Boeing gets launch order for MAX 7

Boeing finally got a launch order for the 737-7 MAX, from Southwest Airlines.

Southwest converted 30 737-700 orders to the 737-7.

The 7 MAX competes with the Airbus A319neo and the Bombardier CSeries.

AirbusBBDBoeing

20 Comments on “Boeing gets launch order for MAX 7

  1. I think there are only a handful of airlines in the world that can economically use a B-737-7MAX or an A-319NEO.

  2. kc135topboom :I think there are only a handful of airlines in the world that can economically use a B-737-7MAX or an A-319NEO.

    That’s correct! Now, they must have more than 30 orders to decide to go ahead with the aircraft. Who else?

  3. I think many 737-7 and 737-9 are hidden in the 737MAX orders, just like many A319 and A321 NEO’s are hidden in the A320 NEO.

    If SW has markets where they can succesfully operate 4 times a day on average 100 passenegrs a flight, should they order the 737-8 because its more efficient per seat? Only if it is not an empty seat.

    Apparently a 737-7 is cheaper for SW then a paid for 717..

  4. 110′ , boo. Go for 120′ and a roomy 149 seater with a couple of rows of 2+2 premium wide seats.

    I guess this does say that the 737-800 is too big to be used as standard systemwide. Too slow to turn?

  5. AA are reported to be taking half of their Airbus CEO order as A319s, despite the pundits on here writing off the aircraft as having been made obsolete by the C series. If they can sensibly use the A319CEO, is there any logical reason why they can’t sensibly use the more fuel efficient NEO version?

  6. The majority of WN’s 737s are 737-300s and 737-700s, so WN likes that size category. While it may make sense for WN to stick to the 737-700/737 MAX 7 cabin size (143 single class seats with 3 FAs, vs 175 single class seats with 4 FAs), WN, who does not need the 737-700 or 737 MAX 7 range capabilities. WN is not known for east-coast to west coast nonstops, nor west-coast to Hawaii flights, or U.S. to Ecuador flights.

    That said, BBJ versions of the MAX 7 will likely sell better than the airline version.

  7. In the linked article they say: “(MAX 7 uses)…the latest CFM International LEAP-1B engines is expected to reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions by an additional 12 percent over today’s most fuel-efficient single-aisle airplane.”

    A pretty big promise considering the LEAP engines have not even started to be built let alone tested. The design uses more stages, higher preasures, burns hotter and relies on exotic untested blade technology which is all high risk. I would not be surprised if they run into major problems. If so, you are right that Bombardier stands to benifit from orders switching over.

    In addition, I cannot see how the MAX 7 can promise that much of a fuel savings as it is heavier than the CSeries and the wing is not optimized for the new engines. I can see a 5 – 7% advantage in fuel burn for the CSeries which will overcome any perceived advantage the MAX 7 or A-319 NEO may have due to pricing or fleet commonality.

    • When they say “today’s most fuel efficient single aisle airplane” Obviously they not comparing it with the C-series, because a of “today” that particular aircraft is not flying, let alone in service with airlines. More likely this is a comparison between today’s 737-700 and the A319.

      • But “12 percent over today’s most fuel-efficient single-aisle airplane” would cover not just the A319 but also the A318 — and all the myriad regional jets. Somehow I can’t believe that the 737-7 is more efficient than the various CRJs and ERJs.

  8. This order indicates that there is indeed a requirement for smaller jetliners, as a larger variant flying half empty is uneconomical.

    Yes this is good news for Boeing and the MAX; but in a sense it is also good news for Bombardier and the CSeries. The latter would make sense for Southwest, but I can understand they want to stick with the 737 as it is the airplane model around which this company is built.

    I would not be surprised to see their fleet of 717 being replaced by the 737-7 MAX if and when the oil price goes up for a sustained period.

  9. Its very good news for the -7MAX, but it is at the same time a deferral of deliveries for SouthWest although Boeing should have no problem with the vacant slots.

  10. I think the graph would be more useful only comparing CS300 sales, as CS100 can hardly be said to compete against A/B. Might as well include Embraer E-190/195 if CS100 is being included.

    I think a factor here is pilot agreements, especially if CS300 capacity would put it in a higher tier along with A/B meaning equivalent pilot pay and work agreements, then being able to use the same pilots certified on A/B for this class (319NEO/MAX7/CS300) as the rest of their single isle fleet has certain benefits. For CSeries operators, potentially having CS100/CS300 be classed in different tiers re: pilot agreements would be less than ideal, a pilot agreement covering both of them under one tier seems needed to make the most of a CS100/CS300 fleet.

    • Before the Southwest Order:

      A319neo: 24% share
      CS100: 33%
      CS300: 43%
      737-7: 0% (before WN order)
      BBD: 76%
      Airbus: 24%

      Following Southwest Order for 737-7:
      BBD still leads
      82 CS300: 37%
      63 CS100: 29%
      45 A319neo: 20%
      30 737-7: 14%

  11. TC :110′ , boo. Go for 120′ and a roomy 149 seater with a couple of rows of 2+2 premium wide seats.

    I have no idea what you mean.

    • I believe a 737 MAX 7 with a 120′ length is a better design decision than reusing the old, and in my opinion suboptimal length of 110′. Thus far both Airbus and Boeing are not changing the fuselage lengths on the NEO or the MAX, so maybe that is an expensive change to make.

      Since airlines are offering premium economy seats with extra pitch, it would be possible to offer premium economy seats with extra width in a 2+2 configuration.

  12. On Boeing site http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/news/index.page they say that

    “incorporating the latest CFM International LEAP-1B engines is expected to reduce fuel burn and CO2 emissions by an additional 12 percent over today’s most fuel-efficient single-aisle airplane.”

    Do they finally aknowledge that 25% as said before is out of reach ???

    • We’re not aware of any time Boeing claimed the MAX would be 25%. That would be for a clean-sheet airplane, in theory.

  13. MAX Efficiency includes 19% lower fuel use than today’s main competitors….

    This is stated in Boeing New Airplane
    Please reach this info in the column on the right under “Companies-Commercial”

    Sorry for confusing 25 and 19 % … the comment is still valid

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *