Hello All,
Yesterday we looked at the payload-range capabilities of the different A321neo variants. We now attempt to estimate the payload-range capabilities of the largest 737 MAX variant, the 737-10. In this blog’s opinion, the 737-10 will enter passenger service no earlier than 2025.
A larger wing brings more range
When Boeing introduced the 737 NG, it redesigned the wing from the 737 Classic. The result was a wing with more fuel capacity than the A320 family: 20.9 metric tons vs. 19.1.
The larger wing allowed the 737-800 to operate US transcontinental flights without an auxiliary fuel tank. The 737-900 did not have enough range and required an auxiliary fuel tank for US coast-to-coast flights: the 737-900ER has the capacity for an extra 2.9 metric tons of fuel.
The 737-9, with more fuel-efficient engines, does not require auxiliary fuel tanks for US transcontinental operations. The variant has a nominal range of 3,300 nautical miles, 200 less than the smaller 737-8.
Assumptions for the 737-10
We build the estimated 737-10 payload-range diagram from the one of the 737-9:
- Per Boeing’s website, the 737-9 carries 178 passengers in a standard configuration up to 3,300nm. Assuming a weight of 215 pounds per passenger, the payload at that range is 17.4 metric tons.
- We use the payload-range diagram of the 737-9 from the Airport Planning Manual to complete it.
- For the 737-10 we assume it carries 188 passengers up to 3,100nm. It translates into a payload of 18.3 metric tons.
- We then build an estimated payload-range diagram for the 737-10 assuming a slightly higher fuel burn.
Below is the estimated payload range diagram of the 737-900ER, 737-9, 737-10, and A321neo with or without an ACT:
A US Transcon aircraft but not more
The 737-10 will likely have payload-range capabilities close to those of the 737-9. With a nominal range of 3,100nm, the larger wing fuel tank makes US transcontinental operations possible without an auxiliary fuel tank in standard configurations (180-190 passengers).
The aircraft can though carry less payload than the A321neo (an estimated two fewer metric tons). US legacy carriers can carry 200 passengers on the A321neo, vs. 188 envisioned for United’s 737-10 cabin. Note that the 737-10 does not have enough payload range for US transcontinental operations in a low-cost cabin of 230 passengers, while the A321(X)LR can do so.
Boeing had to modify the landing gear to allow adequate rotation for the 737-10 at takeoff. The field performance of the 737-10 will be behind that of the A321neo. It will therefore be tricky to increase the aircraft MTOW further to boost range, like Airbus did for the A321neo.
Conclusion
The 737-10 without auxiliary fuel tanks will be capable of US transcontinental operations, like the A321neo with one ACT. However, the 737 architecture is pushed to the limit and cannot accommodate further MTOW hikes to improve the payload-range capabilities. So the 737-10 won’t be able to fly across the Atlantic like the A321(X)LR.
There are also question marks around the 737-10 field performance and engine durability (it is a thrust boost of the LEAP-1B that is on the 737-8). This isn’t a problem at most large international airports with long runways but will be at some, such as Maui’s OGG.
EPSILON AVIATION 
Leeham in its earlier analysis ( now out of paywall) says the seating arrangements for Max 10 and A321neo is very close . Using their cabin seat modelling based on internal size
“The 737 MAX holds three seats (a half row) fewer than the A321neo. Both cabins have four lavatories and 13 meal trolleys.”
Some high density tricks might make a few more for the neo
LikeLike
correct the 737-10 hits seat limit earlier because the exit doors are smaller than on the A321neo. It is the same reason why the 737-8 has an 189 seat limit. The 737-8200 has 210.
LikeLike
Thats only an issue for the high density seating . While United does have 200 seats on its new A321 neos, that configuration wont work on trans atlantic flights. There is no reason the believe the Max 10 wont have similar seat numbers when they are used on sub fleets configurations with plenty of economy class like Hawaii or Caribbean destinations. Transcon US flights usually have more 1st class/Business and Economy Plus seats.
That was clever design part of the A321XLR it increased max weight and fuel payload while allowing the extra space for baggage ( more needed on longer haul) that would have been reduced by only having those ACT
LikeLike
Although 737-10 will probably be unable to hop the pond it will still have a good potential in markets with less stringent route requirements, such as Europe, Far East and maybe the Middle East as well if their hot airports are not too punishing on the field performance.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the great info on this blog!
The success of the A321/A321XLR, and the continued struggles with the MAX got me thinking about what Boeing can do to compete.
I know you had some articles a while back about the NMA, and predicting that neither Boing, nor Airbus is going to launch a new aircraft in the near future. But still, I’m curious if there is a gap for a new Boeing aircraft with the following characteristics:
1. Single aisle.
2. Higher aspect ratio wing with baby 777X folding wingtips to get better efficiency but fit within Code C gates.
3. Very high bypass ratio, maybe GTF, with longer landing gear to accommodate.
4. Composite wings, maybe composite fuselage.
5. Door further aft to allow for faster turnaround.
I know Boeing was recently touting the TTBW concept, but the above characteristics are all proven (I know the 777X hasn’t been delivered yet). Would they be enough combined to deliver payload/range improvements to compete with A321, and efficiency improvements in the future for Ryanair / Southwest et al?
Cheers,
David
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi the aircraft you are referring to would bring at best a mid single-digit improvement in fuel efficiency vs. an A321neo with similar payload-range. Airbus could respond with a composite wing aircraft and re-use the A320 cross section, which would shrink the fuel burn advantage to low single-digits. The only way Boeing could win in this scenario is if manufacturing advances are such that it can produce them similar price or cheaper than Airbus, including recovering the likely development & ramp-up costs of $30bn. Boeing needs to be in a far better financial position to launch such a program, which won’t be the late until 2027-28 at best in my opinion.
LikeLike