Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:46 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Organization: Concentric Internet Services References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1446@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> wrote: >>>Yes, Boeing could have built an entirely new aircraft, but chose not to >>>do so. That reduced time to market and lowered costs (hence incresing >>>profits and/or lowering price) for Boeing, while allowing much greater >>>commonality for previous 737 customers. >> >>And, let's not forget that they only expected to sell about fifty of 'em. >>R&D had to be kept to a minimum. This was, after all, before airline >>deregulation. > >Deregulation was approved by the US Congress in 1978. Boeing didn't >decide to build the 737-300 until two years later, in 1980, and its >first flight came in 1984. Far from being a serendipitious beneficiary >of deregulation, the 2nd generation 737 was the first aircraft tailor- >made for deregulation. Totally agree. If you check the B737 order history, for most part, the first generation had not been a big seller for Boeing and was trailing the DC-9 by a good margin. In 1978, all of a sudden, sales of the aircraft picked up dramatically. I don't think it's a coincidence that Deregulation in the US took place in the same year. MD updated the DC-9 by stretching it (i.e., the MD-80) and was only mildly successful in the market place. Boeing updated the B737 and more than made up for the mis-sized B727 replacement (i.e., B757). Nevertheless, in retrospect, by leaving the 150-seat, trans-Continental sector open, Boeing did allow Airbus a huge opportunity to move into the single-aisle market. Thus, comparing the second-genration B737 and the A320 is comparing apples and oranges. They don't even cater to the same market (but there is some overlap). The third-generation B737 is a more direct competitor of the A320.