Only 10 years too late.

I'd say only 20 years too late. The first 737 flew in 1967, 58 years ago!

It's been a Work Horse a Long time

Good for them. The key is to intersect new technologies. Today, I think that means timing airframe development with a step forward on engine development. Seems that’s what they are doing. At 69 years old, will I ever be a passenger? Maybe, but time will tell.
I’m glad they are doing it.

How much you want to bet it is a spruced-up 737 they rename? Maybe some more composites, updated cockpit, more automated, a few aerodynamic tweaks.

That'd all be shiny and nice... but what I really want is decent crew bag storage in the cockpit! Boeing, are you listening??

…they should call it the 757.

They’ve done that three times now, I think they’re out of room. The max 10 with shrink link is like the point where Fonzie jumped the shark.

I’d go as far to say that Boeing is more like 40 years late on this. When Airbus created the A320 in the early 80s should have been the impetus for Boeing to get off its rear and replace the 737 with a clean-sheet redo. Since it was caught flat footed after the A320 came out, Boeing scrambled to create the NG which was a huge improvement over the classic but still a generation behind the A320 in technology and comfort for both passengers and crew. The Max redesign is again another Band-Aid to a design which was already way passed due. Again, all Airbus had to do was hang geared turbofans on the A320 to create the Neo while Boeing engineers had to, again, go back to do the engineering table with the seemingly impossible task of hanging huge fans on the low-slung 737 to create the Max requiring yet another major redo. Boeing has been leading from behind for far too long now and is getting its butt handed to them by Airbus.

I have a strong suspicion that a big part of this redesign that won't make the press anytime soon will be to reduce the company's dependence on unionized Seattle area workers. The ill timed strike from a year ago was very costly and you can bet the leadership team is going to do what they can to not be held hostage again in the future.

Well, they already tried that and Wall Street has been unimpressed and has pressured Boeing to keep their production in Seattle where it gets built correctly and on budget.

When Wall Street blames a strike on the manufacturer you know it's not a labor problem.

The 787 was farmed out to the "world" to make it "cheaper' and instead of saving a dime it cost them billions of dollars more and pushed the profit turning point hundreds of aircraft further downline. than it would have if they built in-house.

They are still trying to make Charolette work but they have yet to get the quality up to where it's supposed to be.

They have learned a lot from the 787 and will learn a lot more before they have to announce a factory location for this next jet. The pressure from Wall Street last year was because the 737 was the company's main cash cow and they were in desperate need of cash flow to survive. Wall Street wont back the union next time if the company is in a better position and you can bet they will be. In fact, the current strike in St. Louis is not even making waves. WS has become more bullish on Boeing with no pressure at all to end that strike, and the company has not offered any real concessions since the strike began.

If the Seattle union leadership is thinking like you are, they will barely exist in 15 years. These things take time, but there will be consequences for that strike that will be far far more costly than the concessions gained. That's how it usually works over the long haul.

I got 19 years left, maybe I can bid it for my retirement flight.

I flew B52H models from 1974-1977 there is linage into the B777 that I retired from in 2008. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I do not do flying Renaults.