Without The Boeing 737 MAX 10, How Would Airlines Like United Fill The Gap?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 янв 2024
- As part of the fallout from the January 5th incident of Alaska Airlines flight AS1282, United Airlines is re-evaluating its plans to operate the Boeing 737 MAX 10. While the incident involved a MAX 9 variant, it is widely believed that increased scrutiny and oversight of Boeing operations will lead to further delays - not just for aircraft deliveries, but for the certification of two other 737 variants: the MAX 7 and 10. With all of this in mind, it seems like a good opportunity to examine the capabilities of the longest 737 MAX variant and what options airlines like United have in replacing it.
Article: simpleflying.com/united-airli...
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com 
Развлечения
Speaking about the backlog:
As of December 2023
A320neo (entire family): 10,354 ordered, 3,163 delivered - 6,171 of them A321neos, of which 1,248 has been in customer hands
Boeing 737MAX (entire family): 6,203 ordered, 1,420 delivered
So yeah, there are less Boeing 737MAX 7, 8, 9, and 10 combined in queue than only A321neo (incl LR and XLR) backlog. No wonder some airlines considered sitting this one out.
Ah yes, let's add 914 Airbus A220 orders as well, of which 314 have been delivered.
Airbus totally wiped the floor here.
Their growth and sales have been absolutely insane, delays are gonna get so much worse in the near future, could be bad for them if they don't get more production.
But production rates are so much higher at Airbus. Currently Airbus produces 60-65 A320neos per month and will grow this to 75. Meanwhile Boeing is building 38 a month with the plan to grow to 50 now suspended indefinitely. So you might not wait that long for an A320neo - especially if there are more (likely) delays of the MAX.
I wonder how many airframes are on order for leasecompanies? That might be a source for airlines looking to fill their needs. But perhaps all are spoken for. For sure the prices per unit will go up.
Airbus building up production lines in China and Alabama will expand their capacities. After 500 sales to Indigo it might make sense to build up another line, if not two, in India too.
Airbus will have to feed these lines with new orders too. At least sooner or later.
Curious if Airbus might expand into the US even more in order to equally become an US and European company after a Boeing takeover? Never say never.
🤔😉
Airbus have rebuilt 2 A380 lines to A321 and one to a adional A350 line. They also revamped the A350 lines to increase production.
Still.. orders is coming in hard and fast. They really need that A220-500 to spreed the load
I would guess most of "weight penalty" for the A321 is hypothetical, because if they're flying within the MAX 10's range they don't need to use all the available MTOW with excess fuel. The bigger issue would be the "wait penalty" since the backlog of A320neo family orders is massive. I wonder if United and Delta have any B757s in mothballs that they can bring back...doesn't exactly suit their purpose of finding a 757 replacement, but it might be the only short-term option.
Best place for the flying pencil is in the boneyard. Utterly horrible plane for long haul. Those few inches extra fuselage width of the A321neo make a huge difference over several hours.
he even says so in the video but still keeps calling it a heavier aircraft for some reason. 6.1 tons of the weight difference is fuel capacity. if you equalize the payload capability difference they're within 1t of each other, but on the a321 the payload capacity per total weight is significantly higher
I read a headline but didn't read the article, about Michael O'Leary saying Ryanair could take 737 MAX orders rejected by other carriers. He has confidence in his maintenance team but, more likely, he's looking to get planes as cheap as possible.
Let him have every single one of them. It's an airline I never fly on.
He better be confident in the maitanance team considering how soft there landings usually are
@@user-gm9cx3bt1f I flew with them for the first time last year and the only issue I had with the flights was the return flight being delayed due to bad weather and an air traffic controller strike in France, neither of which was their fault. Don't book anything like hotels, car rental, or transfer busses through their website though. Only book flights because I booked a bus ticket from Dublin airport to the city centre with the flight but never got the bus ticket so had to buy one again at the airport from the bus people.
@@matsv201 Good point!
@@user-gm9cx3bt1fwhat about Southwest, that’s an airline that’s loved but only run 737
Problem is the a321 waitlist is already a decade
Decade long? I thought it could be around 4 years. 1 decade is bad.
@@francikaa1
They could creat another production line in France or Germany or US for airframes but the problem is the engine manufacturers - they are retro fixing old engines with premature fatigue issues , never mind supplying knew ones 😅😅😅😅
I don’t know if the industry thought Covid was going to last forever or what - they went into psychopathic retrenchment
@@ricky1231during Covid it was said from 'expert's that aviation wouldn't recover before 2025.
I already questioned at the time why it should take so long.
No. Airbus will hit 75/month in 2024. This will be 900/year - so only 5 1/2 years backlog.
Most airlines don’t want all their aircraft at the same time and spread deliveries over a number of years. I’m sure anyone like united could easily slip into the schedule and get orders deliver over a few years starting in a year or two.
@@drjojo4624airbus don't with full speed 12 month a year. I would say closer to 10.5 month. Say 800 a yesr on a backlog of 6200 aircraft. That is at least 8 years.
While true, that most Airlines don't want all aircraft at once, when there is a so long backlog that hardly matters any more.
CEO's need to start thinking, producing a high quality product is the way for a company to increase sales and show a good solid long term profit. NOT through cutbacks and layoffs!
Airbus kinda suffering from success here. Boeing keeps fumbling the bag, but airbus is already building a320's at max capacity and can't snatch those juicy orders immediately.
Does that mean Boeing is not only killing themselves, but also Airbus?
@EuropeanRailfanAlt I mean they're still making money, but they could make a lot lot more if they could increase production and yoink a few disgruntled boeing customers
@@EuropeanRailfanAlt Airbus is not killing themselves, they just can't capitalise into Boeing's failure because they don't have enough production capacity to build the massive amount of planes that airlines are demanding from them now. So some potential Airbus customers who need aircraft asap might go back to Boeing or other manufacturers because queues at Airbus are too long at the moment.
They already reconverted the discontinued A380 production line into A320 production but it's still not enough, every airline wants A320 family planes nowadays
I doubt Airbus is suffering. They are doing well and carrying on
Thats true, so where do Airlines go now? COMAC?
I used to be a Boeing fan but at this point I think I'd consider a Comac over a Boeing
Right now I'd prefer a De Havilland Comet over a Boeing.
savage
I think Id prefer a Concorde over Boeing
I'd prefer an Ilyushin over a Boeing at this point.
Heck or a fucking Tu-104.
Go for the a321neo
Good luck with that. In 2023 there were 6171 order of A321neo. They delivered 317, which is their highest output/yr since introduced.
@wtfudc that is an impressive order list for the neo
@@wtfudcbacklog is 4923. But Airbus are building another assembly line in Alabama and China
A320 Neo is almost 10t heavier than 737 max 10. For shorter routes 320neo nowhere as efficient
NO I hate that plane, it’s ruining the vibe/appeal of long haul travel because of how it’s overtaking widebodys
We need more commercial aircraft manufacturers
We can thank Boeing for screwing over Bombardier. They've pushed them right into the hands of Airbus. And I'm personally not interested in a Russian or Chinese aircraft.
It's not easy to enter the big planes business. Especially when the existing ones are milking the existing tech and are destroying competition with greasing palms of the ever happily accepting politicians.
There used to be…
Well there is a very notable one, sitting on the side lines, rubbing its hands at Boeings antics. COMAC (Chinese) its only a matter of pressure on the Airlines, that would then be the final nail in the coffin for Boeing. Dont worry, the CEO's will come out squeaky clean and loaded with cash and certainly no responsibility
Bombardier tried that and that plane is now the Airbus A220
I think UA should try its best to accelerate A321neo deliveries in the short term to provide some added capacity while they wait for MAX 10s. Both substitute options are imperfect, either lower-capacity MAX 9s or heavier-than-desired A321neos that will take 10 years to arrive if they order now. United would be silly to not wait for the MAX 10, I can see it being a new domestic workhorse for them. Its such a good fit for the industry trend of upgaguing, no wonder they alone have over 200 on order. Like Boeing, UA has to take some short-term pain for long-term gain.
Boeing is trash. Silly you say? They realize now that the Boeing brand is becoming toxic and people don't want to die in a metal coffin.
United would benefit way more from max 9s than a321neos
Airbus is struggling as they have a HUGE backlog if they expanded and built a facility in Doncaster here in the UK that would create a load of jobs and the runway and airfield is big enough
Worse when the vast majority of A321s are coming out of Hamburg. Way too many eggs in one basket, and with the failures of Boeing, only makes it worse. I hear Airbus expanded the Toulouse plant to allow more narrowbodies.
Kirby is just saying all this to increase discounts. The MAX nacelle issue isn't the genuine safety concern for the airlines, because if it were, they wouldn't be accepting or operating existing MAX without the engineering rework. Airline CEOs and Boeing CEOs are more similar than they are different. Its the engineers, rank and file employees and passengers that get screwed.
Sad to say, but for me, it has to be Airbus. United should worry about the new travel agencies that claim to deliver MAX free flights. The frequent flying public see, that Boeings management has not changed and are beginning to insist on Airbus as part of their itinerary. Boeing management is RESPONSIBLE for all of this as are the FAA and WALL ST
To be honest depending on the price difference I might actually book such an option
@@no-damn-alias😂
@@ACPilot I'm dead serious.. Everybody make a mistake but the difference how you treat those mistakes.
They had the chance to do something after the first MCAS crash.
No it took a second one and governmental groundings of the planes to get things moving.
During that period they had all the time in the world to get their quality control right.
No they didn't and they fooled everybody a third time. Sheer luck that there were no fatalities.
What's next. The single point of failure in form of the engine de-icing.
The pilots might be busy handling something and forget to turn it off and both engines fail.
Sounds like a great design.
@@no-damn-alias I have a feeling that anti ice issue isn’t as bad as FAAs guidance have said. They are essentially paranoid. They found an issue but their mitigation is overkill. How many pilots have left the engine de-ice on since the max have been out and nothing bad has happened.
That seriously, is not the answer, Boeing created this problem and have had time since the last CEO's left and have done nothing. You ought to see the video with the Captain, that flies the MAX on a daily basis. he's acting as a spokesman for the Pilots Association and has to fly those bloody things every day. iF they are so safe send your wife and kids on a trip in one. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT.
What's happened to Embraer in this market segment? Their E jets were quite successful.
E2 improved range compared to original E-Jets but it still falls way short compared to A220 so most orders go there
Not this segment, the max 10 has a max capacity of 230 seats, while the biggest Ejet (E2-195) has a max capacity of 132 seats, yes one hundred less
Scope clause has killed the orders for the larger sizes in the US
Agree that the E 195 E2 is not in the spec class of the Max10. However, the E2 in single class mode lists 146 passengers with a range 2600nm or 4815K which may work fine for high density routes in the US. The concern may be the capacity of the manufacturer to deliver @ required quantities/timeframes and the capital investment by United to allow for the support of a different aircraft system. That being said, Embraer may still be competitive when comparing delivery horizons which may be 10 yrs for Airbus.
The problem to E2 is not only the E2-195 not too competitive, but also E2-170 too heavy to be sold to regional airlines in US. So any older E-jets can only be replaced vis-a-vis by a newer E-jet, unless unions agree to relax the scope clause, which is highly unlikely due to the shortage of pilots.
A321 / A321 LR/XLR would be my choice
only issue twith the 321 is the backlog, other than that its a fabulous aircraft
They both fly across the Atlantic everyday!!!!!!!! Excellent!!!!!!!!!
On the news here in Norway today:
50 airports in Sweden and Norway signed a deal with Airbus to develop ouer airports for Hydrogen.
Why ist the higher maximum MTOW an issue? I dont get that. Higher empty weight yes, but for that, just load less fuel?
fOR ME MTOW DOESN'T MATTER, SO LONG AS I ARRIVE.
Maybe a stretched 220 would be a nice option for the 737 almost like a MD 80 for capacity just gotta get them to do it
Probably that will only happen when the whole A220 production got (more) in line with the Airbus production in general.
A220 is nice, but it's not an Airbus compatible product. And how far it will become a compatible product is a big question.
It's actually quite straight forward.
1. Build a longer A220, with an additional engine option
2. Drop the A319. @@jantjarks7946
@@GeoStreberSure, a simple solution would work too, but in the long term it would become a liability for Airbus. The cockpits and lots of tech in these planes have barely anything in common with Airbus.
Running two completely different plane technologies is a massive headache, as airlines can't profit from cockpit communalities. And cutting production costs, due to usage of the same parts in different planes makes it expensive to produce.
@@jantjarks7946 After the MCAS debacle the '"same cockpit, little training needed" model will never come back.
@@julienjjj Given that there are type commonalities with A330, A350 this is really in effect. Very little training needed to go from different AIrbus Products
I think Boeing well be able to certify the Max-10 if its only the anti ice system. Not sure about the sensor issue though
I'd be more worried about its little legs, the extra length and the snowman holes in the after pressure bulkhead. Like JAL123 all over again.
Embraer could program for jets with in the capacity of 737s and a320s. They could get a share of this market possibly.
The A321neo only has a range of 4000nm with several additional fuel tanks (i.e. the LR version). As standard, the range is comparable to the max 10. I fly the A321neo and no way in the normal configuartion it could do 4000nm.
Pls simple flying get the correct range of the A321neo because if that is what you say the range of the regular 321neo is, what will be the range of the A321LR not to talk of the XLR.
Massive!
A321 neo
How about the A321neo SR?
Ryanair: Easyjet was all-737 once
There are no alternatives to the 737 Max 10 since the Airbus a321 NEO has such a backlog is so big and the a321 NEO has Pratt and Whitney engine problems.
At 5'00" the narrator says tha a321neo is heavier aircraft. Ok, but not that much, 'cause he just pointed the LR version, not the basic version. The numbers are MTOW : A321neo: 93.5 metric tons; A321neo LR: 97 metric tons and the A321neo XLR: 101 metric tons. The B737 Max 10 MTOW is 89,8 metric tons and has a 400NM less range than the basic version of A321neo...
Nobody would buy a Boeing jet if it were so easy to snag an Airbus without a decade long waitlist.
That's ok, AS will gladly take the UA MAX 10 delivery slots. Don't forget, AS has a huge order for them along with options, and has a long history of not only taking up every option, but adding to them as well. Besides, once the HA order for 787s come through, many will be arriving in AS livery and will be SEA based.
Still waiting for the a320.5. 😉
I would love to hear about the opinion that max jets have poor air conditioning. It’s a chronic problem. I realize this is a smaller concern than basic flight safety, but from a comfort standpoint it’s noticeable on all carriers flown thus far.
But what's the cost difference?
The a321 neo and the LR variants are better suited for United more so as a replacement for the 757 rather than being a direct alternative to acquiring the MAX 10 as efficiency wouldn’t be a problem as the a321 neo/LR variant would be replacing an aircraft that’s already typically used on slightly longer haul routes. As for short haul. I think United will need to wait for the issues with the MAX 9 to be resolved and instead acquire more of those for their fleet as it’s a better alternative to the MAX 10 since that aircraft won’t be available anytime soon.
Boeing 757-200 only has 3,930 nmi range, the range cited there is not A321neo (3,650 nmi) it supposed to be A321LR (4,000 nmi).
I fully agree. They need to upgrade the 757 with the new high bypass engines, problem solved!
@@androidchannel309 The problem isn’t just the engines, no engine on the market fits the 757. Also it would still be an older airframe built with heavier materials compared to the newer composite materials on the MAX and wide body aircraft like the 787. You might not be aware but United does indeed plan to incorporate the a321 LR into their fleet in the next few years.
@@yohannessulistyo4025 yeah I meant to say the LR, that’s the variant United is planning on acquiring anyways
I wonder how this is playing out for comac? .. they could not wish for a better outcome.
the problem is comac only want to make like 2000 planes over the course of 20 years, so even if FAA or EASA certified, there are simply not enough C919s for everyone
It's like those classic heavyweight boxing matches where one of the boxers takes punch after punch until you see his knees buckle a bit and he starts to wobble. Will he recover between rounds? Will the next punch drop him to canvas? Boeing has taken punch after punch, mostly self-inflicted, and everyone in his corner (the B737-X MAX dominant fleet airline operators) are shouting encouragement and standing strong, hoping their champion survives to the next round, yet increasingly nervous about the ultimate outcome. The FAA is the referee and a standing 8-count is happening right before our eyes.
I am not sure it has to do with availability as much as with the negative image of the Boeing Max and at this point the Boeing Company in general. Even the NG were Franken planes but with the Max Boeing took it to a whole new level - I hope UA steers clear of all Max aircraft, not already on property.
Way not good A321 neo, Great Info ❤
Airbus a321Neo LR will do, not XLR due to Center tank is not yet certified by EASA. Maybe a220-500 if Airbus goes for that but only able to compete with b737 max 9. E2 195 could only matching b737 max 7 capacity and range.
Can a stretched A220 be made long enough to substitute a Max 10?
Unlikely, as there are 33% fewer seats on each row. Also, the Max 10 is already very long for the height of its gear, and the A220 doesn't have a very high gear either. Even if it's possible, it would turn the A220 into a similar monstrosity as the 737-MAX: The engines would be too small, so it would need bigger engines, the gear would be too low for bigger engines, so the engines are mounted in front of the wing, flight characteristics are ruined thanks to the suboptimal weight distribution, and we need MCAS to prevent a deep stall. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
An A220-500 will only cover the lower end of the 737 and 320 versions.
Boeing had the chance to include the CS100 / CS300 in their own lineup. Now that they need it, it belongs to Airbus.
@@jantjarks7946with the C series fiasco, Boeing didn’t just shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the a*s.
Also didn't see the video referring specifically about the 3 versions of the A321N, 321NX, and 321XLR. The N presumably has lower fuel capacity, range, and weight and the range mentioned on the video did not mention which variant has this range and capacity.
Why not, the 220 has the power plant plenty of power for a AIRBUS A221!!!!!!!
321 if possible. Boeing has destroyed its reputation and customer conference in its product. The door blow out has me avoiding the Max going forward if possible...at least until Boeing can be policed accordingly by the FAA.
Why would a door blow out make you avoid it if possible? Boeing will destroy its reputation as it wants to to make sure they go bankrupt! how would you like that
@nickolliver3021 it's the reason why the door has blown out. Because of lack of quality control...which should raise the question of what other bolts were missed elsewhere.
@@karkoncierge7585 There wont be any missed bolts. this was down to someone on the floor not tightening them properly. lack of quality will make them give up which is not what boeing has an attitude of
@nickolliver3021 every single airline that operates the Max9 found loose or missing bolts...and there was no consistent pattern of which bolts were missing or loose. That in itself from a production standpoint should be highly concerning...even more so than the MCAS issue. What it means is a more global issue of lack of QC. MCAS was something that was highly specific and could be addressed directly...this lack of QC...we do not know to what extent this failure extends. It's wack-a-mole.
@@nickolliver3021Cry, cry, cry like a pathetic Boeing clunk girl. Haven’t you heard Alaska, UA reporting endless missing bolts on the half-baked 737 trash?
Well, with the current grounding of the MAX9 AND the stop to production expansion at the Carolina site, Boeing won't be in a position to supply MAX9 s in the required time scales either. So I would think the Airbus A320 family would be best, especially as United is an established Airbus customer. However, what I do not understand is that Airbus doesn't "simply" extend its production facilities. It is quite clear that the Baby A320s will sooner or later take the back seat to A220s. A new or retooled factory could free up capacity for the A321s. Also an increase of the A220 production capacity would allow alternative or cheaper supply contracts with subcontractors for this type which would benefit the A220 profitability.
Forbthe media messaging, it sounds that inbtheblast year or so the long backlog at Airbus had been a major selection criteria for the B737. I think it is a short sighted strategy to not go after the current opportunity. And Boeing's quality problems are cultural and deeply rooted in the mis-incentives to the management team. They will take a longbtimebto solve.
Airbus has had a distributed sun contractor base almost since its inception.Boeingbessentially just spun off Spirit and subcontracted to its own former Business Unit.
Finally, if Spirit has another shortfall in orders from Boeing, which is slowly bancrupting them, then there would be capacity and a business need available to take in orders from Airbus. Afaik Spirit already works for Airbus.
There are no reported quality issues as in Boeing. I wonder why that might be? Could it vebthat the prices Spirit get a paid by Airbus are more profitable abdvtgusvtgey don't havevto cut corners as with Boeing? Or could it be that Airbus has a better and more stringent quality managemebt process in place? I guess so.
The problem for Airbus is not so much extending its own production facilities. The problem is that its suppliers, in particular engine manufacturers, cannot keep up.
Airbus is already in the process of expanding its 321 capacities. They also build new hangars just for the XLR variants MCA.
@@padiau78 agree that the engines are a bottleneck.
However, last time I looked the engines are bought directly by the airlines. The engines in the B737MAX as well as A320neo are the same and therefore Boeing customers can just re-use the engines on Airbus jets. The only thing different are the pylons.
If the engine capacity is not sufficient, Airbus could always takes a investment in the engine manufacturers to givebthem capital for investment.
I am sure there are qualified technicians available in the job market for an expansion of production.
No they are not the same engines @helmutzollner5496 . The CFM LEAP-1B on the Boeing 737 MAX are smaller in fan diameter, length and have a lower bypass ratio than the LEAP-1A on the A320neo family, their architecture is slightly different so they cannot be swapped like-for-like; it's not only the pylons that are different, many components are too. Likewise, the neo is also offered with PW1100G engines. Once airframe selection is made, you are stuck with the engine type too
@@ormuzoryon Thank you forbthe info, I stand corrected.
Could this whole Boeing crisis (and the long order queue for Airbus) be a Chance for Comac to break into the market?
Oh it’s very likely, just not as much in the west or “frenemy” states to China.
Nope, they have very little caoacity, and the C919 isn’t certified in the US or Europe.
@@ACPilot Ah ok not beeing certified (and not getting to be certified soon?) is of course a Showstopper.
@@ecoRfan Well in the end Airlines buy Aircraft and states have little to say there... Especially budget airlines have allready expressed their interrest, and airlines like Ryanair dont care about anything but cost. I dont think they would have any issue buying Comac Aircraft if it they are available, cheaper and performs good enough, regardless what politics say.
The A321N would be a no brainer except for the Neo is experiencing some engine problems that are currently plaguing Airbus operators such as Spirit and Jet Blue. However it’s worth United at least threatening to switch to Airbus to put the screws to Boeing
what's with the yoke...fly by wire?
The only realistic alternative to a max10 is an A321. Aside from that, they could upgrade to an A330, or you know, if Boeing had their stuff together, they’d be offering a 767-200 with new engines to fill the gap in their product line. A 767-200 isn’t much bigger than 737-10
I agree... but they wouldn't go A330...new fleet type. It'd be more 787s or second hand 777s and upgauge where appropriate.
@@karkoncierge7585 a 777 is wayyyy too big to cover a 737 order lmao. even a 787 is pushing it.
@xander1052 not one for one, but down fill. Upgauge 739 to 757 to 767 to 787 to 777. That frees up 738/739/757/767 units for frequency and capacity.
Or the 787-8
I’d prefer to keep maintaining older jets if they can’t get A321s soon enough. I don’t want to trust anything Boeing is producing and the FAA is certifying today.
I want to congratulate Boeing for 737 from success to such a dramatic change.
very easy go to A321neo, LR and XLR
Long waiting list, many thousand planes in Airbus backlog. It is also easier to convert 737-NG pilots to 737-MAX than to A320 family, if their current pilot force is biased towards that side. A321 variants are probably good, but at this time not an easy option.
No its not easy
@@pjohan74 not easy but in the long term it will be reward. Boeing became a bad company specially in the Commercial Airplane. The 737 MAX is the best example of that.
Im just wondering why the world has to depend on mainly two aircraft manufacturers. Where are the other guys, Embraer for instance. What other business wake up call are they waiting for ?
Profit margins which allow companies entering the big plane market to exist.
Of course there used to be more. But now there’s only two significant companies in mainline commercial aircraft, and one is being killed by its own greed and incompetence, leaving the other with a backlog like nothing ever seen before, which impacts the entire industry. Oligopoly is great ain’t it.
A321neos all the way 💯💯💯💙💙🤍🤍🤍🤍
Once the new engine nacelles are tested and certified the 10 will be in service.
Heard the Chinese have a plane out but trade war and whatever I guess United can keep hoping the door stays on in my flight
To me it’s a simple solution use widebodies on high demand flights instead of dozens of narrow bodies especially on 3+ hour flights. It always happens everywhere else in the world yet is very uncommon in the US.
What is Southwest going to do since it's also an all 737 fleet? I know they threatened Boeing with going for the A220 instead of the MAX 7.
That was just to satisfy the boards due diligence requirements and to put pressure on Boeing. The 737 is the mess that it is to please Southwest requirement to avoid pilot retraining.
Not the best time to make a startup airline, you're gonna have to wait a few years for either Airbus or Boeing aircraft
At least if it's regional, you have a better time with De Haviland and Embraer wait times.
Most start-ups lease last generation aircraft.
MC-21-300 next question
The natural alternative.
Let's see how politics plays out.
@@68404 I was the first Flight test Jet engine mechanic for the MC-21-300 in Zhukovsky 2017. I love it when people call me a liar and I respond with. "What was I Doing in the Moscow Hilton?" my video named "My company has some nerve."
😂
Airbus has plenty of aircraft types within the A321 series to fill the gap. It's really a sad day to see Boeing degenerate itself to aviation laughingstock.
Sad day for America
Use the Ilyushin Il-96-400M
😂
just get the a321neo
@@avro9707 Ten years these days, there are more A321Neo on order than all MAX variants combined, and they also have A319, 320 and A220 to complement their offering. Ten years, and they alredy triple Boeing production output.
Is this Hugh Dennis doing the narration?
Let's just make the max 10, then do it right, then call it a 757.
All the more reason now for Airbus to ramp up A320neo family production even further. If the waiting time is reduced for the NEO, Boeing will be in serious trouble.
I would not try to rush planes, Airbus cant afford mistakes and then accidents. This mess was partly due to Airlines trying to squeeze Boeing for savings, and then rushing them to build the planes.
A321neo, A320neos, A220s, E2 series are the alternatives
With the shite show going on at Boeing one has to wonder if Airbus has considered opening another production facility so they could produce the orders they havexaswell as be ablecto Boeing defectors orders. Its odvious that it's only the time delay that is stopping airlines like United and Delta from dumping their Boeing orders. It would also be intresting to see how many other airlines throught out thexworld would the same as We know there are airlines out their that would have prefurred to order new Airbuses but the wait was to lng so they went to Boeing for a quicker delivery.
Get the 757s back flying and then till the max is resolved and get Boeing to pay the 757 reinstatement costs.
Alternative, that would be the 757. Think about it.
Given the wait list for the A321, it'll probably switch it's existing orders to the Max 9 if the Max 10 isn't available. Then negotiate a discount from Boeing..
I feel the same way. I work in the travel industry myself and thats what I see happening. Backlog on the a321neo is far too long.
The production cap enforced by FAA means any MAXes would expect some delivery delays, and who knows how long it would be kept.
Totally agree. From what I see, the number of seats in a MAX9 is about 10-12 less than the MAX10.
Embraer?
United will probably stick to Boeing MAX 10. Boeing will give them a discount and keep the orders. If United goes to Airbus now, they are going to be end of the production queue with substantial numbers of orders ahead of them. Its all a negotiation tactic from United Airlines. May be Alaska Airlines should learn from United .. just saying that we are an all Boeing fleet is not going to win any fans for them.
Bro, they not going to stick to MAX 10, especially after MAX 9 incident and missing certification for MAX 10, Boeing offering discount is really shameful, MAX series should stay grounded for longer time and do all checks. They should pick Airbus, who allows chose safety over profit
@@RobertMaric_ I completely agree with what you say. But Boeing & Alaska are continuing to prioritize profits over safety. Alaska refused to even talk about Boeing alternatives on live TV and said they are an all Boeing fleet. This is very very disappointing…
@@reelrundown_ I agree, it’s really shameful and disappointing, they didn’t even check all possibilities for another aircraft. Personally, this summer I flew to Hawaii with Alaska Airlines and back to SFO, both ways it was b737MAX-9, we didn’t have problems. At the end if you’re respectable manufacturer you should have high standards in assembly and testing of aircraft, obviously Boeing lacking in both sectors.
Since 2016. when Airbus a320 Egyptair crashed, Airbus never had big problem with their small/long haul airplanes, so for me Airbus is better manufacturer because they care for safety of airplanes and people. CEO of Alaska Airlines, or other CEOs who are planning to take 737MAX planes are not aware of many problems with this aircraft. From now on I will not take flights which include 737 all series (NG/MAX) because I don’t want to waste my life for stupid Boeing.
I stopped flying in 737's many yrs ago after 2 terrifying crashes due to a malfunction of the planes tail rudder, causing the plane to nose to dive hundreds of mph into the earth, killing everyone.
They are also very uncomfortable and loud, and according to pilots, they need to use up way more runway to take off than the superior 757.
over 5,717 fatalities have resulted from the 737.
I stay off them and tell everyone I know to do the same.
Nobody seems to worry about the A321 Neo passengers having to sit on large fuel tanks below this is a disaster in the waiting in a potential accident
As a passenger, ANYTHING but Boeing!
neither! go for the MC-21 instead 😝
United. Airline should wait and see before making decisions. The 737 max 10 got a green light from the FAA to make the certification flight.
The production cap would hamper Boeing's ability to deliver MAXes.
As United has an ambitious growth plan, they can't wait indefinitely.
@@steinwaldmadchenin the meantime they could find a way to spread around the narrowbody fleet and use widebodies where possible as a replacement, gate capability willing. And example is Newark to/from Denver or Orlando, or other busy narrowbody routes. In fact with the MAX-9 grounding and it being the offseason, several widebodies have already been deployed to routes like that, but only temporarily. Terminal A at Newark will also get at least a dozen gates to be upgraded for widebody capability for United. It can also alleviate the ongoing pilot shortage.
@@ecoRfan It's not like it widebody fleet is free either, which is exactly why they purchased so many Dreamliner in the first place.
I think Boeing should come out with a new 757-MAX aircraft. Same hull as 757, but with new electronics (its been 40 years) and new engines. The 757 would be a much safer airplane to fly, since it has 50% greater wing area, and 50% more powerful engines, yet the 757-MAX would be close in size and seating capacity to the 737-Max 10.
The 757 program had ended. All the tooling has been destroyed so it can’t be restarted. Almost easier to do a clean sheet airplane
I don't understand why the 757 keeps getting hype like this. Boeing would have to restart 757 production and a 757 MAX would be so heavy, it won't be economical to replace the smaller 737 in the long run. They're in enough trouble already, I don't see this anytime soon. What I think is most likely to happen is a 767 MAX, a 220-seater re-engined 767-200 that they are still making in the form of the KC-46. The production line is there, the people are there, just needs some rengineering.
These steps may be too little and too late to restore airline and passenger confidence in Boeing's ability to manage quality production standards. Perhaps not.
These airlines should have been more cautious with their Max orders and strategy and when it comes to Ryanair or Southwest, the strategy to put all your eggs in the same basket for cost reasons clearly has its limits and may actually pose some significant threats to their future strategy. Airbus is already a victim of its success and I'm pretty sure that adding assembly lines takes at the very least 5 years to build, so it's not a realistic to option to solve this backlog. The supreme irony would be if some airlines resorted to the Embraer E Jets, which has half the capacity of the Max 10 or A321, but they might be the only ones able to deliver any narrow body aircraft at this point. The A220 already has a long backlog too. The other irony is that Boeing indirectly pushed Bombardier to be acquired by Airbus when trying to block Delta's order of the then CS100. The decisions made by Boeing's management over the last 10-15 years will remain a case study of business mismanagement for decades to come. Let's not forget the 787 and 777X misfortunes as well.
I am American and want to see Boeing succeed but they have put profits ahead of safety. The airlines can fill the gap by keeping their 757 in service or snagging the 321neo/XLR. As of right now I wouldn’t buy anything from Boeing other than a 777 that isn’t the new “X” model. Unfortunately they are putting out a shitty product.
I say this as someone with 19 years of experience in 737s. A 737 is a great airplane for it was designed to do. What it was NOT designed to do was replace a 757. Boeing's (Really McDonnell Douglas') management decision to let the 757-family end and not "MAX" it in the same way the A320 has evolved into the A321NEO/XLR, is indicative of the underlying problem at Boeing. Namely, accountants are making decisions with no regard for input from engineers or pilots. Dave Calhoun has a degree in accounting. Guillaume Faury was a Flight Test Engineer. One need look no further than that to understand why Boeing is in their current predicament.
Yeah, either Boeing should have pushed for giving the 757 a refresh, or when they decided to make the 787 to replace the 767, they should have designed a smaller composite narrowbody at the same time as a true 757 replacement. After all, one of the main reasons why the 757 and 767 were so successful was becuase they were developed together and they shared a large amount of components and the type rating. Those elements made them very attractive to airlines who could buy both without having to maintain separate flight crews and spare parts. Why Boeing didn't decide to follow the same successful strategy when it came time to design a successor to the 767 boggles the mind. Seriously, how much more would it have actually cost to have done that?
United could also figure the A320 NEO, probably a safer solution than the Max 9!!!
You cant increase production if you dont have qualified employees . It's to my understanding that if you are going to assemble aircraft you must have a mech's A&P license. And with so many people retiring out of aerospace and replacements stretch very thin what is the FAA going to investigate. Boeing cant make the planes fast enough because the FAA has made impossible to recruit train and retain people. So who is really at fault for this one.
As a potential airline passenger, at least 4 times a year, I now avoid any Boeing aircraft, at all costs.
No confidence in them at all, regardless of type.
Force boeing to build a clean sheet aircraft to replace the 737, 757
The answer is: Boeing 787-8
More seats, more range,
more costs. Ergo, reduce the number of flights and increase ticket prices.
There is no need to fly to the same destination every hour with a smaller aircraft. And the climate won't be bad either.
Go Airbus!
Go for the Airbus
Isn't the Embraer E195 in the same market? Why does nobody consider this option?
Its not the same market. It is smaller and has less range.
Not a chance, MAX 10 seats 200-plus and E195 sseats fewer than 150.
United can’t swap or cancel the max 10 order with airbus having a 5 YEAR back order. It was a threat to get Boeing to speed up the recertification of MAX
“ compensation from Boeing” yep
Airbus to design a A220-500!
They don't need to, the original Bombardier design was made with expansion in mind, Airbus don't need to build it yet because it would compete with their existing portfolio
I choose to fly Airbus, therefore if United or any airline wants my business, then Airbus it is!
Thats a good thing, They dont have to spend more money on a plane where a door went loose.
United could use this situation to get a big discount from Boeing.
If Boeing keeps fumbling like this, Airbus may want to start considering additional production lines... preferably before the Chinese moving in.
I expect UA will end up taking the MAX 10
Yes, the threat is almost certainly PR bluster which will be quietly forgotten about in a few months time.
Kirby has visited Toulouse a few days ago...
@@heidirabenau511 That doesn't mean anything will happen. Puts pressure on Boeing.
@@johniii8147 The problem is a MAX10 to be delivered 5 years later is not going to seize the growth right now.
So for short term United has to seek alternative if it wants to carry its plan, which is A321NEO.
It seems like Airbus is seeking near term production slots for A321NEO here and there to accomodate United.
But obviously Airbus is not a charity, so expect extra A321NEO or even A350 order from United in return.
The question is how, but not if, the role of MAX10 would be diminished.
@@johniii8147 A MAX10 to be delivered 5 years later is not going to seize growth opportunities right now. Hence Scott Kirby flew to Toulouse asking for help, and Airbus is proposing buyback of near term production slots from other customers.
But Airbus is no charity and would ask for something in return. Don't be shocked if extra A321NEOs or even A350s are on the table.
And All the A320 family.
Go for a330neo.
United Will not take on the A321 To replace the 737 10m. it would be silly. and too costly. It sounds clear that they want a bigger discount, once the heat Dies down from the AS Incident things will roll on. No excuses for the safety issues, Boeing has to fix this, But without a doubt United need the Max Program for their Fleet. Look At the A320Neo Engine problem. It is making issues for all airlines. But you see no big issue or News articles about them changing to Boeing Aircraft. It's a Ploy to get into the media and try and lesson their name against this issue. There has and will always be safety issues in Aviation it's a High-Risk Business, if we didn't have so much social media and availability of the news, this probably wouldn't be as known. An aviation issue normally is a chain of issues, not always one issue.
the FAA is the organisation WHO HAVE CERTIFIED THESE PLANES in the first time.
The MAX 10 has NOT been certified. Thats the real problem for UA how long that will will take.
If you mean the Max 9 and 8, thats true. But they didn't certify it with loose bolts.
@@Biggunkief indeed, so... you now understand how useful is a certification from the FAA 🤣
First class only.
United needs to take the Embraer E2, A220 and A320neo. The 737 MAX 10 and 7 will take forever.