It sounds like Boeing is working on developing its first new ”clean sheet” commercial aircraft type in over two decades. I’m not sure if that’s refreshing to see and shows that Boeing is trying to innovate, or is just plain confusing, given the aircraft it’s replacing.
Continue reading: Boeing Starts Developing 737 MAX Replacement: Overdue Or Premature?
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Both overdue and premature. Overdue in the sense that the 737 design is a 1960s one. Apart from stretching the fuselage and adding more capable engines and increasing the range, not much else has changed since the 737-100. Premature in that Boeing is still in the early innings of a turnaround and its quality control and reliability still an open question. Has it sufficiently cleaned up its mess before a new plane design is ready? Does it have the skilled people to bring a new plane to the market?
It was overdue a decade ago. That, and there's probably not much more blood they can draw out of the stone that is the 737 frame.
IMO, the perfect time would've been alongside the 787. It was already dubbed the "Yellowstone Y1" project 2 decades ago.
What has changed is the deployment of narrow-bodies on tier 2 long-haul routes.
Given the experience with the 777X, it makes sense to start now in order to make a projected 2045 launch date.
Quote: "In fairness, the jet’s technology is pretty outdated at this point, as 737 development began in 1964."
This is a very surprisingly myopic and patently false comment coming from you, Ben. Wow. The 737 MAX 'technology' is no where near 1964 and this is worthy of a correction. The MAX has modern avionics, new engine technologies and nacelles, new wings, among many other things. The nose and tail are about the only things that are the same and those are aerodynamics, not technology.
Wow, just so surprising to see you make such a poor statement like this. Your bias for Airbus is clear and certainly your prerogative, but at least make factual statements.
Almost everything has changed on the 737 since the 1960s. Boeing basically redesigned the aircraft in the 1990s as the 737NG, with a new wing, engines, cockpit and all the stuff that really matters. It’s a shame Boeing doubled down on the 737, however, instead of further developing the 757.
Boeing has flown themselves into a coffin corner with the 737. It’s a massive loss to try to keep updating it, and a massive loss to build a clean sheet design without the AI tools and next gen engines and design ready yet.
What ever they come up with now will only be a stop gap with a short lifespan.
good for Boeing.
and, yes, they have to start work now including in getting engine manufacturers onboard. Half or more of fuel savings come from the engine manufacturers.
Yes, Boeing needs to get the MAX 7 and 10 certified along with the 777X but Boeing knows that there is no more tweaks that can be made to the 737.
Airbus has handedly taken the narrowbody lead with the A320 family and also has the A220 which will hit at the heart of the MAX family when it is stretched as it is certain to be.
This also highlights the danger of ordering 500 current generation aircraft with deliveries well into the 2030s as one US airline is doing; they could end up with hundreds of deliveries of older generation aircraft just as their competitors take delivery of the latest that Airbus and Boeing offer.
The biggest gain and most risk is developing a 797 with a new engine. The second biggest gain is doing just one or a new 737 engine. Doing nothing is the cheapest but has risk that will increase with time.
A decision has to be made to build a small 757 replacement, surrendering the market to the A220, E190 or a nearly direct 737 replacement.
Or the possibility of keeping the 737 as a lower cost option, maybe like the Saab 99 car was kept in Sweden (as the Saab 90) while the Saab 900 was sold?
If there was room for a taller landing gear, the 737 might have been in better shape.
The 707 was hampered by a shorter landing gear than the DC-8 but then the 747 came out
A question for you Tim, as there is little to no chance that Ben will know the answer ….
Q: Will Boeing ever make MAGA?
From the right side of the pond the belief is a resounding NO!
There have been some recent executive meetings of Boeing with Delta and Ryanair. I wonder if they are looking at these two airlines as launch customers of the future Boeing jet?
'technology' is perhaps the wrong word.
'shape' might be closer to it - the point about a new design is that it could avoid the imbalances which led to the need for MCAS.
Start now and launch in 2045? That makes 20 years. By the time the plane is launched it will be already outdated.
You're asking a question to your original form?
Gosh, Tim, take your BA alter ego to a dementia rehab.
737 its basically a design from the late 50's it uses the same fuselage as the 707.
This isn't my field, but I would imagine you'd constantly be having a small group thinking about a 737 replacement and a mid market at Boeing and replacements for the 320 and 330 at Airbus. It's not like either would be able to design a clean-sheet plane in anything approaching the 747.
Why's it "a shame" that Boeing did what its actual customers wanted.
Despite aviation geeks still whining about it 2 decades later, the FACT remains that not a single airline was asking for an updated 757. Boeing tried. Twice. They didn't want it.
Why would Boeing "further develop" something that no one wanted to buy?
I came of age in the 1970's when Boeing was king. I have literally flown on every type of Boeing aircraft from the 707-320B to the 787-8. I worked for 2 years on 747-200B.
Boeing broke my heart with shoddy aircraft in the 737-MAX and issues with the 787.
And JUST NOW they are thinking of a replacement for the 737 that customers have been asking for literally for years ? WOW !
Day late and dollar (s) short.
Calhoun was a selfish idiot that put profits over safety and future of Boeing. The 737Max should never have been certified and the FAA and NTSB should pretty much tell Boeing that 737Max-1000 will never be certified.
It is so aggregious how the band aids to "fixing" an already bad design (engines too far forward and with way too much power) with disastrous software hack on takeoff AOA attitude with no easy pilot override makes takeoff safety a continuous hazard.
Also the slightly wider A321 does make 1 to 1.5 inches of economy seats wider is noticeable for the airlines that have designed economy seats for the A321. Butt the US carriers have not bothered to take advantage of this as they use the same seats across their Boeings and Airbus fleets.
Mason, Eskimo, Plain Jane or whatever trolls login you choose to use …. you are so incredibly stupid for repeatedly accusing others of doing something which you are so obviously guilty of. Your infantile folly is so blatant. However, thanks for the opportunity to show you up for the foolish child you present yourself to be.
Ben must be laughing at you too as you provide more clicks for his own enrichment and provide such entertainment for the other reader.
the bottom line is they have to start now if they want to stay ahead of COMAC.
We know they are just about to roll out their equivalent to the 737Nex Gen, which is only one generation ago for the 737. And COMAC won’t sit on their ass like Boeing did. All they need are the current advanced engines to really catch up.
So Boeing has to start now to stay one generation ahead… otherwise they simply wont survive if they lose the lucrative single aisle race.
better late than never
Ben, read this for more insight: https://leehamnews.com/2025/09/30/perspective-on-boeings-737-replacement/
I am guessing it would compete with the A321XLR - with even better fuel economy and longer range. And maybe a stretch version as well, with the base model the same length as the A321.
Considering the lead time, the competition, near-term innovations in fuel and materials, and finally the evolving airport infrastructure scene, I’d say if they don’t start now then they’re not going to be a primary supplier in the future.
We need the practice. Boeing has hired many new engineers that have never designed an aircraft. It is time for the engineers that were around for the 787 design to mentor the new engineers on how an aircraft is designed the Boeing way.
by the time it will be ready, Airbus, Embraer and Bombardier will already have totally dominated this market segment
Jay, surely the “Boeing way” has not proven to be safe or sure and is hardly innovative. Boeing lost its way several decades ago while other aircraft manufacturers have excelled. Regaining a lost reputation is hardly going to be easy. An influx of new engineers will not help overcome a toxic management culture.
The statement that was made about the 737 being outdated technology from 1964 is patently false. What about that makes no sense? I go on to explain that only the nose and the tail - which are aerodynamic elements of the airframe are the only elements from the 1960s. Not sure what you think didn't make sense. I was adding that I can agree to disagree, but so long as the person makes factual statements about aircraft, which Ben usually does given his affinity for aviation, which I've always respected. It was a surprise to me, so was expressing my surprise that someone as knowledgeable as he is would make such a false statement. Think that's perfectly valuable. Sorry you disagree, but to each their own.
@ Kelly -- I used the wrong word there, and meant to say "design" rather than "technology." I'm sorry about that.
Important to separate engineering design skills vs. manufacturing and operational shortcuts. Most (if not all) of the issues Boeing has faced that relate to safety were manufacturing and operational short cuts. The quality issues (door plug, etc.) are manufacturing problems and the MCAS system catastrophe was Boeing's attempt to operationally avoid pilot retraining for the MAX. Those don't reflect deficiencies in the engineering design side (IMO), but instead reflect bad management decisions in operating the company's P&L.
Certainly - there would be strategy folks always thinking about this and also small teams of engineering folks who would be contributing to these projects to offer perspectives on what can be achieved with clean-sheet vs. re-engine designs.
It's probably the right decision at this point. The MAX issues reflect the challenges of pushing an existing frame to its limits to get the fuel efficiency and performance gains Boeing wanted for a new plane. The engines needed to be much larger to drive fuel efficiency but their size was problematic on the existing 737 frame. The A320 has taller landing gear and higher wing clearance and can naturally handle larger engines whereas the older design of the 737 favored shorter landing gear to reduce weight which creates problems for adding larger engines.
Whether they continue to push the existing 737 frame with compromises (and likely don't achieve as material performance and fuel efficiency increases as Airbus could get out of the A320) or design a new plane which creates manufacturing ramp up challenges, certification risks, and pilot retraining needs, they will have a period of time where sales and market share will be challenged vs. Airbus. At this point, the latter decision feels best for long-term success but that clearly wasn't how they were thinking about strategic decisions over the past 2 decades.
This could just be the fate they have to accept at some point - is it better to lean in on the wide body segment and maintain some of the competitive advantages they held (777 engine exclusivity for example) or do they try to stay relevant in the narrow body segment where they have ceded massive market share. Clearly they are failing at trying to do all of it at the same time (in terms of certification delays, etc.).
Understood jetset, thank you, the tail wagging the dog syndrome or the equivalent …. 🙂
Misplaced response …. jetset, please see my response above. I chose the wrong runway to land on …. I’m such a numpty today Rodney!
"Calhoun was a selfish idiot that put profits over safety and future of Boeing."
True, do-nothing-Dave was no asset to the Boeing, but you're about 2 CEOs short of the real culprit.
It was under Jim McNerney when Boeing made all the disastrous decisions to rush the 737MAX out the door, while lying-by-omission about MCAS. He paid zero price for any of it, and walked away well-compensated.
Huh? Narrowbodies were the first jets to fly any kind of long-haul routes at all, and have been doing long-hauls (including transatlantic) in every decade since the 1950s.
Boeing should have started the clean sheet replacement instead of debut 737 max series! It is looong overdue!
Considering it took them 14 years and counting for 777X, I guess it's not premature.
What is premature is doing it without some major advancement of the technology that can be integrated at the same time. Blended wings, lifting bodies, next generation engines, similar changes that are generational and typically only possible during a clean-sheet design.