videos. Edit: misspelled name.
As a flight attendant who is old enough to have started working on the 737 since the -200 days, my requirements of an aircraft are somewhat different than fuel economy and bypass ratios. For me the tiredness of this old old airframe is that with all versions up to and including the -800 Next Gen, the front lavatory toilet seat doesn't have room to stay upright because it doesn't' fit against the fuselage. The practical upshot of this is that we have an airframe that has been in service since 1967 where you have to hold the toilet seat up with one hand in order to pee. I cannot generate enthusiasm for this.
It also leaked into the EE bay. I think it was the APU Control Unit that everyone learned (very quickly) would stain your hands and shirt blue. It also, obviously, stank...
and as a ground handler i dont like that the ground power connecter is so high up, its higher up than on the a320, you have to hunch down to connect the air conditioner, compared to the a320 the cargo hold is alot more more cramped and you have to crawl inside when using a powerstow(though thats also the case on a220/e190)
As a Canadian, I’m still salty over how Boeing tried to kill the Cseries through regulatory strongarming and in essence forced Bombardier to sell out to Airbus.
The UK government and Irish government also had a big hand in that pot. Gutted Bombardier had to sell to Airbus. The UK lost a lot of investment, but Ireland got *some* promised manufacturing business, but not as much. However, at least the C series lives. I love the A220, and also love the Embraer E-170-190 series, which seem to be hoovering up A220 orders that keep getting delayed.
Why? Do you not understand that to all US Corporates business is war, and your competitor is the enemy? The rules are just made to be exploited to your advantage, and todays allies are tomorrows enemies.
'Rough landings'? I thought it was because Southwest had hired a former carrier pilot and he was trying for the three wire (passenger spinal impaction ratio:100-0)
I would argue that the big “leap” in the 737 series’ development wasn’t between the 737 Classic and the 737 Next Generation series but between the original 737 and the 737 Classic series in the early 1980s since that’s when the design changed considerably, with the low-bypass engines being replaced with high-bypass ones. That gave the wing a whole new look and all the 737 variants since have basically been tweaks of the Classic (737-300/400/500) series.
100%. 737 300 was the biggest leap in efficiency of 737 development, reinforcing their dominance over my favorite manufacturer, Douglas (MD) in the early 80s, whereas, the NG was developed to 'stay in the game' v the A320 family
Absolutely. From the new biangular tail to the ovoid engines, the 737 Classic was the generation where a lot of the modern design philosophies of the 737 were first laid out.
Thanks, Petter! ❤ Long-time planespotter and aviation enthusiast here. My first flight was on a Finnair Caravelle and it was thrilling. The next on was on a PanAm 707 to NYC and it was also amazing and delightfully different from the first one. I got bitten by the aviation bug at 3 years old and my dearest childhood pastime was riding my bicycle to this "viewing spot" at the end of a runway (fenced off of course) and we'd spend hours watching planes land and take off. Asked my mom for a camera for my birthday. Got it! Probably used up a thousand rolls of film. Loved the 727, later 737, 757 , DC-9/ -10, Airbus 320 series, and of course all the prop planes and military jets! Now, many years later, I'm finally working in aviation sales & supply chain, basically selling and stocking airplane parts to airlines and MROs in Asia. This allows me to travel all over Asia to meet customers, get to know them, build and foster relationships with them, and observe their maintenance and repairs operations on Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, ATR, DHC and other amazing aircraft. As it turns out, many of them are AvGeeks too! 🎉 I honestly couldn't be happier now, finally working in something I'm actually profoundly passionate about, having tried my hand at several jobs, from HR to management in IT, lots of jobs over the years. I never felt excited waking up to a new day but instead hitting snooze on the alarm clock was practically a daily occurrence for 15 years. Sorry for the long post and thank you if you're still reading this. 🙏 Just wanted to share my bit and express my immense appreciation for aviators/educators like Petter - and all you wonderful people who love aviation! 🛫✈🪂🛩🛬 ❤
Peter, My pilot friend suggested that Boeing’s mistake was trying to fit engines that were ‘too large’ on a platform with such short landing gear. His recommendation was to use the 757 platform with taller landing gear. The 757 has the same cockpit and the engines would have fit perfect. Boeing’s choice to force fit the engines resulted in a compromise in safety as the engineering solution was non-optimum. With flying, you need a six-sigma solution and the safety compromises were their failure. They could have shortened the 757 to the size of the 757 and called it the 737 MAX, a perfect name for a taller, more impressive plane without the safety problems; and training would be similar.
The 37 and 57 cockpits are not the same. They require a completely different training program and have different Type Ratings. In other words, a 737 pilot cannot fly a 757 and vice versa. I once read that Boeing destroyed the jigs for the 57, so forget about that if true. The 757 is TOO NARROW for today's fat humans. Boeing needs to start from scratch and make something wider than the A320 (which is already wider than the 737) fuselage. Or, they can just keep putting out crap and let AirBus rule the airliner world.
I just don’t get why Boeing would build aircraft with such short landing gear and we saw that through the 707, 727, and the 737 Production lines and it just goes for show if they build the 797 anytime soon just pray they decide to put taller landing gear.
When Petter you point out that B737 has been in service for 56/7 years please remember that the Vickers Viscount, the first turboprop airliner, was in service for 56 years 1953-2009, which for an aircraft developed at that time was an incredible achievement. I flew them for BEA/BA 1970-1975 and later 1989-1990. Then B737
I would argue that the speed of advancement in technology, and the added complications of fly by wire systems mean the B737's 56 years is more like 70 when compared to the Vickers. Technology moves faster than ever.
Coming from an Information Technology viewpoint: why can you still see Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10 in use? Why, as a database administrator, I supported an Oracle 8.1.74 system years beyond the end of support? I know there are many companies that are running obsolete, non-supported software and hardware - there are banks and government agencies that have 1960’s mainframe COBOL applications still running There’s a certain amount of inertia, of “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?” mentality
While that is certainly a big factor, an even bigger one is the enormous cost of not only spinning up a new fleet type (training pilots, mechanics, spare parts inventories, etc) but especially fleet flexibility issues. When my airline began MAX operations, we still had a large fleet of Classics, which were in good shape, and paid for. Very cost effective, and we planned to keep them in operation for several years to come. The FAA insisted we segment the crews into NG/Classic and NG/MAX. IOW, not every pilot in the company could fly every airplane in the fleet. It represented such an enormous hit to operational flexibility it was literally cheaper to retire the Classic fleet years early. Imagine your IT crews not being allowed to use Windows 10 if they were checked out on Windows Chrome. The whole point of a single feet type for many LCCs is the operational flexibility it affords in terms of crews.
@@konpolski4765 I would argue that the fixes would have been fine if implemented differently. For the cost of an additional AoA sensor and a bit of actual training, no one would be talking about the MAX. Even as things have transpired, the fatal accident rate has been less than one per 900,000 flights.
@@achmedbincouscous2846 I agree with the excellent points you’ve made I wonder, though, if a commitment to a single fleet type could hamper a company - when the 737 comes up - the discussion often turns to Southwest Airlines, which has based their entire operation upon the 737, and has been a successful airline. I would think that Southwest going with Airbus would be an incredibly expensive and disruptive move - hopefully they are working with Boeing on a transition to a newer aircraft that would be not so disruptive
Wow, and not a word about the fund managers that are now running Boeing and are using their legacy aircraft to squeeze out profit without actually doing what has been needed for a very long time. A brand new clean sheet design.
Agreed. Aerospace is a very slow payback model, development costs (investment) are huge and there’s often no return for at least five years from investment. Sure, the program will then run for twenty plus years and the spares and maintenance contracts are lucrative but today’s greed merchants want a quick profit. This is contrary to how the industry needs to operate.
A brand new clean sheet design would be untested at scale and be vulnerable to any unforeseen dangers, and all that to preform what the 737 already does anyway. The 737 at least has 70 years worth of testing and in the field data, everyone knows how long it'll take most parts to fail.
@@Edax_Royeaux what? So you're saying that a clean sheet design is more dangerous then trying to retrofit a 70 year-old aircraft with engines that don't fit? Are you saying that a composite aircraft isn't lighter and stronger than an aluminum one? Are you saying that engineers don't know how long it takes for components to fail? Do you think a clean sheet design means that every single thing that goes in there is a complete complete experiment? Are you saying it takes seventy years for us to know if it is safe? Basically, what the hell are you talking about? In case you didn't know the latest version of the 737 has crashed and killed more people per flight hour than just about any other aircraft made. So your argument is, let's keep doing that because it's safer? It's generally accepted and well known that the 737 passed its prime decades ago. That is one of the major criticisms of Boeing by both investors pilots and other industry types is that they need to stop trying to milk these legacy aircraft. In the next 5 to 10 years they're going to be totally noncompetitive.
@@InvertedFlight You appear to have jumped the gun on what was just 2 sentences I wrote. Don't know why you've decided to extrapolate about composite aircraft from all that, no wonder you're so confused.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Mine not so much . He was a strong Scandinavian man who was not into other peoples drama. I spent my summers building Aircraft in his actual “Hanger” in the backyard in Kenora,Ontario. I am an expert on riveting and wiring single/double prop aircraft … I was paid in ice cream and McDonald’s. I then found out that my uncle got paid in cash so I asked Grandpa to increase my payment to 20 bucks,plus the ice cream and McDonald’s. He saw the MAX reveal and he said “ What in the hell is that ? Is that this 737 MAX ? It’s essentially a 757-767 mix and they actually have expanded the 737 -100 to 200 -400-600 and then they show us a plane that has zero real testing and my grandfather said they are going to kill people as that’s going to take many hours to retrain pilots with that engine placement their going to need pilots that fly still!”
You glossed over the MCAS debacle which was the final fix for the need to mount newer, bigger (physical diameter), more efficient engines under the wing for the Max. With the standard design, these engines would not have sufficient ground clearance. This forced a redesign of the engine pylon, which resulted in the engine being located higher relative to the wing as well as being positioned further out in front of the wing. This provided enough ground clearance for the new engines. However , this resulted in new aerodynamics for the wing and new centers of gravity which necessitated the creation of the automated MCAS system to help keep the plane properly trimmed and balanced without pilot intervention. Which is not necessarily bad, except for the fact that the software was flawed, pilots weren't extensively trained on its new functions and the plane was only equipped with two Angle of Attack sensors (instead of three, one presumes, to save money). The software shortcomings were exacerbated when there were problems with the AOA sensors. Since there wasn't a third AOA sensor, if the two AOA's had different readings, there wasn't a third AOA to function as a tie breaker to give the software the correct AOA reading. This resulted in the MCAS creating wild interactions with the flight controls, trying to correct perceived, but incorrect issues with the AOA of the plane. The software then overrode pilot inputs, and ultimately crashed two Max's. I'd say that going through these design and software machinations were a strong indicator that it was time for a brand new, clean sheet, airplane.
@@SacrificeBreedsSuccess To me that's overly simplistic thinking. Did DAC compromise safety for profits when they made a DC-9-80 from a DC-9-50? (still cost a billion 1980 dollars BTW, just for things related to that stretch). Always starting over with a new design is another way to compromise safety, vs well-proven designs, systems and parts. And it costs everyone money: The airframer who is constrained on how much they can charge; The airline which pays somewhat more up front plus needs a lot more parts inventory and staff training... and finally the passenger. A variant/stretch can be just fine if it's done just fine. Boeing's failure was they did it too much on the cheap (AoA sensors/software, training). Even MCAS was ok in its original incarnation: One push and done. But then it got pressed into service to do more. All said and done, fatal MAX accidents have been less than one per 900,000 flights. A throwback to safety numbers from earlier decades, but hardly a "death trap".
@15:22 He literally says, "Now, the full story of how Boeing was pushed to develop the 737 MAX instead of designing something entirely new is a quite fantastic one and it involves some really clever backroom politics between Boeing, several involved airlines and Airbus. Now, I will tell you more about that in a coming episode, .."
@@seanLeprechaun if you’re trying to tell a story about why the 737 may not have a future and you leave out the MCAS debacle and the deaths of hundreds of people because of that “upgrade,” then you haven’t told one of the most compelling issues that drives the future of the 737. Putting content like that in another video isn’t right, unless you’re just trying to generate more views. Accidents and deaths due to poor management decisions, engineering and potentially profit driven priorities can’t be left to another video.
@@roch145 I agree completely. I was already familiar with the MCAS issue and the peculiar placement of the 737 MAX's engines. This video's total avoidance of the subject, for whatever reason, felt akin to gaslighting. Sort of like watching a documentary on the U.S. Civil War that never mentions slavery.
Even the 1960s 737 is as you say a 1950s 707 fuselage section. It's basically been stretched and re-engined beyond its limit. We flew 72s on cargo runs into short dirt strips until the noughties. Tough wingspar, high clearance and powerful engines safe from FOD, plus rear airstair. Fabulous A/C.
There’s an old FedEx 727 that flies out of KPTK often. Flight path and altitude take it slightly over a mile from my house and I always know it that one since it's twice as loud as any other aircraft leaving that airport.
@@nicholasbromley5998 Did you even read his comment? He said, "an OLD FedEx 727"meaning that it used to be a FedEx plane but now owned by someone else.
Since it is based on the 707, which is itself just a derivative of the 367-80 which first flew in 1954, the 737 system design is 70 years old. The 707, 727, and 737 all have the same basic dual control system. Oh, you got there. What the 737 lacks is modern systems, like the triple redundant systems on every Boeing since the 747. Boeing had to get the law changed to allow them to certify the MAX 7 and 10 without EICAS.
I see a bit of the same issues with the Boeing Starliner and the SpaceX Crew Dragon. Boeing makes everything "traditional", complicated and then all the faults creep in, cost overruns, groundings etc.
This whole event is completely contrived. We always see Order Out of Chaos. Create some fake chaos and then they already have the solution, 'Order', ready to go. This is a PR exercise to justify government funding for a new clean sheet aircraft. Boeing just can't compete with the Airbus A320 family, so need to build a clean sheet plane. They need the chaos to justify asking for funds, as will likely get it. The public will back it as they now see the 737 in bad light.
So you think the 737 max still uses equipment from 70 years ago? Different engines, different flight, controls, different cockpit, you’d probably have to work to find pieces that match the original aircraft.
Hello Petter, Such an interesting history this 737 aircraft has. So many things can be said about it from many different angles. I retired on the 737NG fleet of 'my' airline and flew a selection of different types in operational life. I'd like to share my feeling towards/experience with it. To me, the 737 felt like 'a steam tractor in the skies'. Powerful machine with little suspension in gear or wings, giving a stiff ride. Found the NG more 'jumpy' in turbulence than the older versions. A very sturdy and reliable airplane. Watching cabin attendants go down on their knees to arm or disarm the slides gave an association with an era gone by and looked sort of strange, as if operating a museum aircraft. Its powerful engines saved the day a few times in severe shear and turbulence and I loved the power and reliability of these technological marvels. On this type I only experienced engine failures in the simulator which can not be said of some other brands/types I flew. I experienced the 737 as a demanding aircraft to fly in turbulent weather: especially the NG had a tendency to divert from its trimmed condition and needed small control inputs continuously in which it differed from other types like the 767. The type never let me down which may also be credit to the maintenance standards of the airline: apart from a few deactivated reversers, auto brake u/s and an IRS fault, only the coffee-makers broke down. Ceiing 41.000 on NG instead of 37.000 on the older ones often was helpful to stay just above some weather. Liked the 'old fashioned' overhead panel with all the toggle switches, it really felt like something from the past after visiting a 787 or A350 simulator. There will be a day when 737 production is over. Wish that Boeing may find inspiration, courage and funding to design a successor. Conclusion: my days on the 737 did not leave a romantic feeling or fond memories of a gorgeous looking airplane or one flying like 'a pilots dream'. As a workhorse however it was the most dependable type for me in many aspects. Great machine to get the job done. Thank you 737 🙂.
Glad you liked it. I thought that it was the worst jet at my airline and I flew most of the others, both Boeing and Bus. But to be fair, I am 6'3" and 220. It's got a MISERABLE cockpit. Getting your brain bag in and out of that thing was miserable. But that's no longer a concern with today's iPads. It has a tiny cramped cockpit. It's loud. Antiquated systems but with fancy avionics. It flies OK, but they all do so not really a ringing endorsement. No thanks. I bid off it as soon as I could.
I kept thinking something has been missing from your channel for a while but I couldn't figure it out. The couch, and the adorable doggos sleeping on it!
And then he died. None of the dollar bills he received ever turned up again and the FBI knew the serial numbers. He probably froze to death in a thundercloud
One thing I think you missed out on, and is very important, especially for Boeing aircraft, is Grandfather rights. If Boeing want to up grade a model, they only have to certify the new parts to current standard. The rest of the aircraft is assumed to still be certified. Makes it a lot cheaper to up design a model.
Great and informative video, as usual! I too find the 757 to be a nice looking airplane...except on the ground. Those spindly, gangly teenager-like legs are almost comical. And now I'm thinking to buy some shares of Boeing while they are cheap to see what they can do over the next decade or two. Despite the turmoil, I always have faith in them. Maybe it's the wing pins the airlines used to give us kids back in the day, and stabbing myself with those things and bleeding on the seats made me a sentimental fool for venerable old Boeing. They haven't let me down (uneasily) yet! Keep the quality content coming!
I fly on the P8s and its a mix between a 737-800 and 737-900 and it uses the room in the baggage compartment for extra tanks! Its a pretty cool airplane and looks cool with harpoons on the wings. Very good safety record as well, we have flown them thousands of hours with no injuries. The only one recently went off the runway was pilot error and nobody was iniured. I personally have flown over 1200 hours on the P8 and the only emergency I experienced was a minor pressurization problem, which didnt even cause discomfort because we landed as soon as we noticed. I think it is the best of the 737 technology before they switch over to the max which was poorly executed.
@@engineernels1057 I listened to the defence minister being interviewed about Bombardier wanting to bid and he rightly said they didn't have a ready to go product. Not only that but could you not put the pilots through a 737 training pipeline before they arrive? Or run them on a US P8 course? So much easier to get going.
@@engineernels1057 also heard we're getting Block 4 F35A modified with the F35C refueling probe, I'm assuming Australia has that same modification since we both had Hornets previously.
We've come along ways. First airliner I flew on was a DC-3. No Jetways at the time. You walked out unto the tarmac and they had a footstool to help you enter the aircraft. But plenty of room and the seats were very comfortable.
@@petergriffin8796When the Concorde (British version) started flying, they did a promotional tour around the country. We went to the airport to see it land. It was something to see. They let one of our 747 pilots fly the left seat. The news media interview him and one of them asked "what's the difference between flying a 747 and the Concorde? He replied. About as much difference of driving a Greyhound bus and a Ferrari? Back in 1990, we took a trip to Australia. We flew Qantas on a 747. We left LA at 10 pm Sunday night. 18 hour flight. It wasn't crowded at all. Since it was at night, the stewardess brought us some pillows and we occupied the middle row and raised the arm rests on the seats and laid down and went to sleep. When we woke up, we were about an hour from Sidney and it was 6 am Tuesday morning. Never done that before. LOL
The variations in lifespan among various aircraft are fascinating. My father's squadron in the US Navy flew the F7U Cutlass...a disaster of a plane. Meanwhile, the US Airforce is putting new engines on the venerable B-52 and expects many more years out of the airframe. Some families have three generations of B-52 pilots.
the thing with the B52 is that if they were all grounded tomorrow, they wouldn't be replaced. They fly because they're already flying and if they weren't flying there's no compelling mission requirement that mandates an equivalent be created to replace it
@@miscbits6399 The B-52's compelling mission requirement is its uniquely high boom-for-buck ratio. ;) Of course, if one sought to craft a clean-sheet design to optimize for that particular mission requirement in 2024, it would look nothing like a B-52 and probably wouldn't even be a single manned aircraft.
I was born in 1962. My father drove the Ford Consul in my youth. The 737 max is the equivalent of a ford Consul with airbags, abs and electronic ignition strapped on.
I see nothing wrong with that. After all, Porsche introduced the 911 in 1964, and it's still in production, with _all_ the modern safety and performance upgrades!
Growing up and living in Alaska all my life, I have great respect for the mighty 737. Overall it has proven to be a rugged and efficient aircraft that has operated in some of the most rugged flying conditions geography and economics has thrown at any aircraft design. I remember a crabbed up landing at Deadhorse on a frozen airstrip where Alaska Airlines had to cancel the day before because of 80 mph winds and whiteout conditions. The next day when we landed it was still blowing pretty hard and the pilot masterfully landed in a stiff crosswind. So stiff that looking out my window in front of the wing I could see the runway lights layed out at maybe a 15 degree angle to the length of the aircraft. Crabbed into the wind until right at touch down, the pilot straightened the plane to touch on parallel with the centerline. Many, many fond memories over the years flying in, around, and in and out of Alaska on 737's. Boeing or "Boing" as my (former P51 pilot), father used to say, will bounce back. Oh Dad used to call Alaska Airlines, "Elastic Airlines" for the same reason. Anchorage, Alaska
@@jimsteinway695 Doesn't it get tiring to beat that old dead horse called McDD? Aside from being ridiculously over-exaggerated, it glosses over the fact that those intrepid engineering managers were the ones who pooh-poohed the awkward startup across the Atlantic and their cheap, no frills first product suitably named "bus," and even after it began selling like hot cakes; they scoffed at the fly-by-wire technology on the next platform too, until they woke up one day and found they had allowed the scruffy startup to grow up and catch up and become an equal competitor that was now eating Boeing's lunch. The lamenting about McDD corrupting Boeing doesn't say much about the resilience of the old Boeing if they capitulated so easily and a quarter century later are still pining for the glory days. Yes, McDD had developed some pretty bad habits, from working with the U.S. armed services during the Cold War, but much of that ended with the Cold War. The one thing truly corrosive that McDD had was a union that would cut off its nose to spite its face. Just say NO to ANY thing management proposed, seemed to be its unwavering philosophy, until the Cold War ended and they suddenly saw the demise of the company as a distinct possibility, then they began to cooperate, but it was too late. Still, that old nature of the union seems to be the biggest thing that infected Boeing and lingers. The engineers of old perhaps weren't pushed very hard to focus on costs together with safety, but its 25+ years later and by now they should have learned that engineering is defined as: The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and ECONOMICAL structures, machines, processes, and systems. Whining about management being focused on costs is stupid, no one said it had to be in lieu of safety. I know Boeing employees take great pride in pithy sayings such as: Quality, Cost, Schedule… pick any two. Why?!! A competent person will strive to balance all three. The same with safety. It doesn't have to come in lieu of efficiency or cost. The biggest cultural change needs to come at the rank and file level. Other Seattleites didn't give them the nickname "Lazy B" for no reason.
I haven't really understood the love for the 757. I've flown on 757s a few times (passenger/enthusiast here, not a pilot), and didn't really care for it. To be fair, though, I think that's because the plane was quite old, with the vinyl on the seats cracking, the interior still smelling vaguely of cigarette smoke, and the plastic lenses over the lights yellowing with age. (This was in 2001, long after smoking was banned in planes in the US!). United Airlines. I did fly in a 757 operated by Icelandair, and its interior was in much better shape.
Peter , this was an Excellent episode, really informative Thank you. At age 52 and working in Aviation 34 years I know a lot about the 737 family. Yet still I learned more from your Video - Thanks Again Paul
Petter, one of the main reasons holidayairlines like Transavia are gradually fasing out their 737-8 fleet and replace them with Airbus A320neo's and 321neo's, is because of the noise the current engines produce. I myself live directly under the approachroute of runway 06 of Schiphol. Planes come over at approx 1200 meter, and especially the noise of 737ceo's is deafening. When I compare them to more modern types, the Airbus 320family are far more bearable. Still noisy, but way less noisy than the 737's. Since airplanenoise is THE major cause of complaints from people living around Schiphol, I feel that your video has neglected this aspect of the plane and why airlines are on course to run the 737's out.
My experience: CFM-56 equipped 737s had been flying their downwind leg over my house for some time when one day a louder/shriller sound had me running outside to see I thought might be a 707 making an emergency landing. That was my introduction to the CFM-56 on an A320. Maybe their C-weighted sound level looks fine, but the overall effect was in a different category than the 737, at least to these ears. Perhaps the engine mount isolation or something?
Does a lot of the noise from descending airliners on final approach or at least in a late leg come from the control surfaces and flaps/slats/ landing gear turbulence ? (rather than engine noise)
@@davidpowell3347 Nope. When they come over my house I hear the engines spooling back, which results in a deafening noise. Typical sound, without looking on FR24 I can tell it is a 737-8. It is a low thunderous noise. Flaps, slats make a higherpitched sound.
As a 20 year old Indonesian Avgeek, The Boeing 737 Classic is the aircraft that started my first ever experience flown onboard an airplane when i was a kid at about 16 years ago. Few years later, i started to learn about the Boeing 737 and it turns out the 737 has many tragic accidents especially The Rudder Hardover Saga. With that saga is over, i am confident the 737 is the best and most popular aircraft in the world. But in October 2018, the table's turn. March 2019 however is the final blow for Boeing. January 2024, everyone is again trying to avoid the Boeing 737 MAX and i am curious wanted to experience my first ride onboard the MAX. Time will tell.
The only difference is the 737 was designed in a different time it was designed for old airport equipment where all the airbus aircraft were designed for the modern airports so the most efficient engines will fit without un-natural engine installation
@@RCAvhstape The 727 launched with turbofan engines which were noticeable quieter than the turbojet engines of the original 707 and DC-8. Of course from a modern perspective they were not exactly a whisper. The MD-80 series used basically the same engine, and until they were finally retired a couple of years ago you could always tell when an MD-88 was flying over, they could easily be as loud as a 777.
The Western B737-200s had built in "air stairs" that extended out of the forward section of the fuselage so that passengers could easily deplane without a "jetway bridge".
That's a pretty good run for an aircraft that was built on compromises. I flew on a 787 a few months ago. It is in a whole different class from the 737.
I've flown on a few 787s recently. On my last flight on one, (Air Canada) the whole cabin interior shook/wobbled around as we took off and landed (all the overhead bins were visually shaking above our heads) and some of the tinted windows had already gone discoloured (brown). The 777 I had on the return journey felt like a much better built plane. A bit disappointing TBH.
I fly 2 days a week from Seattle to San Diego. Since January I switched from Alaska to Delta First Class. At first I was skeptical about the A220. Now I love the Aircraft. At least up front the plane is quiet, efficient and bright. Unlike the A321 that Alaska inherited from Virgin America, the Delta A220 galley seems large enough to serve 4 different hot meals. The interior that Delta uses seems very nice. So I suppose I am hopeful that eventually Boeing will ditch the 737 (I do like the Max 9) and develop an answer to the A220.
@@awumaThe luggage lockers on the A220 are absolutely fantastic. They are so big that they swallow my maximum size roll-on bag on its side wheels first.
The problem with Boeing is the same as other US companies that are listed on the stock exchange. They hired CEO whose only priority is to protect the interest of shareholders. Meaning they will cut headcount to save labor cost to boost share price. They retrench many QC inspectors that are suppose to ensure the quality of the plane build at Boeing. That is the reason why the quality of Boeing Max drop. My first company is Seagate that also have a CEO, who behave like Boeing CEO. He will retrench staff to cut cost to boost share price. This affected quality of the product and cause the company to be in a bad shape. After Seagate was bought over by an investment group. the new owner delisted Seagate from the stock exchange and want the new CEO to focus on the core business. The new CEO improve quality of the product instead of worry about the share price of the company. The company that focus on the core business will improve the quality of the final product.
From a basic factory workers perspective, that type of management makes life hell for the base level employees. I work in a JIT automotive supplier and we have a lot of issues at the plant where I work..., short takt times, rushing to make numbers, having to do the work of two people, 12 hour shifts, 60+ hour work weeks, high turnover rates. If Boeing has similar issues, I can see why they would have defective aircraft.
Well one question would be what we mean by “compete.” It is not as if old designs stop actually flying. A DC-3 for example will still fly today, nearly a century after its development.
I have to tell you that I thoroughly enjoy your content. You explain things so well and connect the dots as you walk us through your videos that your viewers always walk away learning something new. Excellent job and thank you to you and your production staff
The Boeing 737 line really ended with the NG. Moving the engines changed how the aircraft handled and sloppy design of opaque flight automation systems to hide the new handling characteristics caused two hull losses with no survivors. The stall avoidance feature was designed on the premise that the system never received bad data from the captain's Angle of Attack sensor. If someone had asked what happened when the AoA sensor was stuck at a high value, the stall avoidance feature would have included a limit on the maximum applied nose down trim to less than pilot command authority with the first installation. Even with the fix, the 737MAX still has the problem that it becomes a significantly different aircraft to fly if the horizontal stabilizer trim drive fails. Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing would have been much better off if it ate the $1 million per plane penalty and airline pilots transitioning to the MAX had simulator training sessions to avoid stalling and familiarize themselves with the different pitch response to changes in power. The lack of an 'automatic' mode for the 737MAX engine deicing system, combined with the MAX engine cowling unable to withstand the heat of the deicing system, outside of icing conditions, has forced further delays in certifying the MAX7 and MAX10. The open fan concept suffered from the mass of the gearbox needed to get the two open fans to counter rotate. Replacing the fixed vanes of the turbine section with a drum that spun in the opposite direction of the turbine spool could work, if some way to keep the two sections spinning at opposite but equal speeds relative to the airframe was found. Eddy current braking of the faster component might work as flow through the turbine would try to maintain a constant speed difference between the two sections, so slowing down the faster section would speed up the slower section, but even a no contact braking system will generate heat that must be dissipated.
The debate over simulator sessions had absolutely NOTHING to do with MCAS. The discussion of simulator sessions was due to added features of the Roll Command Alerting System (RCAS) which would provide pilot notification and direction for upset conditions and the Runway Situation Awareness Tool (RSAT) which was an aid to pilots to avoid runway overrun situations. Both RCAS and RSAT were new safety features that Boeing had developed to improve safety as a result of reviewing the database of accidents and incidents.
@@jeffberner8206 Both crashes were the result of the 737MAX being able to enter a stall in conditions that were outside the stall conditions of the 737NG (above a certain angle of attack, aerodynamic drag on the MAX's engines would go from pitching the nose down to pitching the nose up, potentially into a stall). Absent an MCAS, pilots transitioning to the MAX would need simulator training to recognize and avoid the new stall condition, so Boeing self-certified that the MCAS automatically applying nose down horizontal stabilizer trim if the angle of attack was above a certain value removed the need to train pilots to recognize and avoid the stall.
Back then: we need a solution to 727 shortcomings. Engineers whipped up a new plane in 3 years. Today: we need a new plane. Nah, we'll just put a bigger engine to it. But it'll take at least 5 years to figure it out though.
@@skenzyme81 to be fair the process of getting it all certified likely was much easier and faster. And there is so much electronics now in the machines (safety, fuel efficiency. Electronic fixes of design problems) that they all have to be certified as well.
From what I remember, the Sud Aviation Caravelle was the first of the twin tailmounted engine airliners for short and medium routes. She had her first flight in 1955, followed by the BAC 1-11 in 1963. The DC-9 came in 1965. All of them had a similar rear airstair as the B727 and were relatively low to allow loading to be done manually.
There was a bunch of rear-engined Soviet airliners of that era, too. Apart from engines disintegratiing and taking out the other engines plus flight controls, they were tough birds.
@@awuma Yes, the Tu-134, first flight 1963 a nd the Tu-154, first flight 1968, but both needed external stairs, at least bthey did not have airstairs in the back. Then there was the little Yak-40 (today it would be classed as a small regional jet), first flight 1966, and the larger Yak-42, first flight 1972, which both had rear stairs. All came long after the Caravelle, the BAC 1-11 and the DC-9.
The Caravelle (first flight in 1955) was indeed a very innovative aircraft establishing many standards for jet airliners that are still used today. It is also, in many ways, the ancestor of what will become Airbus.
It was so nice to see a Braniff 727 in one of the shots. My dad flew for Braniff for about 30 years through every comeback they attempted and was running the 747 program when they finally shut down in Dallas. I know the pilots LOVED flying the 727 for its performance. All I really remember from that period was flying non-rev, getting bumped a lot in the mid-70's, and the smell of stale cigarette smoke baked into the fabric of the seats in the cabin. LOL. But it WAS a good plane. ;)
I must say, that not watching your videos for a while, you’ve made a huge progress. Not just your content and visual, but also the delivery, vocabulary, phraseology… you sound like a native speaker. Yes, you have a faint accent but even that is way less noticeable than before. 👌
100% agreed. I've been intrigued by aviation since I was a kid and currently hitting 20 years at an airline. You hit on every single point that I've told others about the 737s and 757s. I've seen the A220 and agreed that it is the one aircraft that will be nipping at the 37s heals. Embraer 195 E2 appears to be struggling to get sales as I've only seen them being used for startup airlines or low cost regionals. So feel Airbus has that under control.
True. It is past its sell by date- but money is the main thing at Boeing these days. They could, and should, have built a new jet to compete with the 320 Neo- and absolutely everyone knows it. The Max was a cludge.
@@sokolum If I recall it got there due to a trade dispute spearheaded by a complaint from Boeing. The result was Bombardier ended up with the deal with Airbus. I had heard and I think it was on Mentor Pilot that at one time Boeing could have gotten the plane. Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out with the 220 taking sales from 320 and 737. Boeing is in a corner with the 777X delays, Max issues killing some sales, Max 7/10 delays plus the writing on the wall that they need a 737 replacement by mid-2030’s so they got to start right now.
Having flown on the A220 a lot (Swiss), I can attest that it’s a gorgeous plane to be a passenger on. You do wonder if Airbus will try to go through an avionics change to ensure it’s a full family member.
As a current Airbus pilot I can say that Boeing does not have anything to come close to the A21N. This is not A vs B type of thing, just sit as pax in any A32X and then any B737 and it is very obvious which has a better passenger environment. It’s easier to argue pros v cons as a pilot , but at the end of the day the people sitting in the back are paying our salaries, and that 707 fuselage cross section just cannot hold a candle to the 320 family. Either way, I love your videos, fantastic detail and comprehensive research. Keep it up.
Thank you enjoyed this article very much. I am far from an avionics expert, but I have flown in most of the aircraft mentioned here. The 737-800 and 320 non-neo more times I cared to mention, but two aircraft stood out for me: the first times I flew in an a350 and a220 (only last month to Zurich from LCY) - they were so ..... quiet. I was next to the wing on both occasions and couldn't hear a thing. As a child of the 60s, I grew up with the 737 and would be say to see them (eventually) disappear from the skies, but that's progress for you .... I agree with Mentour in that we should celebrate one of the most successful chapters in aviation history and it would be a shame to see its reputation unrestored.
As you've mentioned, the engine is the most important part of an aircraft's design. Shoe-horning ever larger engines into the 737 is increasing difficult, and I don't think there's any way they could get a larger engine on it. The evidence shows that higher and higher bypass ratios are the course of engine development, which guarantees the engine diameter is to be larger. I think it will be this inability to use the most efficient engines that will close out the 737, perhaps before 2030.
Common sense tells you that a bigger engine means more ground clearance. Boing thought they could get away with it by not extending the length of the undercarriage. That was their downfall. People died. They fudged it and should pay the consequences. This iteration has been a complete disaster. I will never fly in any 737 max.
Interesting video. Boeing made a mistake in taking Bombardier to court. They should have instead worked with them to acquire/produce the C series, ending up with a new more modern design than the max. But hindsight has 20/20 vision.
The Bomardier issue was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And of course it was done under the same CEO that was also responsible for the MCAS fiasco.
They should have a yank back golden parachute rider when it can be proven CEOs helped sink a company instead of leaving it better (whispers) _merely to get the parachute._
Hello. I flew the 737-200 for many years (about 16) and am still a bit shocked that the overhead panel for the latest models looks like the original. Anything to please Southwest I suppose. Cheers, Peter
@@nunya-d2t I'm not an airplane guy. SWA is putting in lawn chairs and enlarging the overhead space. They shouldn't change anything in the cockpit of this tried and true plane.
@@nunya-d2t Honestly, I shouldn't participate in this side discussion. I don't care how they redesign any of the interior and certainly I don't care what Southwest does to the aesthetics of the interior either in front of or behind the bulkhead.
It would have been nice to have mentioned the archaic flight deck computers that can't be updated because the airplane would have to go through a whole new recertification process. It's akin to trying to surf the net and be competitive today with an old Intel 286 computer. Computers today are about 40,000 times faster than they were back then, but then the 737 flight deck can take advantage of any of that-a huge shame!!
One point many Boeing fans won't like to touch according to the 737 is grandfathering. The latest MAX is still built according to rules valid for the 737-100. A 737's fuselage needs to endure less g-loads than a current aircraft. Same for the passenger seats. Only double redundancy for mayor systems in the cockpit. Unpowered doors a slim flight attendant may not push open in case the fuselage is slightly rotated and the door has to be pushed upwards. The 737 is a lighter aircraft because many things are missing.
Perfect video telling the true story behind the Renton 12’ 4” diameter fuselage that links the 707, 727, and 737. The 757 was also 12’ 4” diameter and also built at Renton, but had significant design changes that differentiated from its predecessors
Did you know that the 757's aft fuselage extends lower than the front because the 757 started out as an updated 727 and continued using that 727 aft fuselage (even after they decided to give 757 767 commonalities). It extends lower to make a space for the fuel lines to the 727 aft engines that the 757 does not have.
Yeah, the 757’s awesome. In La Paz, Bolivia (the 🌎’s highest airport + the exact environment it was made for - high and hot!), I got to sit in the cockpit during take off. Wow! It’s the M5 of passenger airplanes.
I remember those back stairs on some planes when i was younger, not sure what planes they were exactly, but i clearly remember an exit out the back of the plane, i could look out a little window into the stairs compartment while i was waiting for the bathroom lol
In early 80's I was fairly late for my flight in Helsinki and was whisked off to the plane straight from check-in. ( This was before "security" was invented.) Everybody else was already on board when I entered from the back. Felt like a VIP for sure. This was probably the high point of my life..
Back in the 2000's, I was on a short flight between Philadelphia and Reagan National. When we left the terminal building, we were bussed to a small turbopropplane, and embarked through - indeed - backstairs. Back then I wasn't interested in types of planes, so I couldn't tell what kind of plane it was at all.
@@velisvideos6208 Somewhere in the 2000's, I had a transfer in Chicago. Coming from Seattle and flying to Amsterdam. The pilot on arriving in Chicago told us the local time. When I transferred - had been waiting at least two hours - I got into the plane, only to realize I was the very last passenger to get in. Right after me the door closed. Then I realized the pilot on the previous plane HAD TOLD US THE WRONG LOCAL TIME. He was ONE HOUR off.
In my opinion, Boeing has 2 options going forward. 1.) To either recycle the 757 body and develop the 757 max to compete with the a220 (if streched), a320/ a321xlr. 2.) To develop a clean sheet design aircraft (possibly the 797) to replace the 737.
Good video. Yes, I agree that the 737 has been around for a long time and has done well. Personally, I think Airbus has been the leader for some time with the Baby buses (320 family). Boeing needs new engineers that can develop advanced technology. As a Mechanic, I prefer working on Airbuses. As a passenger, I prefer flying on Airbuses. The old saying "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" is fading away. Thanks for all the great information you put out on your videos.
They need new management PRINCIPLES - whenever sth went wrong in the last years you can be sure that there were plenty of engineers that had objections. But if they speak up they will be fired, and if they make suggestions they are ignored. The head engineer was demanding ! a meeting with Boeing management after the first 737 MAX had crashed. And they could not deny him, and if they had fired him he likely would have informed the FAA or become a whistleblower. So he got the meeting - and got told NO. No change of plans, well only 8 months later the next machine crashed. It is much easier to get or train up engineers and to establish a good work flow - than to get the rotten mindset out of thos at the top. And out of the shareholders ! NOW that the rotten mindset (of decades) results in economic damage. They were running on an "asset stripping" attitude and some actors benefitted financially (managers getting a bonus / golden handshake and the main shareholders. Of course they had high profits - those profits should have been reinvested not paid out). NOW they have the financial problems. It was long in the making and it will take a long time to fix - and it has ONLY to do with leadership. Failure of quality control (The Air Alaska door problem) is a managment problem. They found more missing bolts btw. Plus NOW they have a competitor that is very capable. Airbus cannot even benefit fully from Boeings failure, they cannot manufacture the planes fast enough. The A 220 helps - different supply lines and production sites. And some of it is manufactured in Canada. One can suck money out of a biz like Boeing that dominated the market when the beancounters (that do not mind corporate murder) took over. Development of a new airplane can last 10 years (till it is certified). During that time they can have had 3 CEOs. The "modern" type of leader that takes no pride in the product and has no intention of staying for longer with a company, nor do they have any security that they will be allowed to stay. Chances are a CEO that would have thought longterm * would have been fired, because they did not deliver the short term financial gains. Boeing used to be run by engineers ! This was when they were the pride of the nation and dominated the market. * like the managers (that were engineers) that made Boeing a first rate company in the decades before. Short term profits and shareholder values will suffer (a bit) if you do things properly and take your time the first time. Of course it will pay off long term (or cost them dearly if they refuse to act longterm) in the long run. But the management attitudes and shareholder values do not care for good products or the long term good of the company.
These days after all Boeing quality and other issues the saying is rather "If it's Boeing, I'm not going". I admit I try to avoid airlines who operate Boeing nowadays, just to not end up deciding at the gate whether to dare to fly a Max or lose the ticket price and screw my schedule. While Max is something I really don't want to fly, I have lost my trust in other newish Boeing products as well.
I think I remember that there are 2 737-100s still in service in Canada. The original 737 was designed for airports with very little in the way of equipment or infrastructure to service and repair the aircraft. And there was even a kit available for the engines on gravel runways. This makes the 737-100 uniquely suitable for airports in the far north of Canada who otherwise would have no airline service. Newer aircraft (including later 737 models) require a lot more equipment to run and require paved runways.
14:06 just a couple of weeks ago, I sat in a presentation from the former chief engineer of the PW open fan design. Man, if we can get past the problems (noise and rotor failure complications) that engine will be a game changer, especially in the fuel efficiency area (imagine an engine with turboprop efficiency but turbofan speed).
It’s just incredible how many amazing commercial aircraft came out in the 1960s and how quickly each went from drafting table to commercial service. Meanwhile in modern times it takes nearly 3 decades.
@@theregnarute I sat at my desk (mostly), doing my humble piece of the effort. But doing it as well as I could, and calling out anything that came up in meetings which might compromise safety. I sense from non-engineer phrasing like "yeah sure thing buddy" that you've done absolutely nothing, which would explain why all of this goes right past you. But at least you can roam comments sections, looking for people to insult. Better than nothing, if you're into that sort of thing.
I think the regulatory design oversight and certification is vastly more stringent than it was in the 50's and 60's, when we knew so much less and aircraft were much simpler. There were horrendous flaws in many of those early airliners, even the B737 with its rudder hydraulics. The gradual relaxation of FAA oversight at Boeing has had disastrous consequences.
Petter, I love your videos, and your insightful observations about aviation matters. Your use of English is remarkable for a non-native speaker. There's one quirk I've noticed in a few of your videos, and it's "who" versus "which". Basically, it's "who" for humans (and pets) and "which" (or "that") for all other objects. There is some wiggle room, but saying "the engine who they chose" definitely sounds odd. I'm guessing that Swedish doesn't have this feature. I'm also hoping you will take this feedback in the spirit it's intended in. Keep up the good work!
@scotthutchens1556 No, I believe he is Swedish. Similar languages though. This distinction doesn't exist in German either, which is why I made the guess that's why he does this.
Question to MentourNow pilot about aircraft operations: when in Europe, with Air France for example, they use containers to load luggage in the A/C belly of planes of the A320 family. When I look at Delta, it always use baggage handlers to put baggage in and out of the plane. Why such differences in aircraft operations?
Minimum wage is a lot higher in France than the US. Baggage handlers are cheap in the US, not so much in France. In all industries cheap labour discourages automation.
Apparently the A320 will take standard size baggage containers while the 737 (7" narrower cabin) won't. I suspect this means that in the US (where the 737 predominates) airports just aren't set up to use baggage containers even if Delta would like to use them. And as kenoliver says, baggage handlers in the US are cheap so nobody wants to invest in containers.
I flew the B-737-200/300/400 in the late '80s through the '90s. Went to the A-319/320/321 in 1999. Went back to the B-737-700/800/900 (eventually Max 9) in 2019. I felt like I went from the Space Shuttle back to Project Gemini. Have the scars on my head to prove it!
You didn’t mention the alleged engine/wing stability problem that resulted in MCAS, or the current engine anti icing problem: Both of which would stop me, as a retired aircraft maintenance engineer, from ever flying on a 737MAX
The C-130 Hercules has a Buildcounter of "only" 1/5th of the 737 but this Bird was first build in 1954 and is build in a row up to now. The Cessna 172 "Skyhawk" was first produced one year later and there were more Skyhawks build than any Boeings and Airbus and Lockheed combined. So the 737 is old, no question, but Aviation, Winegrowers and Whiskeylovers know: Old didnt have to be bad. Quite the opposite is true.
The 757 is my favourite jet too. First flew on one in 1988 with a CRT instrument panel. I loved it, as it went up like a rocket. The first Jet I flew on, was the 737, way back in 1972.
Retired Boeing structural stress analysis and design engineer here. I worked on the 707 (AWACS), 7J7 (PD effort), 737, 757, 767 (tanker and cargo), 777 (lead engineer on the original design for in-spar shear tied ribs and heavy fittings). "Now, I'm sure many of you know that the 727's fuselage, which the 737 effectively borrowed, was actually itself borrowed from the even older 707, which had entered service already back in 1958. So, while the 737 has been in production for 57 years, many parts of its design actually date back another eight or nine years, making it as old as Swedish Fish or as the Rolodex." Sorry, but no 737 flying today shares part numbers with the 707, and it wouldn't affect safety if they did. "...the 737 is not only old" You meant to say that the design is old, but it isn't. The use of the numbers 737 to designate the basic model is old, but each new 737 derivative design is a major improvement. "...that aircraft (7J7) was actually supposed to replace both the 737 and the 727." No, just the 727. The 737 was selling well. The open fan engines of the 7J7 were rejected primarily because there was no way to protect against a thrown blade. Imagine one of those passing through a fuselage. Obviously, Boeing's decision to keep improving the basic 737 and ending the 757 production paid off, considering that it is the best selling airliner in the world. All airliners eventually reach the end of their production runs, and agreed, Boeing will need a new design to remain competitive. Resurrecting an improved version of the 757 never got traction, but maybe it will some day (also same fuselage diameter as 707). It has long landing gear that could accommodate larger diameter engines.
It sucks seeing this unfold. So many of my friends parents growing up were Boeing employees and they were so proud of their aircraft. They worked at the 747 plant in Everett though. I do remember on a school sponsored summer trip we flew on a 757 and a chaperone sitting next to me was gushing about what a great aircraft it was.
Of all the bad decisions Boeing has ever made, not buying the C-Series program when they had the chance is certainly the dumbest. What an irony it would be if that program is going to put the final nail into the 737's coffin - or into Boeing's.
If the blended wing body ever comes out it will put an end to the body wing configuration because they are from what I understand 30 plus percent more efficient.
The big problem with the blended wing/body design is that it would not be compatible with airport gate equipment, specifically the boarding bridge. Boeing had an interesting design concept for a twin aisle replacement for the 737. I don't know what became of that.
The 757 is possibly the best overall airliner ever made. If Boeing hadn't destroyed the tooling to make them, they would be cranking them out as fast as they could right now. The reason they canceled the 757 was that they hadn't sold one for the prior 2 or 3 years. Once it was gone, ETOPS was developed whereby airlines could now operate 2 engine aircraft overwater. All of a sudden the 757 was the perfect size for flights to Hawaii, Europe, the Caribbean, and South America. It has great short field performance making it perfect for Jackson Hole, Laguardia, National, and Santa Ana. The problem with the 737 is that Boeing have tried to make it replace the 757, which it could do if the landing gear was about 3 feet taller. As it is, the long fuselage variants are hampered by the need for higher takeoff and landing speeds to avoid the inevitable tail strike on rotation.
Yes taller gear, that is also moved outboard to avoid interference at the centerline when the gear is closed. It needs a new wing for the gear changes so a dihedral change may get better engine to runway clearance. A then, major systems upgrades throughout. This would enable larger engines. The increased taxi height enables additional fuselage stretch without tail clearance issues on rotation.
SWA has never represented more than 15% of total MAX orders, and it's currently closer to 10%. If you think Boeing makes decisions on an entire airframe production line based on a single customer, you probably also think Southwest "taxis at 40 kts" like all the other MSFS kids.
3:50 no, the reason for the 727 having its engines where they were is because that's where they were placed by Hawker Siddely on the Trident. Apparently on early 727s some of the parts were stamped HAWKER SIDDELY as Boeing forgot to erase the designer's markings. The British aviation industry wasn't just infiltrated by Russians stealing designs for Concordski. We also 'shared' a lot of data with our American "friends and allies."
Every time a RUclips video title is a question the answer is: yes, absolutely, with no shadow of doubt, what a good balanced question grounded in reality.
As a flying member of the public (aka passenger) I will be actively avoiding any 737 I can from now on. It will be interesting to note if consulting companies give guidance to their employees to avoid the 737.
The thing is, statistically 737s are very safe. There is a lot to be said for peace of mind, though, and certainly many people are reading the news and will avoid them for a while. It can be hard to really know what plane you'll get. Maybe some airlines will start offering a guaranteed no-737 option.
@@j_taylor Yes but the stats come from a time when the company was not yet run by bean counters with the mindset of asset strippers that do not mind corporate murder and harming he company - as long as THEY are doing good for a few years, will get their bonus or golden handshake AND because of being emeshed with politics (donations, military contracts and resulting contacts) they can be sure that they will not be criminally prosecuted. And one can undermine quality control and negelect new developments for a while. It will not show immediately. Boeing was run by people with an asset stripping mentality for many years and now it shows. The new production sites in the South are a problem as well. Drugs taken on site etc. So some missing bolts or screws or washers would not be an issue. There is undercover footage, the voices are changed and the faces pixled out. One of the workers (it was filmed on site !) said that he knows that collegues take drugs during breaks. And that he avoids the machine when he books a flight. I guess that would not have happened in Seattle where they had the "old guard" around and any new production member would be trained by experienced people that would not put up with nonsense. But Boeing had to show unions and the striking workers.
@@j_taylor The 737 MAX stats are terrible, though. The stats on being grounded in the last 5 - 6 years are terrible (not only loss of life but the economic impact for airlines that have them in their fleet). The whole 737 family had a lot of flaws weeded out by a high number of machines being in operation over decades. So Murphy's Law had some time to work ... But that proud record can be easily undermined by cutting corners with quality control or with necessary certification NOW. And one of the results of the asset stripping mentality (with Boeing and potentially also with their suppliers) was that they outsourced (Spirit was a part of Boeing before it was sold). That outsourcing mentality also caused the financial fiasco regarding the new 787 Dreamliner development. They were billions of USD behind and the delays also cost them dearly (and helped Airbus). There is a saying: if you go cheap to will have to buy twice - Boeing did a version of that with the Dreamliner. They gave up a reliable production site to start over in the South, etc. There was some brain drain / skill drain and loss of culture just by moving out. Or the idiocy of moving out the headquarters away from production. Now that could be overcome if at least managment had the proper attitude. There were board members of Boeing that held patents. The company used to be run by engineers who had the mindset of engineers, had pride in their product, and would think long term. The dudes that are at the helm now could as well sell and market furniture or meat or fast food - it is about them and they know they will not stay long with the company. So if their mindset creates problems for Boeing long term - who cares, they will be good. Managers like that are a logical consequence of "shareholder value". (short term buying of stocks to avoid the term "investing"). Of course it was easy for Boeing managment to have the FAA defunded and to lobby politicians to that effect. And of course top managers know that they will not be criminally prosecuted. At worst they get the golden handshake and the company ! pays a hefty fine (they "settle")
I'm from Philippines and it's really nice to see some 737s take off & land as majority of the airlines flying here were dominated by airbuses such as 320 and 321s
787 does still have engine driven hydraulic pumps. One for left system and one for right system. Centre are electrically driven as are the backup L and R It's a bleed air system the Trent 1000 doesn't have
Tjänare, Peter... I understand your affection for the 737, since it is near and dear to your heart. Yet, I can't help thinking that the MAX was one iteration too many given all the problems they've had with it. I'm not talking about the quality management issues and all of that, but the placement of the engine, MCAS, and other "fixes" to make it doable. I still believe that the NG, which I truly enjoy flying in, should have been the last version before a brand new, and designed from scratch airplane in that category should have replaced it.
If Boeing had had ANY consideration for fuel costs they would have developed sth like the 737 MAX (a relatively cheap and fast fix) a few years earlier w/o the pressure of Airbus selling in their market. And with proper development time and no criminally cutting of corners the 737 MAX MCAS would work well enough. (and they would not have let a company in India w/o experience in aviation projects do the coding. But then - maybe this was not about saving money. But any (U.S. / European / Canadian) company that usually does those type of projects for the aviation industry would have noted that this is NOT a harmless fix and they would have noted that they only code for the input of ONE sensor. There would have been leaks to the public and / or the FAA and I guess if the companies are run properly they would not even accept such a project. Liability issues for instance. Sure a software fix for an engineering problem is a potential source of problems, but if quality control and the MINDSET of management had been appropriate they would not have had any crashes or headlines so far. The door shows a major quality problem. It has nothing to do with the age of the design. Or one iteration too many. It was the deliberate decision of Boeing to only use ONE signal for the correction. Even though they do have 2 signals (Airbus uses three if a sensor gives critical input). This is why they had so many problems (that were not fatal) before the first crash. And betweent the two crashes. Those sensor can get dirty or malfunction for other reasons. Think ice, rain, dust in the desert, ..... or winds bringing unusual amounts of Sahara particles .... And they do have a "cutting corners" quality problem. The beancounters and lawyers have an asset stripping mindset. Spirit the company that sells them so many components - incl. I think fuselage - used to be a part of Boeing. And then it was "outsources". WHY ??? The managers that keep the operation running that is now covered by Spirit (or other outside companies) did not have any incentive to cut corners (w/o the knowledge of Boeing managment, that is).
In general I agree with your view that too many iterations and compromises are a _potential_ source of problems & risks. On the other hand a lot of potential problems have been weeded out by decades of large fleets flying.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Visit our sponsor betterhelp.com/mentournow today to receive 10% off your first month of therapy
Very nice shot of you running through the forrest during the advertisement 😂😂😂
You know they are not exactly a stellar company right? :< They are a bit of a Boeing of the mental health services...
Did you mean "Is THIS the end" rather than "is the the end" for the title?
They aren’t the best, many therapists have spoken out against them for predatory behavior.
Yeah I guess Mentour doesn't know... but yeah, BetterHelp are predators.
ruclips.net/video/Iweb7kPvdYI/видео.htmlsi=n2EE4oy5fzxpslpX
Old, retired flight attendant here. Worked on both the 727 and 737. My absolute favorite though: Bidding the galley position on the old DC-10. Down in the belly of the aircraft we could roll up our sleeves, crank up the ovens and the radio, ditch the high heels and put our sneakers on and send the trays up and down the food elevator. Oh man those were the days!
Just retired from Mother U. The Tens were still around when I was hired. I definitely remember hearing your opinion voiced MANY times by FA's back then. I sure did want to fly it but never got the chance. 9-11 really dicked up the industry.
"the food elevator" wtf
Good times 👍
The Lockheed L-1011 had a similar gallery downstairs also. My dad was TWA so I got to go in the cockpit at night (Oh, look at the lights...) as well. Different times.
@@tonyharvey2307The kitchens were below the passenger deck and you used an elevator to bring food upstairs.
Hey Petter, great video as always, but regarding your sponsor betterhelp, they were found to sell their users data to other companies, while stating that their data would not be shared with anyone according to their privacy policy. That is pretty terrible considering their users were vulnerable to begin with. I'm sure there are a lot of good sponsors who would like to be featured in your videos.
Edit: misspelled name.
Indeed bro I watched Mrwhoosetheboss and found it
Hate to break it to you, there isn't a single internet company that DOESN'T sell user data.
Fortunately he is also sponsored by incogni often enough to offset that 🤓
@@charlesmak534that is not true, and doesn’t change the fact that betterhelp violated their own privacy policy.
@@MADmosche It is most definitely true.
As a flight attendant who is old enough to have started working on the 737 since the -200 days, my requirements of an aircraft are somewhat different than fuel economy and bypass ratios. For me the tiredness of this old old airframe is that with all versions up to and including the -800 Next Gen, the front lavatory toilet seat doesn't have room to stay upright because it doesn't' fit against the fuselage. The practical upshot of this is that we have an airframe that has been in service since 1967 where you have to hold the toilet seat up with one hand in order to pee. I cannot generate enthusiasm for this.
Having peed in a 737 front lav, I can confirm. Damned annoying.
sit down
It’s almost like this lavatory was designed by Germans
It also leaked into the EE bay. I think it was the APU Control Unit that everyone learned (very quickly) would stain your hands and shirt blue. It also, obviously, stank...
and as a ground handler i dont like that the ground power connecter is so high up, its higher up than on the a320, you have to hunch down to connect the air conditioner, compared to the a320 the cargo hold is alot more more cramped and you have to crawl inside when using a powerstow(though thats also the case on a220/e190)
As a Canadian, I’m still salty over how Boeing tried to kill the Cseries through regulatory strongarming and in essence forced Bombardier to sell out to Airbus.
And in return the A220 is going to terminate the B737 already seriously hurt bu the A320 family and stupid choices made by Boeing's management
I am too. They really just picked up all of McDonnell Douglas bad habits when the absorbed that company.
The UK government and Irish government also had a big hand in that pot. Gutted Bombardier had to sell to Airbus. The UK lost a lot of investment, but Ireland got *some* promised manufacturing business, but not as much. However, at least the C series lives. I love the A220, and also love the Embraer E-170-190 series, which seem to be hoovering up A220 orders that keep getting delayed.
And Bombardier with the Canadian government was no saint in their fight against Embraer.
Why? Do you not understand that to all US Corporates business is war, and your competitor is the enemy? The rules are just made to be exploited to your advantage, and todays allies are tomorrows enemies.
The rough landings of the 737 make the 320 family shine in my opinion.
However, flying onboard the 220 is wonderful!
'Rough landings'? I thought it was because Southwest had hired a former carrier pilot and he was trying for the three wire (passenger spinal impaction ratio:100-0)
Its crazy how the 737 is 60 years old, 60 years before that was the Wright brother’s first flight
They sold progress to money
Technology progress is rapid during times of war.
2 World wars happened in that 60 year span.
The basic design is 60 years old but I'm pretty sure any newer versions are not.
What does that have to do with anything? 60 years before the flyer, Camillo Golgi was born. Crazy.
@@amarissimus29 You're clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
"Honey, I found 4 bolts in your trousers. I've put them with the other ones"
🤓
😂
🤣
Some kid's soapbox racer is put together with plywood and aircraft grade bolts.
🤣
I would argue that the big “leap” in the 737 series’ development wasn’t between the 737 Classic and the 737 Next Generation series but between the original 737 and the 737 Classic series in the early 1980s since that’s when the design changed considerably, with the low-bypass engines being replaced with high-bypass ones. That gave the wing a whole new look and all the 737 variants since have basically been tweaks of the Classic (737-300/400/500) series.
100%. 737 300 was the biggest leap in efficiency of 737 development, reinforcing their dominance over my favorite manufacturer, Douglas (MD) in the early 80s, whereas, the NG was developed to 'stay in the game' v the A320 family
Absolutely correct.
Classic to NG was almost as big with an all-new wing and upgraded versions of the classic’s engines.
Absolutely. From the new biangular tail to the ovoid engines, the 737 Classic was the generation where a lot of the modern design philosophies of the 737 were first laid out.
They need to bring back the 757 and make it 3’ wider and 20’ longer. Put some giants under the wing and try and keep it under supersonic.
Thanks, Petter! ❤
Long-time planespotter and aviation enthusiast here. My first flight was on a Finnair Caravelle and it was thrilling. The next on was on a PanAm 707 to NYC and it was also amazing and delightfully different from the first one.
I got bitten by the aviation bug at 3 years old and my dearest childhood pastime was riding my bicycle to this "viewing spot" at the end of a runway (fenced off of course) and we'd spend hours watching planes land and take off. Asked my mom for a camera for my birthday. Got it! Probably used up a thousand rolls of film.
Loved the 727, later 737, 757
, DC-9/ -10, Airbus 320 series, and of course all the prop planes and military jets!
Now, many years later, I'm finally working in aviation sales & supply chain, basically selling and stocking airplane parts to airlines and MROs in Asia. This allows me to travel all over Asia to meet customers, get to know them, build and foster relationships with them, and observe their maintenance and repairs operations on Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, ATR, DHC and other amazing aircraft. As it turns out, many of them are AvGeeks too! 🎉
I honestly couldn't be happier now, finally working in something I'm actually profoundly passionate about, having tried my hand at several jobs, from HR to management in IT, lots of jobs over the years. I never felt excited waking up to a new day but instead hitting snooze on the alarm clock was practically a daily occurrence for 15 years.
Sorry for the long post and thank you if you're still reading this. 🙏
Just wanted to share my bit and express my immense appreciation for aviators/educators like Petter - and all you wonderful people who love aviation! 🛫✈🪂🛩🛬 ❤
Peter,
My pilot friend suggested that Boeing’s mistake was trying to fit engines that were ‘too large’ on a platform with such short landing gear. His recommendation was to use the 757 platform with taller landing gear. The 757 has the same cockpit and the engines would have fit perfect. Boeing’s choice to force fit the engines resulted in a compromise in safety as the engineering solution was non-optimum. With flying, you need a six-sigma solution and the safety compromises were their failure. They could have shortened the 757 to the size of the 757 and called it the 737 MAX, a perfect name for a taller, more impressive plane without the safety problems; and training would be similar.
The 37 and 57 cockpits are not the same. They require a completely different training program and have different Type Ratings. In other words, a 737 pilot cannot fly a 757 and vice versa. I once read that Boeing destroyed the jigs for the 57, so forget about that if true. The 757 is TOO NARROW for today's fat humans. Boeing needs to start from scratch and make something wider than the A320 (which is already wider than the 737) fuselage. Or, they can just keep putting out crap and let AirBus rule the airliner world.
@@lbowsk Which, after their lies to the FAA, is what they deserve.
@@lbowsk The 737 & 757 are totally different aircrafts, they just happen to have the same fuselage cross section.
I am well aware of that. The fuselage has got to go. I was replying to why the 757 is no longer an option for Boeing. @@markmiddione6423
I just don’t get why Boeing would build aircraft with such short landing gear and we saw that through the 707, 727, and the 737 Production lines and it just goes for show if they build the 797 anytime soon just pray they decide to put taller landing gear.
When Petter you point out that B737 has been in service for 56/7 years please remember that the Vickers Viscount, the first turboprop airliner, was in service for 56 years 1953-2009, which for an aircraft developed at that time was an incredible achievement.
I flew them for BEA/BA 1970-1975 and later 1989-1990. Then B737
I would argue that the speed of advancement in technology, and the added complications of fly by wire systems mean the B737's 56 years is more like 70 when compared to the Vickers. Technology moves faster than ever.
production stopped in 1963...
Even the dc3 is still flying, but that’s besides the point. No other 60 year old airframe is still being built in commercial aviation
@@abreyuDHC-3’s made in the 50s are still flying and the DHC-6 just entered production 70 years later
They didn't build the Viscount as long as the 737 has been produced.
Coming from an Information Technology viewpoint: why can you still see Windows XP, Windows 7, Windows 10 in use? Why, as a database administrator, I supported an Oracle 8.1.74 system years beyond the end of support? I know there are many companies that are running obsolete, non-supported software and hardware - there are banks and government agencies that have 1960’s mainframe COBOL applications still running
There’s a certain amount of inertia, of “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?” mentality
they "fixed it" too much... a lot of ppl died because of this fixing...
While that is certainly a big factor, an even bigger one is the enormous cost of not only spinning up a new fleet type (training pilots, mechanics, spare parts inventories, etc) but especially fleet flexibility issues. When my airline began MAX operations, we still had a large fleet of Classics, which were in good shape, and paid for. Very cost effective, and we planned to keep them in operation for several years to come. The FAA insisted we segment the crews into NG/Classic and NG/MAX. IOW, not every pilot in the company could fly every airplane in the fleet. It represented such an enormous hit to operational flexibility it was literally cheaper to retire the Classic fleet years early. Imagine your IT crews not being allowed to use Windows 10 if they were checked out on Windows Chrome. The whole point of a single feet type for many LCCs is the operational flexibility it affords in terms of crews.
@@konpolski4765 I would argue that the fixes would have been fine if implemented differently. For the cost of an additional AoA sensor and a bit of actual training, no one would be talking about the MAX. Even as things have transpired, the fatal accident rate has been less than one per 900,000 flights.
@@achmedbincouscous2846 I agree with the excellent points you’ve made
I wonder, though, if a commitment to a single fleet type could hamper a company - when the 737 comes up - the discussion often turns to Southwest Airlines, which has based their entire operation upon the 737, and has been a successful airline. I would think that Southwest going with Airbus would be an incredibly expensive and disruptive move - hopefully they are working with Boeing on a transition to a newer aircraft that would be not so disruptive
sure, and I remember my 1946 ford 1 and a half ton flatbed truck that I owned for many years.
Wow, and not a word about the fund managers that are now running Boeing and are using their legacy aircraft to squeeze out profit without actually doing what has been needed for a very long time. A brand new clean sheet design.
Agreed. Aerospace is a very slow payback model, development costs (investment) are huge and there’s often no return for at least five years from investment. Sure, the program will then run for twenty plus years and the spares and maintenance contracts are lucrative but today’s greed merchants want a quick profit. This is contrary to how the industry needs to operate.
100%. The last clean sheet was the 787, which began in the late '90s, almost 30 years ago. The accountants are just milking the system at this point.
A brand new clean sheet design would be untested at scale and be vulnerable to any unforeseen dangers, and all that to preform what the 737 already does anyway. The 737 at least has 70 years worth of testing and in the field data, everyone knows how long it'll take most parts to fail.
@@Edax_Royeaux what? So you're saying that a clean sheet design is more dangerous then trying to retrofit a 70 year-old aircraft with engines that don't fit? Are you saying that a composite aircraft isn't lighter and stronger than an aluminum one? Are you saying that engineers don't know how long it takes for components to fail? Do you think a clean sheet design means that every single thing that goes in there is a complete complete experiment? Are you saying it takes seventy years for us to know if it is safe? Basically, what the hell are you talking about? In case you didn't know the latest version of the 737 has crashed and killed more people per flight hour than just about any other aircraft made. So your argument is, let's keep doing that because it's safer? It's generally accepted and well known that the 737 passed its prime decades ago. That is one of the major criticisms of Boeing by both investors pilots and other industry types is that they need to stop trying to milk these legacy aircraft. In the next 5 to 10 years they're going to be totally noncompetitive.
@@InvertedFlight You appear to have jumped the gun on what was just 2 sentences I wrote. Don't know why you've decided to extrapolate about composite aircraft from all that, no wonder you're so confused.
My Grandfather was on the original design team at Boeing when they made the original design for the Boeing 737 100 .😊He was appalled at the MAX .
And that, says it all.
But grandfathers are appalled by everything.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Mine not so much . He was a strong Scandinavian man who was not into other peoples drama. I spent my summers building Aircraft in his actual “Hanger” in the backyard in Kenora,Ontario. I am an expert on riveting and wiring single/double prop aircraft … I was paid in ice cream and McDonald’s. I then found out that my uncle got paid in cash so I asked Grandpa to increase my payment to 20 bucks,plus the ice cream and McDonald’s.
He saw the MAX reveal and he said “ What in the hell is that ?
Is that this 737 MAX ? It’s essentially a 757-767 mix and they actually have expanded the 737 -100 to 200 -400-600 and then they show us a plane that has zero real testing and my grandfather said they are going to kill people as that’s going to take many hours to retrain pilots with that engine placement their going to need pilots that fly still!”
The MAX is just PERFECT ! Boeing RULES !!!
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Ya but this is grandpa's field of expertise.
You glossed over the MCAS debacle which was the final fix for the need to mount newer, bigger (physical diameter), more efficient engines under the wing for the Max. With the standard design, these engines would not have sufficient ground clearance. This forced a redesign of the engine pylon, which resulted in the engine being located higher relative to the wing as well as being positioned further out in front of the wing. This provided enough ground clearance for the new engines. However , this resulted in new aerodynamics for the wing and new centers of gravity which necessitated the creation of the automated MCAS system to help keep the plane properly trimmed and balanced without pilot intervention. Which is not necessarily bad, except for the fact that the software was flawed, pilots weren't extensively trained on its new functions and the plane was only equipped with two Angle of Attack sensors (instead of three, one presumes, to save money). The software shortcomings were exacerbated when there were problems with the AOA sensors. Since there wasn't a third AOA sensor, if the two AOA's had different readings, there wasn't a third AOA to function as a tie breaker to give the software the correct AOA reading. This resulted in the MCAS creating wild interactions with the flight controls, trying to correct perceived, but incorrect issues with the AOA of the plane. The software then overrode pilot inputs, and ultimately crashed two Max's. I'd say that going through these design and software machinations were a strong indicator that it was time for a brand new, clean sheet, airplane.
Well said, any new redesign or features would increase the production and operating cost of this aircraft. Boeing compromised safety for profits
@@SacrificeBreedsSuccess To me that's overly simplistic thinking. Did DAC compromise safety for profits when they made a DC-9-80 from a DC-9-50? (still cost a billion 1980 dollars BTW, just for things related to that stretch). Always starting over with a new design is another way to compromise safety, vs well-proven designs, systems and parts. And it costs everyone money: The airframer who is constrained on how much they can charge; The airline which pays somewhat more up front plus needs a lot more parts inventory and staff training... and finally the passenger.
A variant/stretch can be just fine if it's done just fine. Boeing's failure was they did it too much on the cheap (AoA sensors/software, training). Even MCAS was ok in its original incarnation: One push and done. But then it got pressed into service to do more.
All said and done, fatal MAX accidents have been less than one per 900,000 flights. A throwback to safety numbers from earlier decades, but hardly a "death trap".
@15:22 He literally says, "Now, the full story of how Boeing was pushed to develop the 737 MAX instead of designing something entirely new is a quite fantastic one and it involves some really clever backroom politics between Boeing, several involved airlines and Airbus. Now, I will tell you more about that in a coming episode, .."
@@seanLeprechaun if you’re trying to tell a story about why the 737 may not have a future and you leave out the MCAS debacle and the deaths of hundreds of people because of that “upgrade,” then you haven’t told one of the most compelling issues that drives the future of the 737. Putting content like that in another video isn’t right, unless you’re just trying to generate more views. Accidents and deaths due to poor management decisions, engineering and potentially profit driven priorities can’t be left to another video.
@@roch145 I agree completely. I was already familiar with the MCAS issue and the peculiar placement of the 737 MAX's engines. This video's total avoidance of the subject, for whatever reason, felt akin to gaslighting. Sort of like watching a documentary on the U.S. Civil War that never mentions slavery.
Even the 1960s 737 is as you say a 1950s 707 fuselage section. It's basically been stretched and re-engined beyond its limit. We flew 72s on cargo runs into short dirt strips until the noughties. Tough wingspar, high clearance and powerful engines safe from FOD, plus rear airstair. Fabulous A/C.
the 727 is coming back............you heard it here, anon
@@HaroldBricesure wish the 757 was returning !!!
It's still in active passenger service with hawaiian airlines
How is it beyond its limits? It's still a reliable aircraft sells and performs well. Did you watch the video?
@mediocreman2 Great airplane. Terrible cockpit and ergonomics. Not good to accommodate the larger radius GTF engines.
There’s an old FedEx 727 that flies out of KPTK often. Flight path and altitude take it slightly over a mile from my house and I always know it that one since it's twice as loud as any other aircraft leaving that airport.
Fedex retired their last 727 over a decade ago. I think you're seeing an MD-11.
@@nicholasbromley5998 it’s a 727. IFL group is based in PTK and has 2 or 3 of them still kicking
@@nicholasbromley5998definitely an MD-11. There was a UPS one here in Cleveland and boy was it loud!
@@nicholasbromley5998 Did you even read his comment? He said, "an OLD FedEx 727"meaning that it used to be a FedEx plane but now owned by someone else.
@@ImpendingJoker😂
Since it is based on the 707, which is itself just a derivative of the 367-80 which first flew in 1954, the 737 system design is 70 years old. The 707, 727, and 737 all have the same basic dual control system. Oh, you got there. What the 737 lacks is modern systems, like the triple redundant systems on every Boeing since the 747. Boeing had to get the law changed to allow them to certify the MAX 7 and 10 without EICAS.
I see a bit of the same issues with the Boeing Starliner and the SpaceX Crew Dragon.
Boeing makes everything "traditional", complicated and then all the faults creep in, cost overruns, groundings etc.
Question is, if EASA will play along with it.
The US way of grandfathering in old stuff should stop. Make State of the Art the rule
This whole event is completely contrived. We always see Order Out of Chaos. Create some fake chaos and then they already have the solution, 'Order', ready to go. This is a PR exercise to justify government funding for a new clean sheet aircraft. Boeing just can't compete with the Airbus A320 family, so need to build a clean sheet plane. They need the chaos to justify asking for funds, as will likely get it. The public will back it as they now see the 737 in bad light.
So you think the 737 max still uses equipment from 70 years ago? Different engines, different flight, controls, different cockpit, you’d probably have to work to find pieces that match the original aircraft.
Hello Petter, Such an interesting history this 737 aircraft has. So many things can be said about it from many different angles. I retired on the 737NG fleet of 'my' airline and flew a selection of different types in operational life. I'd like to share my feeling towards/experience with it. To me, the 737 felt like 'a steam tractor in the skies'. Powerful machine with little suspension in gear or wings, giving a stiff ride. Found the NG more 'jumpy' in turbulence than the older versions. A very sturdy and reliable airplane. Watching cabin attendants go down on their knees to arm or disarm the slides gave an association with an era gone by and looked sort of strange, as if operating a museum aircraft. Its powerful engines saved the day a few times in severe shear and turbulence and I loved the power and reliability of these technological marvels. On this type I only experienced engine failures in the simulator which can not be said of some other brands/types I flew. I experienced the 737 as a demanding aircraft to fly in turbulent weather: especially the NG had a tendency to divert from its trimmed condition and needed small control inputs continuously in which it differed from other types like the 767. The type never let me down which may also be credit to the maintenance standards of the airline: apart from a few deactivated reversers, auto brake u/s and an IRS fault, only the coffee-makers broke down. Ceiing 41.000 on NG instead of 37.000 on the older ones often was helpful to stay just above some weather. Liked the 'old fashioned' overhead panel with all the toggle switches, it really felt like something from the past after visiting a 787 or A350 simulator. There will be a day when 737 production is over. Wish that Boeing may find inspiration, courage and funding to design a successor. Conclusion: my days on the 737 did not leave a romantic feeling or fond memories of a gorgeous looking airplane or one flying like 'a pilots dream'. As a workhorse however it was the most dependable type for me in many aspects. Great machine to get the job done. Thank you 737 🙂.
Glad you liked it. I thought that it was the worst jet at my airline and I flew most of the others, both Boeing and Bus. But to be fair, I am 6'3" and 220. It's got a MISERABLE cockpit. Getting your brain bag in and out of that thing was miserable. But that's no longer a concern with today's iPads.
It has a tiny cramped cockpit. It's loud. Antiquated systems but with fancy avionics. It flies OK, but they all do so not really a ringing endorsement. No thanks. I bid off it as soon as I could.
Once they worked out why the rudder was stuffing them into the ground, it was a good airplane for the purpose.
I kept thinking something has been missing from your channel for a while but I couldn't figure it out.
The couch, and the adorable doggos sleeping on it!
Just for balance, I hate dogs, so when I see the couch, dog thing, I cringe, take a deep depth, and decide if i even want to continue watching.
Douchebag!@@tonyharvey2307
@tonyharvey2307 For even more balance... I love (most) dogs but, they are NOT allowed on the furniture, especially NOT the bed. That's just gross.
@@tonyharvey2307people who don't like dogs have something wrong with them.
I have fond memories of the 727. It was the first airplane I flew on as a kid. We used the rear stairs to deplane.
The 727 was/is a great plane. The Boeing 737 in all variants is as well. I don’t think most realize how good its service record still is.
I flew a Delta B727 and boarded from the ground. The belly was polished like a mirror, I could see myself beautifully in it. Hard to experience today.
yeah your parents, my grandparents, made great things. too bad you ruined them. too bad you ruined western civilization, completely. enjoy hell.
how did you get on the plane?
@@HaroldBrice We used the portable stairs at the side door (like usual, but no jet bridges).
DB Cooper loved the practicality of the engineering design of integrated airstairs.
...then he slammed into the ground.
And then he died. None of the dollar bills he received ever turned up again and the FBI knew the serial numbers. He probably froze to death in a thundercloud
@@BigTyltprobablt
"Cooper" jumped from a B727. Does the 737 even have rear air stairs?
Therefore the Cooper vane.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_vane
If it ain’t broke, down fix it. Oh wait….nevermind….
NAAAH 😭😭😭
more profitable :P
But that’s the problem they broke it
If it morphed to a CoffinJet, ground it, ditch it
I was going to say that, the staments backwards. @@John-86
One thing I think you missed out on, and is very important, especially for Boeing aircraft, is Grandfather rights. If Boeing want to up grade a model, they only have to certify the new parts to current standard. The rest of the aircraft is assumed to still be certified. Makes it a lot cheaper to up design a model.
Great and informative video, as usual! I too find the 757 to be a nice looking airplane...except on the ground. Those spindly, gangly teenager-like legs are almost comical. And now I'm thinking to buy some shares of Boeing while they are cheap to see what they can do over the next decade or two. Despite the turmoil, I always have faith in them. Maybe it's the wing pins the airlines used to give us kids back in the day, and stabbing myself with those things and bleeding on the seats made me a sentimental fool for venerable old Boeing. They haven't let me down (uneasily) yet! Keep the quality content coming!
I fly on the P8s and its a mix between a 737-800 and 737-900 and it uses the room in the baggage compartment for extra tanks! Its a pretty cool airplane and looks cool with harpoons on the wings. Very good safety record as well, we have flown them thousands of hours with no injuries. The only one recently went off the runway was pilot error and nobody was iniured. I personally have flown over 1200 hours on the P8 and the only emergency I experienced was a minor pressurization problem, which didnt even cause discomfort because we landed as soon as we noticed. I think it is the best of the 737 technology before they switch over to the max which was poorly executed.
RCAF is buying P8s and it sounds like they will show up before the.first F35.
@@realalbertan yes, we showed them through one of our squadrons P8s.
@@engineernels1057 I listened to the defence minister being interviewed about Bombardier wanting to bid and he rightly said they didn't have a ready to go product. Not only that but could you not put the pilots through a 737 training pipeline before they arrive? Or run them on a US P8 course? So much easier to get going.
@@engineernels1057 also heard we're getting Block 4 F35A modified with the F35C refueling probe, I'm assuming Australia has that same modification since we both had Hornets previously.
@@realalbertan yes that's what other countries do, the put them through the same training course we go through in VP30.
We've come along ways. First airliner I flew on was a DC-3. No Jetways at the time. You walked out unto the tarmac and they had a footstool to help you enter the aircraft. But plenty of room and the seats were very comfortable.
What was your reaction to seeing something as gargantuan as the 747 fly for the first time?
scruffy, which rest home do you live in? congratulations
DC3 and 747 are favorite
@@petergriffin8796When the Concorde (British version) started flying, they did a promotional tour around the country. We went to the airport to see it land. It was something to see. They let one of our 747 pilots fly the left seat. The news media interview him and one of them asked "what's the difference between flying a 747 and the Concorde? He replied. About as much difference of driving a Greyhound bus and a Ferrari? Back in 1990, we took a trip to Australia. We flew Qantas on a 747. We left LA at 10 pm Sunday night. 18 hour flight. It wasn't crowded at all. Since it was at night, the stewardess brought us some pillows and we occupied the middle row and raised the arm rests on the seats and laid down and went to sleep. When we woke up, we were about an hour from Sidney and it was 6 am Tuesday morning. Never done that before. LOL
@@HaroldBrice Not there yet. The plan is to wear out instead of rust out.
The variations in lifespan among various aircraft are fascinating. My father's squadron in the US Navy flew the F7U Cutlass...a disaster of a plane. Meanwhile, the US Airforce is putting new engines on the venerable B-52 and expects many more years out of the airframe. Some families have three generations of B-52 pilots.
This is my grandad’s B-52. My dad replaced the engines and I replaced the airframe.
@@gbcb8853 The engines are being replaced again.
the thing with the B52 is that if they were all grounded tomorrow, they wouldn't be replaced. They fly because they're already flying and if they weren't flying there's no compelling mission requirement that mandates an equivalent be created to replace it
@@miscbits6399 The B-52's compelling mission requirement is its uniquely high boom-for-buck ratio. ;) Of course, if one sought to craft a clean-sheet design to optimize for that particular mission requirement in 2024, it would look nothing like a B-52 and probably wouldn't even be a single manned aircraft.
I was born in 1962. My father drove the Ford Consul in my youth. The 737 max is the equivalent of a ford Consul with airbags, abs and electronic ignition strapped on.
any chance that you could support your statement with objective facts?
I see nothing wrong with that. After all, Porsche introduced the 911 in 1964, and it's still in production, with _all_ the modern safety and performance upgrades!
@@RottnRobbieI mean the current 911 shares nothing but a nameplate with the original 911
@@tonyharvey2307 google exists , google ford consul and photoshop some duct tape and airbags onto it
always enjoyable and informative. Truly like how you show issues in context of time and other factors like competitors
Growing up and living in Alaska all my life, I have great respect for the mighty 737. Overall it has proven to be a rugged and efficient aircraft that has operated in some of the most rugged flying conditions geography and economics has thrown at any aircraft design. I remember a crabbed up landing at Deadhorse on a frozen airstrip where Alaska Airlines had to cancel the day before because of 80 mph winds and whiteout conditions.
The next day when we landed it was still blowing pretty hard and the pilot masterfully landed in a stiff crosswind.
So stiff that looking out my window in front of the wing I could see the runway lights layed out at maybe a 15 degree angle to the length of the aircraft. Crabbed into the wind until right at touch down, the pilot straightened the plane to touch on parallel with the centerline. Many, many fond memories over the years flying in, around, and in and out of Alaska on 737's. Boeing or "Boing" as my (former P51 pilot), father used to say, will bounce back.
Oh Dad used to call Alaska Airlines, "Elastic Airlines" for the same reason.
Anchorage, Alaska
Awesome Dad jokes.
"elastic airlines"
never met him, but i love your dad
They just need to get rid of the Douglas accountants and hire their engineering managers back
@@jimsteinway695 Doesn't it get tiring to beat that old dead horse called McDD? Aside from being ridiculously over-exaggerated, it glosses over the fact that those intrepid engineering managers were the ones who pooh-poohed the awkward startup across the Atlantic and their cheap, no frills first product suitably named "bus," and even after it began selling like hot cakes; they scoffed at the fly-by-wire technology on the next platform too, until they woke up one day and found they had allowed the scruffy startup to grow up and catch up and become an equal competitor that was now eating Boeing's lunch. The lamenting about McDD corrupting Boeing doesn't say much about the resilience of the old Boeing if they capitulated so easily and a quarter century later are still pining for the glory days. Yes, McDD had developed some pretty bad habits, from working with the U.S. armed services during the Cold War, but much of that ended with the Cold War. The one thing truly corrosive that McDD had was a union that would cut off its nose to spite its face. Just say NO to ANY thing management proposed, seemed to be its unwavering philosophy, until the Cold War ended and they suddenly saw the demise of the company as a distinct possibility, then they began to cooperate, but it was too late. Still, that old nature of the union seems to be the biggest thing that infected Boeing and lingers. The engineers of old perhaps weren't pushed very hard to focus on costs together with safety, but its 25+ years later and by now they should have learned that engineering is defined as: The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and ECONOMICAL structures, machines, processes, and systems. Whining about management being focused on costs is stupid, no one said it had to be in lieu of safety. I know Boeing employees take great pride in pithy sayings such as: Quality, Cost, Schedule… pick any two. Why?!! A competent person will strive to balance all three. The same with safety. It doesn't have to come in lieu of efficiency or cost. The biggest cultural change needs to come at the rank and file level. Other Seattleites didn't give them the nickname "Lazy B" for no reason.
Always awesome to see peter praising the awesome 757 😊
ok then. i just don't care for the provision for a man being able to command the killing of his wife..........@Aldijan3r
@@HaroldBrice Yes but wife's come and go, more often go these days but Allah is forever.
I haven't really understood the love for the 757. I've flown on 757s a few times (passenger/enthusiast here, not a pilot), and didn't really care for it. To be fair, though, I think that's because the plane was quite old, with the vinyl on the seats cracking, the interior still smelling vaguely of cigarette smoke, and the plastic lenses over the lights yellowing with age. (This was in 2001, long after smoking was banned in planes in the US!). United Airlines.
I did fly in a 757 operated by Icelandair, and its interior was in much better shape.
Peter , this was an Excellent episode, really informative Thank you. At age 52 and working in Aviation 34 years I know a lot about the 737 family. Yet still I learned more from your Video - Thanks Again Paul
I have watched many of your videos and must say you're the best! You make me watch the entire video by presentation alone.
Thanks!
Petter, one of the main reasons holidayairlines like Transavia are gradually fasing out their 737-8 fleet and replace them with Airbus A320neo's and 321neo's, is because of the noise the current engines produce.
I myself live directly under the approachroute of runway 06 of Schiphol. Planes come over at approx 1200 meter, and especially the noise of 737ceo's is deafening. When I compare them to more modern types, the Airbus 320family are far more bearable. Still noisy, but way less noisy than the 737's.
Since airplanenoise is THE major cause of complaints from people living around Schiphol, I feel that your video has neglected this aspect of the plane and why airlines are on course to run the 737's out.
My experience: CFM-56 equipped 737s had been flying their downwind leg over my house for some time when one day a louder/shriller sound had me running outside to see I thought might be a 707 making an emergency landing. That was my introduction to the CFM-56 on an A320. Maybe their C-weighted sound level looks fine, but the overall effect was in a different category than the 737, at least to these ears. Perhaps the engine mount isolation or something?
Move - get new camp ⛺️
Does a lot of the noise from descending airliners on final approach or at least in a late leg come from the control surfaces and flaps/slats/ landing gear turbulence ? (rather than engine noise)
@@davidpowell3347 Nope. When they come over my house I hear the engines spooling back, which results in a deafening noise. Typical sound, without looking on FR24 I can tell it is a 737-8. It is a low thunderous noise. Flaps, slats make a higherpitched sound.
Not funny. @@bobwilson758
As a 20 year old Indonesian Avgeek, The Boeing 737 Classic is the aircraft that started my first ever experience flown onboard an airplane when i was a kid at about 16 years ago. Few years later, i started to learn about the Boeing 737 and it turns out the 737 has many tragic accidents especially The Rudder Hardover Saga. With that saga is over, i am confident the 737 is the best and most popular aircraft in the world. But in October 2018, the table's turn. March 2019 however is the final blow for Boeing. January 2024, everyone is again trying to avoid the Boeing 737 MAX and i am curious wanted to experience my first ride onboard the MAX. Time will tell.
I remember many of those 727 "Whisperjets" at the Atlanta Airport if my youth. The DC9 was prolific there too.
Dc9 have a really short range.
@matsv201 True. It was one of the first common commuter jets.
727s are awesome jets, but they are anything but "whisper" quiet.
The only difference is the 737 was designed in a different time it was designed for old airport equipment where all the airbus aircraft were designed for the modern airports so the most efficient engines will fit without un-natural engine installation
@@RCAvhstape The 727 launched with turbofan engines which were noticeable quieter than the turbojet engines of the original 707 and DC-8. Of course from a modern perspective they were not exactly a whisper. The MD-80 series used basically the same engine, and until they were finally retired a couple of years ago you could always tell when an MD-88 was flying over, they could easily be as loud as a 777.
The Western B737-200s had built in "air stairs" that extended out of the forward section of the fuselage so that passengers could easily deplane without a "jetway bridge".
Note: the fuselage cross sections of 727 and 737 are not the same. The lower cargo compartment is larger in the 727.
That's a pretty good run for an aircraft that was built on compromises.
I flew on a 787 a few months ago. It is in a whole different class from the 737.
I've flown on a few 787s recently. On my last flight on one, (Air Canada) the whole cabin interior shook/wobbled around as we took off and landed (all the overhead bins were visually shaking above our heads) and some of the tinted windows had already gone discoloured (brown). The 777 I had on the return journey felt like a much better built plane. A bit disappointing TBH.
Yep while old isnt necessarily bad there are definite advantages in flying inside something built within the same Century you are in.
787 is a beautiful plane agreed. 😊
So what happens if Airbus keeps working on the A320 and Boeing is not motivated to discontinue the B737?
@@aycc-nbh7289 They go broke.
I fly 2 days a week from Seattle to San Diego. Since January I switched from Alaska to Delta First Class. At first I was skeptical about the A220. Now I love the Aircraft. At least up front the plane is quiet, efficient and bright. Unlike the A321 that Alaska inherited from Virgin America, the Delta A220 galley seems large enough to serve 4 different hot meals. The interior that Delta uses seems very nice. So I suppose I am hopeful that eventually Boeing will ditch the 737 (I do like the Max 9) and develop an answer to the A220.
Does the A220 have the full size overhead luggage lockers that the MAX has?
@@awumaThe luggage lockers on the A220 are absolutely fantastic.
They are so big that they swallow my maximum size roll-on bag on its side wheels first.
The problem with Boeing is the same as other US companies that are listed on the stock exchange. They hired CEO whose only priority is to protect the interest of shareholders. Meaning they will cut headcount to save labor cost to boost share price. They retrench many QC inspectors that are suppose to ensure the quality of the plane build at Boeing. That is the reason why the quality of Boeing Max drop. My first company is Seagate that also have a CEO, who behave like Boeing CEO. He will retrench staff to cut cost to boost share price. This affected quality of the product and cause the company to be in a bad shape. After Seagate was bought over by an investment group. the new owner delisted Seagate from the stock exchange and want the new CEO to focus on the core business. The new CEO improve quality of the product instead of worry about the share price of the company. The company that focus on the core business will improve the quality of the final product.
From a basic factory workers perspective, that type of management makes life hell for the base level employees. I work in a JIT automotive supplier and we have a lot of issues at the plant where I work..., short takt times, rushing to make numbers, having to do the work of two people, 12 hour shifts, 60+ hour work weeks, high turnover rates. If Boeing has similar issues, I can see why they would have defective aircraft.
Well one question would be what we mean by “compete.” It is not as if old designs stop actually flying. A DC-3 for example will still fly today, nearly a century after its development.
It will however be hard to convince any airline driven by efficiency (be it fuel, pilot time or crew time) to actually buy and use them 🙂
Reminds me of another one of my favourite "aging" jokes: old golfers never die... they just lose their balls!
I have to tell you that I thoroughly enjoy your content. You explain things so well and connect the dots as you walk us through your videos that your viewers always walk away learning something new. Excellent job and thank you to you and your production staff
The Boeing 737 line really ended with the NG. Moving the engines changed how the aircraft handled and sloppy design of opaque flight automation systems to hide the new handling characteristics caused two hull losses with no survivors. The stall avoidance feature was designed on the premise that the system never received bad data from the captain's Angle of Attack sensor. If someone had asked what happened when the AoA sensor was stuck at a high value, the stall avoidance feature would have included a limit on the maximum applied nose down trim to less than pilot command authority with the first installation.
Even with the fix, the 737MAX still has the problem that it becomes a significantly different aircraft to fly if the horizontal stabilizer trim drive fails. Hindsight is 20/20, but Boeing would have been much better off if it ate the $1 million per plane penalty and airline pilots transitioning to the MAX had simulator training sessions to avoid stalling and familiarize themselves with the different pitch response to changes in power.
The lack of an 'automatic' mode for the 737MAX engine deicing system, combined with the MAX engine cowling unable to withstand the heat of the deicing system, outside of icing conditions, has forced further delays in certifying the MAX7 and MAX10.
The open fan concept suffered from the mass of the gearbox needed to get the two open fans to counter rotate. Replacing the fixed vanes of the turbine section with a drum that spun in the opposite direction of the turbine spool could work, if some way to keep the two sections spinning at opposite but equal speeds relative to the airframe was found. Eddy current braking of the faster component might work as flow through the turbine would try to maintain a constant speed difference between the two sections, so slowing down the faster section would speed up the slower section, but even a no contact braking system will generate heat that must be dissipated.
The debate over simulator sessions had absolutely NOTHING to do with MCAS. The discussion of simulator sessions was due to added features of the Roll Command Alerting System (RCAS) which would provide pilot notification and direction for upset conditions and the Runway Situation Awareness Tool (RSAT) which was an aid to pilots to avoid runway overrun situations. Both RCAS and RSAT were new safety features that Boeing had developed to improve safety as a result of reviewing the database of accidents and incidents.
@@jeffberner8206 Both crashes were the result of the 737MAX being able to enter a stall in conditions that were outside the stall conditions of the 737NG (above a certain angle of attack, aerodynamic drag on the MAX's engines would go from pitching the nose down to pitching the nose up, potentially into a stall). Absent an MCAS, pilots transitioning to the MAX would need simulator training to recognize and avoid the new stall condition, so Boeing self-certified that the MCAS automatically applying nose down horizontal stabilizer trim if the angle of attack was above a certain value removed the need to train pilots to recognize and avoid the stall.
Back then: we need a solution to 727 shortcomings. Engineers whipped up a new plane in 3 years.
Today: we need a new plane. Nah, we'll just put a bigger engine to it. But it'll take at least 5 years to figure it out though.
And the those old engineers did it all on paper and checked their math with slide rules.
@@Begeye-bh5ux Yep, and with DIE policies average IQ people are being replaced with lower IQ people.
I’m guessing the regulations are a tad different…
@@skenzyme81 to be fair the process of getting it all certified likely was much easier and faster. And there is so much electronics now in the machines (safety, fuel efficiency. Electronic fixes of design problems) that they all have to be certified as well.
This is what happens when you have management-led projects (today) versus engineer-led projects (1960s).
From what I remember, the Sud Aviation Caravelle was the first of the twin tailmounted engine airliners for short and medium routes. She had her first flight in 1955, followed by the BAC 1-11 in 1963. The DC-9 came in 1965. All of them had a similar rear airstair as the B727 and were relatively low to allow loading to be done manually.
Indeed, exactly.
There was a bunch of rear-engined Soviet airliners of that era, too. Apart from engines disintegratiing and taking out the other engines plus flight controls, they were tough birds.
@@awuma Yes, the Tu-134, first flight 1963 a nd the Tu-154, first flight 1968, but both needed external stairs, at least bthey did not have airstairs in the back. Then there was the little Yak-40 (today it would be classed as a small regional jet), first flight 1966, and the larger Yak-42, first flight 1972, which both had rear stairs. All came long after the Caravelle, the BAC 1-11 and the DC-9.
The Caravelle (first flight in 1955) was indeed a very innovative aircraft establishing many standards for jet airliners that are still used today. It is also, in many ways, the ancestor of what will become Airbus.
Don’t forget the Boeing 717, Boeings version of the DC9.
It was so nice to see a Braniff 727 in one of the shots. My dad flew for Braniff for about 30 years through every comeback they attempted and was running the 747 program when they finally shut down in Dallas. I know the pilots LOVED flying the 727 for its performance. All I really remember from that period was flying non-rev, getting bumped a lot in the mid-70's, and the smell of stale cigarette smoke baked into the fabric of the seats in the cabin. LOL. But it WAS a good plane. ;)
I must say, that not watching your videos for a while, you’ve made a huge progress. Not just your content and visual, but also the delivery, vocabulary, phraseology… you sound like a native speaker. Yes, you have a faint accent but even that is way less noticeable than before. 👌
100% agreed. I've been intrigued by aviation since I was a kid and currently hitting 20 years at an airline. You hit on every single point that I've told others about the 737s and 757s. I've seen the A220 and agreed that it is the one aircraft that will be nipping at the 37s heals. Embraer 195 E2 appears to be struggling to get sales as I've only seen them being used for startup airlines or low cost regionals. So feel Airbus has that under control.
"snipping at the 37s heals"? You mean nipping at the heels. Sheesh...
@@RSole9999 yep. Nipping 😄
British airways have been using Embraers for at last fifteen years. start up?
True. It is past its sell by date- but money is the main thing at Boeing these days. They could, and should, have built a new jet to compete with the 320 Neo- and absolutely everyone knows it. The Max was a cludge.
The A220 is such a beautiful plane my son and I have seen VH-X4A and X4B hopefully we see them all up to Z
Nice to fly on, been on a couple of YYZ to ORD flights on A220
That's a Canadian designed aircraft .
happy to see the it in the hands of Airbus….
@@sokolum If I recall it got there due to a trade dispute spearheaded by a complaint from Boeing. The result was Bombardier ended up with the deal with Airbus. I had heard and I think it was on Mentor Pilot that at one time Boeing could have gotten the plane. Going to be interesting to see how this all plays out with the 220 taking sales from 320 and 737. Boeing is in a corner with the 777X delays, Max issues killing some sales, Max 7/10 delays plus the writing on the wall that they need a 737 replacement by mid-2030’s so they got to start right now.
Having flown on the A220 a lot (Swiss), I can attest that it’s a gorgeous plane to be a passenger on. You do wonder if Airbus will try to go through an avionics change to ensure it’s a full family member.
As a current Airbus pilot I can say that Boeing does not have anything to come close to the A21N. This is not A vs B type of thing, just sit as pax in any A32X and then any B737 and it is very obvious which has a better passenger environment.
It’s easier to argue pros v cons as a pilot , but at the end of the day the people sitting in the back are paying our salaries, and that 707 fuselage cross section just cannot hold a candle to the 320 family.
Either way, I love your videos, fantastic detail and comprehensive research. Keep it up.
Thank you enjoyed this article very much. I am far from an avionics expert, but I have flown in most of the aircraft mentioned here. The 737-800 and 320 non-neo more times I cared to mention, but two aircraft stood out for me: the first times I flew in an a350 and a220 (only last month to Zurich from LCY) - they were so ..... quiet. I was next to the wing on both occasions and couldn't hear a thing. As a child of the 60s, I grew up with the 737 and would be say to see them (eventually) disappear from the skies, but that's progress for you .... I agree with Mentour in that we should celebrate one of the most successful chapters in aviation history and it would be a shame to see its reputation unrestored.
As you've mentioned, the engine is the most important part of an aircraft's design. Shoe-horning ever larger engines into the 737 is increasing difficult, and I don't think there's any way they could get a larger engine on it. The evidence shows that higher and higher bypass ratios are the course of engine development, which guarantees the engine diameter is to be larger. I think it will be this inability to use the most efficient engines that will close out the 737, perhaps before 2030.
Common sense tells you that a bigger engine means more ground clearance. Boing thought they could get away with it by not extending the length of the undercarriage. That was their downfall. People died. They fudged it and should pay the consequences. This iteration has been a complete disaster. I will never fly in any 737 max.
Absolutely. And disappointing that Peter doesn't discuss this, But then, he's a Boeing guy.@@trevorthomas2373
Interesting video. Boeing made a mistake in taking Bombardier to court. They should have instead worked with them to acquire/produce the C series, ending up with a new more modern design than the max. But hindsight has 20/20 vision.
Boeing did a lot of mistakes like moving HQ, playing games with Embraer instead of fixing core business, etc
The Bomardier issue was snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And of course it was done under the same CEO that was also responsible for the MCAS fiasco.
They should have a yank back golden parachute rider when it can be proven CEOs helped sink a company instead of leaving it better (whispers) _merely to get the parachute._
Hello. I flew the 737-200 for many years (about 16) and am still a bit shocked that the overhead panel for the latest models looks like the original. Anything to please Southwest I suppose.
Cheers, Peter
Southwest is changing the overhead panel and storage compartments. Soon people can haul even larger carry ons on the plane.
@@nunya-d2t I'm not an airplane guy. SWA is putting in lawn chairs and enlarging the overhead space. They shouldn't change anything in the cockpit of this tried and true plane.
@@nunya-d2t Honestly, I shouldn't participate in this side discussion. I don't care how they redesign any of the interior and certainly I don't care what Southwest does to the aesthetics of the interior either in front of or behind the bulkhead.
Well Blackrock and cronies own controlling interest in both. The literal grandchildren of the Bolsheviks run our economy now. Not going to end well.
That is crazy
It would have been nice to have mentioned the archaic flight deck computers that can't be updated because the airplane would have to go through a whole new recertification process. It's akin to trying to surf the net and be competitive today with an old Intel 286 computer. Computers today are about 40,000 times faster than they were back then, but then the 737 flight deck can take advantage of any of that-a huge shame!!
One point many Boeing fans won't like to touch according to the 737 is grandfathering. The latest MAX is still built according to rules valid for the 737-100. A 737's fuselage needs to endure less g-loads than a current aircraft. Same for the passenger seats. Only double redundancy for mayor systems in the cockpit. Unpowered doors a slim flight attendant may not push open in case the fuselage is slightly rotated and the door has to be pushed upwards. The 737 is a lighter aircraft because many things are missing.
Perfect video telling the true story behind the Renton 12’ 4” diameter fuselage that links the 707, 727, and 737. The 757 was also 12’ 4” diameter and also built at Renton, but had significant design changes that differentiated from its predecessors
Did you know that the 757's aft fuselage extends lower than the front because the 757 started out as an updated 727 and continued using that 727 aft fuselage (even after they decided to give 757 767 commonalities). It extends lower to make a space for the fuel lines to the 727 aft engines that the 757 does not have.
Yeah, the 757’s awesome. In La Paz, Bolivia (the 🌎’s highest airport + the exact environment it was made for - high and hot!), I got to sit in the cockpit during take off. Wow! It’s the M5 of passenger airplanes.
I did a braking analysis for a hypothetical hydraulics-out landing of another airliner type at LaPaz. Dicey.
the 757 is coming back............
I once flew on a very lightly filled 757, the acceleration was awesome.
@@77GolfXray Huh? Same fuselage width (139" interior) as 737 and 707.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Awesome. What is your profession?
I remember those back stairs on some planes when i was younger, not sure what planes they were exactly, but i clearly remember an exit out the back of the plane, i could look out a little window into the stairs compartment while i was waiting for the bathroom lol
In early 80's I was fairly late for my flight in Helsinki and was whisked off to the plane straight from check-in. ( This was before "security" was invented.) Everybody else was already on board when I entered from the back. Felt like a VIP for sure. This was probably the high point of my life..
Back in the 2000's, I was on a short flight between Philadelphia and Reagan National. When we left the terminal building, we were bussed to a small turbopropplane, and embarked through - indeed - backstairs. Back then I wasn't interested in types of planes, so I couldn't tell what kind of plane it was at all.
@@velisvideos6208 Somewhere in the 2000's, I had a transfer in Chicago. Coming from Seattle and flying to Amsterdam. The pilot on arriving in Chicago told us the local time.
When I transferred - had been waiting at least two hours - I got into the plane, only to realize I was the very last passenger to get in. Right after me the door closed.
Then I realized the pilot on the previous plane HAD TOLD US THE WRONG LOCAL TIME. He was ONE HOUR off.
@@Dirk-van-den-Berg I think "D.B.Cooper" put paid to the rear stairs... he pulled off that stunt twice.
@@awuma Twice?
In my opinion, Boeing has 2 options going forward.
1.) To either recycle the 757 body and develop the 757 max to compete with the a220 (if streched), a320/ a321xlr.
2.) To develop a clean sheet design aircraft (possibly the 797) to replace the 737.
Not only that, but since you cannot carve up a 787 body to make a freighter, and with the demise of the 747, will the 777 become the next freighter?
Good video. Yes, I agree that the 737 has been around for a long time and has done well. Personally, I think Airbus has been the leader for some time with the Baby buses (320 family). Boeing needs new engineers that can develop advanced technology. As a Mechanic, I prefer working on Airbuses. As a passenger, I prefer flying on Airbuses. The old saying "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going" is fading away. Thanks for all the great information you put out on your videos.
They need new management PRINCIPLES - whenever sth went wrong in the last years you can be sure that there were plenty of engineers that had objections. But if they speak up they will be fired, and if they make suggestions they are ignored. The head engineer was demanding ! a meeting with Boeing management after the first 737 MAX had crashed. And they could not deny him, and if they had fired him he likely would have informed the FAA or become a whistleblower. So he got the meeting - and got told NO. No change of plans, well only 8 months later the next machine crashed.
It is much easier to get or train up engineers and to establish a good work flow - than to get the rotten mindset out of thos at the top. And out of the shareholders ! NOW that the rotten mindset (of decades) results in economic damage.
They were running on an "asset stripping" attitude and some actors benefitted financially (managers getting a bonus / golden handshake and the main shareholders. Of course they had high profits - those profits should have been reinvested not paid out).
NOW they have the financial problems. It was long in the making and it will take a long time to fix - and it has ONLY to do with leadership. Failure of quality control (The Air Alaska door problem) is a managment problem. They found more missing bolts btw.
Plus NOW they have a competitor that is very capable.
Airbus cannot even benefit fully from Boeings failure, they cannot manufacture the planes fast enough.
The A 220 helps - different supply lines and production sites. And some of it is manufactured in Canada.
One can suck money out of a biz like Boeing that dominated the market when the beancounters (that do not mind corporate murder) took over.
Development of a new airplane can last 10 years (till it is certified). During that time they can have had 3 CEOs.
The "modern" type of leader that takes no pride in the product and has no intention of staying for longer with a company, nor do they have any security that they will be allowed to stay. Chances are a CEO that would have thought longterm * would have been fired, because they did not deliver the short term financial gains. Boeing used to be run by engineers ! This was when they were the pride of the nation and dominated the market.
* like the managers (that were engineers) that made Boeing a first rate company in the decades before.
Short term profits and shareholder values will suffer (a bit) if you do things properly and take your time the first time.
Of course it will pay off long term (or cost them dearly if they refuse to act longterm) in the long run.
But the management attitudes and shareholder values do not care for good products or the long term good of the company.
These days after all Boeing quality and other issues the saying is rather "If it's Boeing, I'm not going". I admit I try to avoid airlines who operate Boeing nowadays, just to not end up deciding at the gate whether to dare to fly a Max or lose the ticket price and screw my schedule.
While Max is something I really don't want to fly, I have lost my trust in other newish Boeing products as well.
Quality issue... like Italian sports cars of the '80: nice design, good performance that get you quickly to the next garage.
yes or in this case the great hangar (aircraft garage) in the sky
I flew in the 737 when I was in the Army back in 1970. I also flew extensively in the 727 around that time.
Yeah, you and Dan Cooper, haha
Was that 737 flight between Honolulu and Vietnam? I'm not even sure if the 737s could fly that far.
I think I remember that there are 2 737-100s still in service in Canada. The original 737 was designed for airports with very little in the way of equipment or infrastructure to service and repair the aircraft. And there was even a kit available for the engines on gravel runways. This makes the 737-100 uniquely suitable for airports in the far north of Canada who otherwise would have no airline service. Newer aircraft (including later 737 models) require a lot more equipment to run and require paved runways.
14:06 just a couple of weeks ago, I sat in a presentation from the former chief engineer of the PW open fan design. Man, if we can get past the problems (noise and rotor failure complications) that engine will be a game changer, especially in the fuel efficiency area (imagine an engine with turboprop efficiency but turbofan speed).
It’s just incredible how many amazing commercial aircraft came out in the 1960s and how quickly each went from drafting table to commercial service. Meanwhile in modern times it takes nearly 3 decades.
one word: boomers.
I'm a boomer who rubbed elbows with participants in those quick-turnaround designs. One word: Overtime (, mandatory).
@@marcmcreynolds2827 yeah, sure thing buddy. now tell me how you invented the jet engine before you forget your own name.
@@theregnarute I sat at my desk (mostly), doing my humble piece of the effort. But doing it as well as I could, and calling out anything that came up in meetings which might compromise safety.
I sense from non-engineer phrasing like "yeah sure thing buddy" that you've done absolutely nothing, which would explain why all of this goes right past you. But at least you can roam comments sections, looking for people to insult. Better than nothing, if you're into that sort of thing.
I think the regulatory design oversight and certification is vastly more stringent than it was in the 50's and 60's, when we knew so much less and aircraft were much simpler. There were horrendous flaws in many of those early airliners, even the B737 with its rudder hydraulics. The gradual relaxation of FAA oversight at Boeing has had disastrous consequences.
Petter, I love your videos, and your insightful observations about aviation matters. Your use of English is remarkable for a non-native speaker. There's one quirk I've noticed in a few of your videos, and it's "who" versus "which". Basically, it's "who" for humans (and pets) and "which" (or "that") for all other objects. There is some wiggle room, but saying "the engine who they chose" definitely sounds odd. I'm guessing that Swedish doesn't have this feature. I'm also hoping you will take this feedback in the spirit it's intended in. Keep up the good work!
I've pointed this out before, and he still says "who".
@guinnog2 I thought he was German but living in Spain.
@scotthutchens1556 No, I believe he is Swedish. Similar languages though. This distinction doesn't exist in German either, which is why I made the guess that's why he does this.
@@guinnog2 Thanks! After reading his bio on his website I did see that. You swear he was German though. Haha.
Hey, I am a staunch defender of the English language, so every time Petter says "descending down" I scream at my screen "as opposed to decending up?"
Question to MentourNow pilot about aircraft operations: when in Europe, with Air France for example, they use containers to load luggage in the A/C belly of planes of the A320 family. When I look at Delta, it always use baggage handlers to put baggage in and out of the plane. Why such differences in aircraft operations?
Minimum wage is a lot higher in France than the US. Baggage handlers are cheap in the US, not so much in France. In all industries cheap labour discourages automation.
Apparently the A320 will take standard size baggage containers while the 737 (7" narrower cabin) won't. I suspect this means that in the US (where the 737 predominates) airports just aren't set up to use baggage containers even if Delta would like to use them. And as kenoliver says, baggage handlers in the US are cheap so nobody wants to invest in containers.
I flew the B-737-200/300/400 in the late '80s through the '90s. Went to the A-319/320/321 in 1999. Went back to the B-737-700/800/900 (eventually Max 9) in 2019. I felt like I went from the Space Shuttle back to Project Gemini. Have the scars on my head to prove it!
Petter/Mentour,
Great video as always - thank you!
Paul (in MA USA)
You didn’t mention the alleged engine/wing stability problem that resulted in MCAS, or the current engine anti icing problem: Both of which would stop me, as a retired aircraft maintenance engineer, from ever flying on a 737MAX
The C-130 Hercules has a Buildcounter of "only" 1/5th of the 737 but this Bird was first build in 1954 and is build in a row up to now. The Cessna 172 "Skyhawk" was first produced one year later and there were more Skyhawks build than any Boeings and Airbus and Lockheed combined. So the 737 is old, no question, but Aviation, Winegrowers and Whiskeylovers know: Old didnt have to be bad. Quite the opposite is true.
The 757 is my favourite jet too. First flew on one in 1988 with a CRT instrument panel.
I loved it, as it went up like a rocket.
The first Jet I flew on, was the 737, way back in 1972.
Retired Boeing structural stress analysis and design engineer here.
I worked on the 707 (AWACS), 7J7 (PD effort), 737, 757, 767 (tanker and cargo), 777 (lead engineer on the original design for in-spar shear tied ribs and heavy fittings).
"Now, I'm sure many of you know that the 727's fuselage, which the 737 effectively borrowed, was actually itself borrowed from the even older 707, which had entered service already back in 1958. So, while the 737 has been in production for 57 years, many parts of its design actually date back another eight or nine years, making it as old as Swedish Fish or as the Rolodex."
Sorry, but no 737 flying today shares part numbers with the 707, and it wouldn't affect safety if they did.
"...the 737 is not only old"
You meant to say that the design is old, but it isn't. The use of the numbers 737 to designate the basic model is old, but each new 737 derivative design is a major improvement.
"...that aircraft (7J7) was actually supposed to replace both the 737 and the 727."
No, just the 727. The 737 was selling well.
The open fan engines of the 7J7 were rejected primarily because there was no way to protect against a thrown blade. Imagine one of those passing through a fuselage.
Obviously, Boeing's decision to keep improving the basic 737 and ending the 757 production paid off, considering that it is the best selling airliner in the world.
All airliners eventually reach the end of their production runs, and agreed, Boeing will need a new design to remain competitive. Resurrecting an improved version of the 757 never got traction, but maybe it will some day (also same fuselage diameter as 707). It has long landing gear that could accommodate larger diameter engines.
It sucks seeing this unfold. So many of my friends parents growing up were Boeing employees and they were so proud of their aircraft. They worked at the 747 plant in Everett though. I do remember on a school sponsored summer trip we flew on a 757 and a chaperone sitting next to me was gushing about what a great aircraft it was.
This sent me down a Swedish Fish rabbit hole. Great video!
Of all the bad decisions Boeing has ever made, not buying the C-Series program when they had the chance is certainly the dumbest. What an irony it would be if that program is going to put the final nail into the 737's coffin - or into Boeing's.
If the blended wing body ever comes out it will put an end to the body wing configuration because they are from what I understand 30 plus percent more efficient.
De havilland Mosquito?
The big problem with the blended wing/body design is that it would not be compatible with airport gate equipment, specifically the boarding bridge. Boeing had an interesting design concept for a twin aisle replacement for the 737. I don't know what became of that.
The 757 is possibly the best overall airliner ever made. If Boeing hadn't destroyed the tooling to make them, they would be cranking them out as fast as they could right now. The reason they canceled the 757 was that they hadn't sold one for the prior 2 or 3 years. Once it was gone, ETOPS was developed whereby airlines could now operate 2 engine aircraft overwater. All of a sudden the 757 was the perfect size for flights to Hawaii, Europe, the Caribbean, and South America. It has great short field performance making it perfect for Jackson Hole, Laguardia, National, and Santa Ana. The problem with the 737 is that Boeing have tried to make it replace the 757, which it could do if the landing gear was about 3 feet taller. As it is, the long fuselage variants are hampered by the need for higher takeoff and landing speeds to avoid the inevitable tail strike on rotation.
Yes taller gear, that is also moved outboard to avoid interference at the centerline when the gear is closed. It needs a new wing for the gear changes so a dihedral change may get better engine to runway clearance. A then, major systems upgrades throughout. This would enable larger engines. The increased taxi height enables additional fuselage stretch without tail clearance issues on rotation.
And that's why they don't do it.@@cpstone100
Fantastic snapshot of the evolution of the 727/737 Max to include the competition from Airbus that is driving Boeing mad crazy!
I can give you a direction why the 737 is still in production. Southwest!
Not Northwest
SWA has never represented more than 15% of total MAX orders, and it's currently closer to 10%. If you think Boeing makes decisions on an entire airframe production line based on a single customer, you probably also think Southwest "taxis at 40 kts" like all the other MSFS kids.
More accurately Blackrock, Vanguard and cronies who own controlling interest in both.
And Ryanair....
@@achmedbincouscous2846airlines have a huge amount of influence on the manufacturers.
3:50 no, the reason for the 727 having its engines where they were is because that's where they were placed by Hawker Siddely on the Trident. Apparently on early 727s some of the parts were stamped HAWKER SIDDELY as Boeing forgot to erase the designer's markings.
The British aviation industry wasn't just infiltrated by Russians stealing designs for Concordski. We also 'shared' a lot of data with our American "friends and allies."
Typos in the titles look REALLY WTF - interesting video, as usual.
Every time a RUclips video title is a question the answer is: yes, absolutely, with no shadow of doubt, what a good balanced question grounded in reality.
Video very well formatted. Good comparisons' and clarity without going into too much detail. Thanks.
These history videos are best and enjoyable Enhorabuena
Glad you like them! 💕💕
@@MentourNow love them!
As a flying member of the public (aka passenger) I will be actively avoiding any 737 I can from now on. It will be interesting to note if consulting companies give guidance to their employees to avoid the 737.
The thing is, statistically 737s are very safe. There is a lot to be said for peace of mind, though, and certainly many people are reading the news and will avoid them for a while.
It can be hard to really know what plane you'll get. Maybe some airlines will start offering a guaranteed no-737 option.
@@j_taylor Yes but the stats come from a time when the company was not yet run by bean counters with the mindset of asset strippers that do not mind corporate murder and harming he company - as long as THEY are doing good for a few years, will get their bonus or golden handshake AND because of being emeshed with politics (donations, military contracts and resulting contacts) they can be sure that they will not be criminally prosecuted.
And one can undermine quality control and negelect new developments for a while. It will not show immediately. Boeing was run by people with an asset stripping mentality for many years and now it shows.
The new production sites in the South are a problem as well. Drugs taken on site etc. So some missing bolts or screws or washers would not be an issue.
There is undercover footage, the voices are changed and the faces pixled out. One of the workers (it was filmed on site !) said that he knows that collegues take drugs during breaks.
And that he avoids the machine when he books a flight.
I guess that would not have happened in Seattle where they had the "old guard" around and any new production member would be trained by experienced people that would not put up with nonsense.
But Boeing had to show unions and the striking workers.
@@j_taylor The 737 MAX stats are terrible, though. The stats on being grounded in the last 5 - 6 years are terrible (not only loss of life but the economic impact for airlines that have them in their fleet). The whole 737 family had a lot of flaws weeded out by a high number of machines being in operation over decades. So Murphy's Law had some time to work ...
But that proud record can be easily undermined by cutting corners with quality control or with necessary certification NOW. And one of the results of the asset stripping mentality (with Boeing and potentially also with their suppliers) was that they outsourced (Spirit was a part of Boeing before it was sold).
That outsourcing mentality also caused the financial fiasco regarding the new 787 Dreamliner development. They were billions of USD behind and the delays also cost them dearly (and helped Airbus).
There is a saying: if you go cheap to will have to buy twice - Boeing did a version of that with the Dreamliner.
They gave up a reliable production site to start over in the South, etc. There was some brain drain / skill drain and loss of culture just by moving out. Or the idiocy of moving out the headquarters away from production. Now that could be overcome if at least managment had the proper attitude.
There were board members of Boeing that held patents. The company used to be run by engineers who had the mindset of engineers, had pride in their product, and would think long term. The dudes that are at the helm now could as well sell and market furniture or meat or fast food - it is about them and they know they will not stay long with the company. So if their mindset creates problems for Boeing long term - who cares, they will be good. Managers like that are a logical consequence of "shareholder value". (short term buying of stocks to avoid the term "investing").
Of course it was easy for Boeing managment to have the FAA defunded and to lobby politicians to that effect. And of course top managers know that they will not be criminally prosecuted. At worst they get the golden handshake and the company ! pays a hefty fine (they "settle")
I'm from Philippines and it's really nice to see some 737s take off & land as majority of the airlines flying here were dominated by airbuses such as 320 and 321s
This video is well above my technical understanding of aviation. I’m just a flyer about to hop on a Boeing 737 max 9 to Hawaii. What do you think?
The 7J7 should be revisited with the CFM Rise engine...
If the long A220 makes more sense than the A320 / 737 Max, i don't see why not just use that.
The A220 is a much more comfortable aircraft than the B737, with five abreast seating which cannot be squeezed to 6.
Yeah a pitty, the Horse seems to have already bolted though, Boeing's decisions have already condemned it.
I think that the 737 is a bit like my grandfather’s axe, it’s had two new heads and five new handles!
Oh trigger
787 does still have engine driven hydraulic pumps. One for left system and one for right system. Centre are electrically driven as are the backup L and R
It's a bleed air system the Trent 1000 doesn't have
Yup, wrong info in video
Great storytelling! This is some of the best content on the internet.
I for one love the 737. I collect scale models and have 32 of which 11 are 737. It’s so sleek and beautiful.
Tjänare, Peter... I understand your affection for the 737, since it is near and dear to your heart. Yet, I can't help thinking that the MAX was one iteration too many given all the problems they've had with it. I'm not talking about the quality management issues and all of that, but the placement of the engine, MCAS, and other "fixes" to make it doable. I still believe that the NG, which I truly enjoy flying in, should have been the last version before a brand new, and designed from scratch airplane in that category should have replaced it.
If Boeing had had ANY consideration for fuel costs they would have developed sth like the 737 MAX (a relatively cheap and fast fix) a few years earlier w/o the pressure of Airbus selling in their market. And with proper development time and no criminally cutting of corners the 737 MAX MCAS would work well enough. (and they would not have let a company in India w/o experience in aviation projects do the coding.
But then - maybe this was not about saving money. But any (U.S. / European / Canadian) company that usually does those type of projects for the aviation industry would have noted that this is NOT a harmless fix and they would have noted that they only code for the input of ONE sensor. There would have been leaks to the public and / or the FAA and I guess if the companies are run properly they would not even accept such a project. Liability issues for instance.
Sure a software fix for an engineering problem is a potential source of problems, but if quality control and the MINDSET of management had been appropriate they would not have had any crashes or headlines so far.
The door shows a major quality problem. It has nothing to do with the age of the design. Or one iteration too many.
It was the deliberate decision of Boeing to only use ONE signal for the correction. Even though they do have 2 signals (Airbus uses three if a sensor gives critical input). This is why they had so many problems (that were not fatal) before the first crash. And betweent the two crashes. Those sensor can get dirty or malfunction for other reasons. Think ice, rain, dust in the desert, ..... or winds bringing unusual amounts of Sahara particles ....
And they do have a "cutting corners" quality problem. The beancounters and lawyers have an asset stripping mindset.
Spirit the company that sells them so many components - incl. I think fuselage - used to be a part of Boeing. And then it was "outsources". WHY ??? The managers that keep the operation running that is now covered by Spirit (or other outside companies) did not have any incentive to cut corners (w/o the knowledge of Boeing managment, that is).
In general I agree with your view that too many iterations and compromises are a _potential_ source of problems & risks. On the other hand a lot of potential problems have been weeded out by decades of large fleets flying.