In strategy shift, Boeing backs 7 MAX: sources

Boeing LogoFeb. 22, 2016, (c) Leeham Co. In a shift in strategy, Boeing is now fully backing development of the 737-7 MAX instead of urging the only two customers that have ordered the airplane to up-gauge to the MAX 8, sources tell LNC.

Southwest Airlines and WestJet are the only two operating airlines for the 7 MAX. There is a third customer, a start-up in Canada that has yet to begin operations.

Sources have told LNC for months that Boeing really didn’t really want to build the 7 MAX, for which there are only 55 orders. But Southwest needs the airplane for short-runway airports like Chicago Midway and Burbank (CA) and has resisted suggestions to up-gauge, LNC is told.

All this changed when it looked like Bombardier might make a sale of its all-new CS100 to United Airlines, LNC is told.

Then Boeing swooped in and sold 40 current generation 737-700s to UAL at what LNC was told was priced in the low-to-mid $20m, well below what BBD could offer. There were also other considerationsLNC was told.

The Wall Street Journal today reported a follow-on order for the -700 is imminent.

The WSJ reports that Ray Conner, president of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, told employees two weeks ago the UAL deal was to block Bombardier from selling the CS100 to the airline. According to The Journal, Conner used similar rationale to that expressed by Airbus in May 2010, when two executives said Airbus would aggressively compete with BBD in order to not make the same mistake Boeing did with Airbus–not take the threat seriously.

This is the rationale expressed to LNC as the shift in strategy emerged from wanting to kill the 7 MAX to now supporting the product.

Boeing publicly has always maintained it fully supported MAX, but Market Intelligence indicated otherwise.

The Journal also reports that Embraer was blocked in this imminent deal from selling UAL its EJet-E2.

The paper also reported that UAL might order some twin-aisle jets to “offset” the low prices of the latest 737-700 order. As last year came to a close, Boeing salesmen were hopeful to land another order for 10-13 777-300ERs to help bridge the production gap. At the time, salesmen were giving odds of 50%-60% of landing the deal by year-end. This didn’t happen then, but this may be the deal The Journal suggested today.

United previously ordered 10 777-300ERs, swapping a like number of 787-9 orders. The price for the -300ERs was reported in the market to be as low as $120m, an indicator of the challenge Boeing is having selling the -300ER to fill the production gap.



60 Comments on “In strategy shift, Boeing backs 7 MAX: sources

  1. In light of Boeing’s aggressive price-cutting (near cost) and newly found religion on the -700 MAX, perhaps the Canadian government should seriously examine whether the F/A-18 be eliminated from consideration for Canada’s next fighter aircraft. As the old saying goes, sometimes, what goes around comes around! Boeing’s actions against Bombardier will not go unnoticed, and there may be a much higher future cost in lost business than the short-term value of this sale to United.

    • Absolutely. Boeing are literally “dumping” product now in order to maintain a duopoly.

      Full disclosure: As a frequent UA flier, I have a vested interest in this purchase. I was hoping for some nice CSeries aircraft with 18″ wide seats and only one column of middle seats, but instead it looks like we’ll be stuck with that horrid 1950s-era fuselage cross section for another couple decades. At least UX now has a lot of E175s on order, which frankly are way more comfortable than the UA mainline 737s.

    • i do not think United is done ,Boeing is offering planes at such a discounted value, that United could not refuse,
      lets remember Cseries is a high end Tesla product . i guarantee huge orders are not going to happen ,but the 1 percent want to fly in the latest
      planes not what the 2 A&B are offering . Cseries has a plane that is made for high end flying most would pay an extra 100 per flight ,instead of the cattle cramming 737 .. noisy heavy environmental surcharge product

    • I understand the sentiment but do you honestly believe anything Bombardier can offer can come anywhere near close to holding a candle to the F/A18? I don’t really a see a point in hamstringing Canadian military aviators because Boeing and Bombardier had a tough price competition in an entirely different marketplace.

  2. Amazing, they don’t want the low end of the market but they don’t want anyone else to have it either.

    What I don’t get is if they United goes for it, big heavy jet for the mission.

    • No doubt the CSeries is a much better aircraft for most of the missions UA will fly them for. However, I’m sure Boeing was giving these away at fire-sale prices, and at some point those savings become impossible to ignore. As a UA frequent flier, I hate UA management as much as anyone, but it’s hard to blame them on this choice. I’m sure Boeing made them an offer they could not refuse.

  3. Bad news for boeing shareholders as they rush to lose money selling less efficient aircraft at a loss to keep a competitor that is not going away at bay…soon all their customers are going to be demanding United 737-7 pricing…great for the airlines…bad for boeing shareholders and employees

  4. In the within posting, LNC have lifted a veil off one of the most well-kept secrets in the Industry, ie at what cost REALLY are the OEMs capable of building a commercial jetliner ? Here the bottomline of the 737-700 unit cost to Boeing as a newbuild is revealed to be situated “in the mid-to low 20M$”.

    As Boeing cannot sell at a loss, their accountants are geared to substantiate (eg. in case of an Inquest) that the referred deal with UAL for 40 x 737-700 was indeed “healthy” commercially speaking. This concession to Boeing’s underworld of trade secrets is unhealthy because once the asset Trader bloodhounds such as Ron Baur @ United and his Colleagues @ ISTAT have flaired the teft of Boeing’s bottomline, they will never forget and will have great fun henceforth competing for a feather in one’s hat by bringing Boeing down to the brink of dumping, the closer the better, a feat to be saluted with rounds of beer at the next ISTAT get-together ?

    • In the long term no one, not even Boeing, can afford to cave in on price like this. Even if Boeing do eventually develop replacements for these ancient designs they’re going to have to compete against their predecessors.

      For example, Boeing might be offering a shiny new 737 replacement for 50million. But its customers would say, “Hang on, those old 737 are half the price, and the new replacements ain’t twice as good.”. Why on earth would they buy the new design?

      So I think that by pricing so low Boeing are simply trapping themselves in a rut even deeper than the one they’re already in. Surely they can see that from their sales figures vs Airbus’s.

      They need to replace the 737 fast. If they could (and it’s a big If…), an instant solution would be to buy Bombardier and take advantage of the newer design, rather than sell themselves into servitude in struggling to remain relevant in that sector.

      If Boeing really are looking back to their mistake wrt A320, it’s the wrong strategy. Keeping Bombardier out of the market “Because we don’t want them succeeding like Airbus did”: it is a bit like shutting the stable doors after the Derby winning horse has already bolted just in case the old nag and the new born foal have flighty ideas too. Boeing will still have only an old nag and that foal will one day escape too.

      • ““Hang on, those old 737 are half the price, and the new replacements ain’t twice as good.”. Why on earth would they buy the new design?”

        Because the old design will not be being produced anymore.

        • “Because the old design will not be being produced anymore.”

          Boeing may well be brave enough to do that, but they haven’t been yet.

          Boeing, like anyone else, makes what it can sell. If they do replace the 737 family and over-charge for it, airlines might just ask for 737 instead. By selling 737 really, really cheap now that’s setting customers’ perception of what ‘over charging’ for a replacement would be.

          If they are selling 737-7 for about $25,000,000, and would look to charge maybe $55,000,000 for a replacement (I’m guessing. Boeing’s current list prices for 737 start at $51million), an airline would have to judge whether the extra purchase cost would ever pay off. $30million would keep a 737-7 in the sky for a good long time. In effect the 737 at $25million would give airlines the equivalent of something like 2 years cost-free pure-profit operations compared to buying a new Boeing design.

          If airlines do decide that at $25million the 737 is an absolute bargain despite its shortcomings (and it sounds like it is), that’s what they’ll be asking for. If Boeing refuse to make them that’s not exactly going to put the airlines in the right frame of mind to buy anything at all from Boeing.

          One thing that could stop all this is if the regulators declare the 737 family unfit for sale anymore just as Boeing get a replacement out the door.

          • its like Boeing is trying to kill prop jobs.

            There is complete difference between a competitor and the market below what you serve.

            The C series would grow the single aisle market not cut into Boeing (or Airbus). C series will never move into the larger single aisle area. sheese

    • As Boeing cannot sell at a loss

      Of course they can – almost all of the 787s so far were sold at a loss, and let’s not even mention the 747-8.
      Fair enough – they weren’t planning on making a loss on those.

      But whether or not low-to-mid $20m is actually loss-making for Boeing is anyone’s guess. The only thing that this number tells you is how low Boeing is willing to go on price in order to try and fend off the competition in a large deal.
      Personally, I think they’ll just about break even with that price. But it’s perfectly conceivable that they’re not just giving up all of their margin but are actually making a loss on the sale itself, with the hope to a) hurt BBD and b) recover the loss in the future on maintenance contracts etc.

  5. Predatory pricing by a giant to crush competition, United chose the easy road, Lufthansa is looking forward to the Cseries and wants Bombardier to build someting bigger than the CS300. The duolopy will end someday making room for better and more efficient airplanes, i hope. In todays world there is enough room for far more than 2, A and B dictating what the worlds needs in commercial aviation.

    • Competition is good. Hence Star Alliance or Sky Team key members should maybe order enough CS500’s to get the program going. Ideally it should be sized as a 737-800 replacement for shorter routes using its low mass advantage. Taking over routes up to 4hrs leaving Boeing and Airbus on the longer routes with their heavier Aircraft.

    • United chose what was best for United. I’m sure they don’t see it as their duty to fall on their sword to help BBD so that other airlines can take advantage.
      It’s why entrenched duopolies , be they aircraft manufacturers or political parties, are so hard to break into.

    • This is an American OEM and American client. Isn’t predatory pricing illegal in the US?

      • No. Bombardier, hypothetically suing in US Court, would have to show that Boeing constituted a monopoly, which would be simple to refute.

  6. United is stupid and looking at the quarter versus the decade.
    737-700s are a poor solution and are not good to fly on. The C-Series was to give a upgraded passenger experience. I Guess the passenger is back to the sardine tin can.

    It is another reason I will avoid their airline.

  7. It was reported that Air Canada bought the CS-300’s for about 30 Million each. If United paid Boeing ~25 Million each for the 737-700’s it doesn’t seem like a good decision to me a heavier aircraft. Oil is not going to be at $30 a barrel forever. Aside from efficiency the CS-300 offers other advantages such as superior passenger experience, lower noise etc.

    • It depends on how long United plans on holding the aircraft. Oil might not be $30 a barrel forever but it doesn’t look like it’s going to rise soon especially with Iran entering the market in a big way and when prices do start rising again fracking will increase and drive the supply back up.
      I’m sure United looked at both variables in their decision and decided what was in there best interests, not Boeing’s.

      • It depends on how long United plans on holding the aircraft. Oil might not be $30 a barrel forever but it doesn’t look like it’s going to rise soon especially with Iran entering the market in a big way and when prices do start rising again fracking will increase and drive the supply back up.

        There are definitely some interesting and seemingly contradictory dynamics at work at the moment. You could even say there are some parallels to the Boeing/Airbus-Bombardier story.
        Iran may be (re-)entering the market, but they (just like anybody else) can’t do that profitably at the current price level. It’s chiefly Saudi Arabia who’s resisted any calls – even within OPEC – wo reduce production rates so prices would rise again. However, even for Saudi Arabia, this can’t go on forever. While petrol (gas if you’re bound to US terminology 😉 ) prices went down everywhere else, they went up in Saudi Arabia because the government couldn’t afford to subsidise petrol the way it always had.
        Yet, they’re determined to stick with high production rates/low prices – the reasoning seems to be similar to Boeing’s when selling 737-700s at bargain basement prices: They want to keep (new) competition down. Particularly its local rival Iran, as well as the US and Russia.
        However, the IMF estimates that Saudi Arabia could keep this up for another four years at the most. The US fracking industry and Russia will run into trouble way before then, though, if prices stay this low. That may fall in line with Saudi Arabia’s interests – but a lot of their co-members of OPEC will also get into trouble (if they haven’t already, like Venezuela), which is likely going to result in Saudi Arabia facing a lot of pressure within OPEC.

        With all of these factors in mind, I’d expect oil to continue at the current levels for a bit longer, but not indefinitely. Some time towards the end of Q4/2016 or Q2/2017 at the latest I think oil will be trending to ~$55/barrel and all oil producing nations will carefully try to find an equilibrium that allows all of them to make profits while also alleviating concerns over one nation or the other having too much influence.
        Oil isn’t going to hit $125 again any time soon, but by early/mid 2018 I’d expect it to be closer to $100 than to $50.

        Even if you push this out by a year – oil at double (or more) the price that it is today will definitely influence airplane purchasing decisions. Just like the current low prices made IAG keep their A346s a bit longer.
        As such, buying last generation planes (like the NG and CEO) is only a stop-gap that only makes sense at low purchase and oil prices. It’s not a strategy that’s going to work five years from now – but it does make life hard for more fuel-efficient (and more expensive) planes in the meantime. BBD is probably exposed the most in that regard, as they don’t have a less fuel efficient but much cheaper offering in the CSeries’ size category.

    • There could be sweeteners across United’s Boeing fleet if Boeing really wants to deny Bombardier a toehold in that airline.

      Incumbents have the power in this industry.

    • “Aside from efficiency the CS-300 offers other advantages such as superior passenger experience, lower noise etc.”

      Totally agree, but let’s be honest here. We’re talking about United. The idea that they might place value on a “superior passenger experience” is a non-starter.

  8. I said it here on two occasions and nobody believe me. The LUV airline needs 200 737-7. Also they own 84 Percent of their fleet. They could care less about lessors.

  9. Boeing may not be urging Southwest and Westjet to up-gauge to the Max 8 but what is stopping these airlines from converting their relatively modest Max 7 orders to Max 8? If Boeing is selling the current generation 737-700 for a about $25 Million a copy – how much did Southwest and Westjet agree to pay for the Max 7? I suspect more that the $30 Million that Bombardier sold the CS300 to Air Canada for. I would not be surprised to see one of these airlines convert their Max 7 order to Max 8 and then place an order for CS300’s at a very attractive discount.

    • Southwest cannot magically make their significant hub MDWs runways longer, so they will either have to extend the life of their current -700s, stock up on production gap -700s at bargain prices, or go through with the MAX7 orders.
      I don’t know anyone who believes that SWA will change its decades-long 737-only business model. It’s a pipe dream to think they would buy the CS300 (though it appears a fine aircraft). I mean, SWA unloaded a whole fleet of MDW-capable 717s didn’t they?

      • At some point you recognize a concept has gone as far as it can go. To sit there and not accept that is to beat your head against the wall. S.W. is slowly morphing larger carrier and at some point other types will enter their fleet.

        C Series would fit in perfectly with SW and feed the larger cities that would then work to 737 strengths.

        But then I am not the CEO. I don’t blame SW for getting rid of the 717s, long term not viable and they had someone who wanted them. I think it worked for both parties as Delta has the setup in place for all the MD types.

        • “S.W. is slowly morphing larger carrier and at some point other types will enter their fleet.” – For the next 10-15 years, the only other “type” that might enter the WN fleet will be the 739 or the 7310. They are just now growing into their fleet of 738. 75% of their fleet is still 143 seat 737.

          Single type saves them money everywhere. Maintenance, pilots, FAs, Sims, etc etc. Its worked for years, it continues to work, and will work for the near future. Now if Boeing comes out with NSA around 2030, that will change the game, but for now, MAX does everything WN needs and more.

  10. So we are back to the olden days when the A300 was used to beat the incumbents down on price without any key airline wishing to buy one. Remember it took many years and multiple models before Airbus were on an even keel.

    The CSeries will get there and if they don’t we have Irkut/ Comac on the horizon. These models may be essentially obsolete but they have the massive advantage of a relatively large domestic market and will be successful. Whether they are a moderate success or a game changing nature is the key

    • The Irkut looks to be anything but obsolete.

      If they can get the out-of-autoclave manufacturing right and in-service support to match, it could be the one to break the duopoly.

      • nope. Its Russian, they have no idea how to support and aircraft.

        No one wants to deal with the Soviet Union (err Russian). Unstable and a record of using resources to threaten others.

        I think the MC21 looks to be a very well designed aircraft, quality will be interesting but the politics are a downer.

        • The US has placed various sanctions on other countries or officials many times for foreign policy reasons. Indeed they are having a go against FIFA right now too.
          Argentina is having to beat its head against a wall because of action by NY arbitrage lenders who want their money back, or does Russia when its owed money by other nations just say ‘I cant do a thing’.
          Australia screwed over its tiny neighbour East Timor when it came to undersea gas deposits between the two countries.

          Open your eyes! Its a bare knuckle world out there by all. As you can see in Boeing V Bombardier, perhaps we will find out in 30 years time NSA was on Boeings side when it came to the fine details of the Canadian offer

  11. To be honest – I’m not sure how successful that strategy is going to be. As pointed out in the article, Airbus have been vocal about being willing to compete aggressively against the CSeries. There’s no reason to believe that Boeing were any different when they originally launched the 737-7 as part of the MAX lineup.
    And yet – the CSeries, with all the troubles this programme as seen, has six times as many orders/commitments than the 737-7/A319NEO combined.
    That should tell you a lot, to be honest.
    With an aggressive approach, Boeing and Airbus may win a few more sales battles – but may still end up losing the proverbial war.
    The fundamentals haven’t changed – 737-7 and A319NEO are structurally heavy and less efficient than the CSeries on most missions. Their main sales appeal thus is price and the potential of putting them into package deals for airlines that are buying their bigger siblings.
    This shouldn’t be underestimated – but look at the A318 and 737-600 for examples where this simply wasn’t enough against planes that were more optimised for the mission profile.
    Selling less efficient airplanes on price is something both Boeing and Airbus have tried this before, but with very limited success overall.

    Another question that comes to mind, as we already mentioned the plane:
    What about the A319NEO, then?

  12. I think that you’re all wrong and this has very little to do with the C series.
    I could be wrong as well, but I don’t think Boeing sits up all night worrying about BBD. It seems to me to have much more to do with their 737 replacement strategy.
    Along with most observer’s, I think there isn’t really an “Mom”,it’s going to be a slightly bigger 737. The 737 max is thought to be competitive and should sell for at least 10 years if cheap enough. If you’re going to keep producing the 737 8, you might as well keep making the the 737 7max and cover that part of the market as well especially if you haven’t got anything else and you can sell it cheap.Hopefully the market will upgauge to the new model gradually, creating a long taper.Then you can deal with the smaller models or just abandon them. This strategy has the advantages of avoiding the very tricky problem of replacing a 600 a year production line all in one go, the problem of trying to complete with the amortised A320 with an expensive new plane and makes the most of the investment in the Max.

    • Bombardier may not be keeping the Boeing execs up at night, but they had better take notice of the C-Series because it is a game changer. This plane is so versatile in so many ways that it could appeal to many different business models. First off 1/4 of the sound footprint of similar narrow body competitors. This is going to attract anyone who flies into large urban airports (e.g. Hong Kong, London,etc.). The short runway requirement for the C-Series will also attract the urban airport operators. 10% fuel savings over re-engined competitors and 20% over the rest. It doesn’t matter if oil is $120/bbl or $40/bbl this still amounts to more competitive planes. Finally, the fuel sipping stinginess of the C-Series makes this plane have a very long range for its size (3,300 NM) which will attract airlines that operate long-thin routes. Think Australian, South American and African airlines not too mention the domestic carrier, Air Canada. This plane is going to gobble up market share, it’s just a matter of time.

  13. @ Grubbie : Agreed ! —-> The only way not to disawow their present product range is for Boeing to fully play 737 MAX Family endorsement to the bitter end. A clean-sheet MOM with ATO in 2016 will open 4 years of recess/vacuum in the MAX delivery planning, leaving 70 % or more narrowbody market share to rival Airbus. Boeing’ll have to spend 12 G$ for the MOM, at the same time as they’re killing their MAX milkcow … not a very brilliant strategy/timing ? MAX-7 is part of the combined set-up. By being present throughout the narrowbody market from the low (MAX-7) to the upper (MOM based on some stilted, stretched 737 cross/40+ m long cabin etc = 753 MAX) ends Boeing will be seen COHERENT in their offerings. The timing is not good for Moonshots.

  14. Have you imagined all the hidden costs of this operation ? Invest in a max 737-7 which will be sold at how many units ? All updates in training, maintenance, parts inventory : how much will it cost ? How to discounts granted to United? Boeing has a reaction of an little boy in short pants ! His absolute desire to start 737-7MAX is the testimony to the failure of its strategy for the MAX series . And the failure of this strategy will be expanded if Bombardier launches CS500 . The best of Boeing’s answer would be the creation of an entirely new single-aisle . Finally , United took the risk that its competitors are buying the CSeries and gaining reputation in customer service and money in the long term . Buy cheap an old pan has limits.

    • Interesting point about competitors. If either Delta or American were to buy the C Series in numbers, they would gain a long-term advantage over United. On the other hand, the Big 3 could tacitly agree not to buy the C Series. like they seem to tacitly agree on other things, such as pricing and capacity…

      There are other carriers in the world. With Air Canada in its client list, the C Series needs only one more big order from a major international carrier, and production will bet set for the next 5 years.

      • Exactly. Where figures and other statistics come out and collect on actual operations CSeries , they will garnish advertising materials of the Bombardier sellers and buyers of accounting rationality for the 737-7Max 319Neo become a secondary decision factor …

  15. I don’t know what Boeing has in mind for the new bigger 737 type plane, but if it was me l would go for a new airframe although not a moonshot.The point is to sort out their narrowbody conundrum in 2 stages starting where it’s needed most in the B737 700/9 B757 area which can yield a higher price as well. If Airbus or Boeing decide to do a smaller model to tackle the lower end, then BBD are done for.

  16. Probably a tough year to sell 787s or A350s if you can get an A330 or 777W at cost.

  17. The BBD/BA/UAL deal was done for a host of reasons, and some are very well outlined here. Nice comments!!!

    I keep asking Scott to look at the place where the real challenge is happening in the single aisle market and it has nothing to do with the C-Series at this point. The C-Series has done what it needed to do, it has weakend the strategy of both Airbus and Boeing at the lower end of the market. The C-Series is going to win share and it will win because Airbus and Boeing production mix will force both companies to dump the bottom end of their offerings. Look at January production and you will see what is happening very quickly. Both are delivering A320/737-800/A321/737-900. Boeing’s goal right now with the 737-700 sales was not to kill the C-Series it was to keep the single aisle sales at parity with Airbus, and what happened in January? Boeing outsold the A320 and that number is going to continue to grow in 2016, and with the 737-700 sales at dumping prices the numbers are getting closer.

    Scott- I wish you would write the story please because Airbus is in deep trouble with the GTF. It is now showing up in deliveries and the numbers of missed deliveres will continue to grow. Airbus delivered 11 A320s and that is driven by the missed GTF performance. P&W says 2 months, and Airbus is throwing them under the bus with airline customers. Not something you should do if you claim the NEO gain comes from the engine? Bad engine, why buy the NEO? The A321NEO story is drive by the GTF, and Airbus biggest gain in the NEO family is A321NEO GTF? Not sure you want to shoot your advantage so early in the program?

    If this continues John Leahy will have to stop proclaiming the BIG share position Airbus currently has. Ray told Boeing employees they wanted to stop BBD, but the truth is Boeing is clawing at every sale they can to get the share of single aisle back to 50% and the GTF is enabling them to get a slight lead for 2016 deliveries. Use BBD as your smoke screen, but Boeing sees something that must have Airbus very worried. Kind of explains why the MAX-8 is flying so much right now. Get MAX deliveries out early, while Airbus is dealing with the GTF issue and boy that claimed Airbus share advantage goes up in smoke.

    • What are you seeing? There are always snags with highly complex engineering projects. I would be surprised if cfm don’t have a few as well. It will take a while before things are running as smoothly as the previous generation of mature engine’s. If it was anything really serious you would hope that it had been spotted before certification,unless you have some more information.

      • Agreed. L7 has an agenda, I think he has been suspended from he site before.

        I too believe the GTF will work out, last bug seen maybe maybe not, long term its the way to go.

        Latest NASA and Boeing (aircraft partners) studies show that in order to get the next step in fuel economy GTF is mandatory.

        • Not saying he’s right but more than one poster on here have quite obvious agendas.

          • True, though I think bias in better in many cases.

            However, fabrication with no backup gets into the thick of pushing an agenda as opposed to discussion.

    • “Claimed Airbus share” ?

      Is it not real. It seems the order aren’t hard to add up.

      L7, the only A321NEO I’ve seen flying had LEAP-A engines. About 4-5% better sfc than the LEAP-B engines because of the higher propulsive efficiency of its larger fan.
      What everybody knows but doesn’t dare to say. Boeing thinking of new wings/ landing gears for a reason,

  18. Can Boeing stretch the MAX 7 2-3 m without losing the 737 certification? 150 seats at 32″ pitch and 3 restrooms?

    • Its size is driven more by tight runway restrictions in a few places, and when it comes to Southwest and Boeing, Southwest gets what it wants.
      The changes arent all that great compared with whats being done for other Max models, and its predecessor exists anyway as we have seen with the 737-7

    • Ted: Very likely. 777 is not getting new certification either and its pretty much the same (new wing, maybe new fuselage material)

      On the3 other hand, 737 new wing is not a done deal so stay tuned.

  19. Pingback: » Daily Aviation Brief – 26/02/2016

  20. Pingback: 3 Links I Love: Really Cheap 737s, Jet Bridges, Germanwings Crash In Depth | The Cranky Flier

  21. Pingback: 737-7X, 737-10 studies illustrate Boeing weakness in single-aisle market - Leeham News and Comment

Leave a Reply

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