5 ms·

Why would anyone buy the Boeing 737 max when they can buy the Airbus A320neo for about the same price? Even the Chinese are giving up on Boeing even though the

Why would anyone buy the Boeing 737 max when they can buy the Airbus A320neo for about the same price? Even the Chinese are giving up on Boeing even though they were supposed to be forced to buy them per the Trump phase 1 trade deal.

SEMW 4y ago
Many possible reasons. Eg Ryanair operates a completely uniform fleet, 100% 737s, and their current operating model relies on all of their pilots and crew being able to operate whatever aircraft is available. Adding a few airbuses means a split fleet, causing significant logistical and training costs. And their customers are evidently happy to prioritize flight cost over their aversion to the 737max, so why would they switch? Also, an aircraft being on the market doesn't mean you can actually order one and get it anytime soon. Airbus has like a 10-year backlog for A32x deliveries.
- rob74 4y ago
  ...and just to make sure that any possible aversion is, er, averted, they have renamed their 737 MAX to "737-8200" (and rely on journalists publishing press releases without research to improve its reception: https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-ryanairs-737-aircrafts-7148066 https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-...).
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    That was always the model designation though, 737-MAX is just branding. And 8200 is just one of its specific versions. For example the 737-NG was called 737-600 through 737-900 (different versions) They did indeed drop the MAX branding and replaced it with the numeric designation because MAX got a bad name after their screwup. But they didn't invent the new name, it was always there.
- agsnu 4y ago
  I don't understand why anyone would fly Ryanair ;)
  - moravak1984 4y ago
    Sometimes there is no choice, e.g. Prague-Malaga. The alternative routes that go on sane airlines require changing planes. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment :)
ralph84 4y ago
Path dependence. For an existing 737 operator, a completely different type has to bring more to the table than about the same price.
chx 4y ago
Facts: 1. Boeing was running multiple studies to replace the 737 -- and possibly the 757 with the same plane -- https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/07/204506/the-737-story-smoke-and-mirrors-obscure-737-and-airbus-a320-replacement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flight... 2. Boeing Chairman President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney in 2011 February said > We’re gonna do a new airplane. We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias is to not re-engine, is to move to an all-new airplane at the end of the decade, or the beginning of the next decade. For source, put that quote into Google, it's everywhere. 3. Less than a year later, Southwest Airlines bought 150 of this very re-engineered plane. The 737 replacement plane disappeared. The 757 still has no replacement, twenty years after it was canned. The hole this created for the above 200 seats segment is well visible: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg (I posted this image to SE after digging it out of some ancient blog post) 4. The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining > Not only did Southwest management not want their pilots who flew the earlier model 737 NG to have to train in a flight simulator for the MAX, they insisted to Boeing that even classroom training be off the table, the filing shows. Southwest insisted on a clause in the sales contract stipulating a penalty of $1 million per airplane delivered if that standard wasn’t met. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal-filing-reveals-southwest-airlines-proposed-a-ploy-to-deceive-faa-on-boeing-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal... Rumor: It was Southwest Airlines threatening Boeing to buy Airbus instead if it delivered anything but a 737 to them that created the 737 MAX in the first place. Now you know how far a single-plane airline would go to avoid buying a different plane.
- msbarnett 4y ago
  > The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining This is somewhat inaccurate (and appears to trade on the oft-repeated but completely incorrect misunderstanding that the MCAS acts as a sort of “normal 737 emulator”). In fact, the MCAS exists because without it the MAX would be 100% uncertifiable for commercial flight. The central problem is that, due to the lopsided aerodynamics of the MAX, as the nose of the MAX moves up and approaches a stall, the forces on the pilot’s stick “invert” such that it becomes easier to continue to pull into the stall than push away from the stall. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to have inverted stick forces at any angle. When Boeing realized this, they decided to implement a kind of hack that would use the trim to put pressure on the nose downwards to counteract the forces on the stick such that they never invert. The MCAS is the system that commands this downwards trim. The desire to avoid retraining led Boeing to conceal the existence of the MCAS, but it is not why it exists. The plane flatly is uncertifiable without it. No amount of training would change this, as inverted stick forces are a failure of fundamental airworthiness requirements.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
Airbus literally doesn't have the production capacity to take over Boeing's orders. Long term maybe BAA is screwed.

SEMW 4y ago

Many possible reasons. Eg Ryanair operates a completely uniform fleet, 100% 737s, and their current operating model relies on all of their pilots and crew being able to operate whatever aircraft is available. Adding a few airbuses means a split fleet, causing significant logistical and training costs. And their customers are evidently happy to prioritize flight cost over their aversion to the 737max, so why would they switch? Also, an aircraft being on the market doesn't mean you can actually order one and get it anytime soon. Airbus has like a 10-year backlog for A32x deliveries.

rob74 4y ago
...and just to make sure that any possible aversion is, er, averted, they have renamed their 737 MAX to "737-8200" (and rely on journalists publishing press releases without research to improve its reception: https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-ryanairs-737-aircrafts-7148066 https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/stansted-airport-...).
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  That was always the model designation though, 737-MAX is just branding. And 8200 is just one of its specific versions. For example the 737-NG was called 737-600 through 737-900 (different versions) They did indeed drop the MAX branding and replaced it with the numeric designation because MAX got a bad name after their screwup. But they didn't invent the new name, it was always there.
agsnu 4y ago
I don't understand why anyone would fly Ryanair ;)
- moravak1984 4y ago
  Sometimes there is no choice, e.g. Prague-Malaga. The alternative routes that go on sane airlines require changing planes. Otherwise I agree with the sentiment :)

ralph84 4y ago

Path dependence. For an existing 737 operator, a completely different type has to bring more to the table than about the same price.

chx 4y ago

Facts: 1. Boeing was running multiple studies to replace the 737 -- and possibly the 757 with the same plane -- https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/02/07/204506/the-737-story-smoke-and-mirrors-obscure-737-and-airbus-a320-replacement.html https://web.archive.org/web/20090615055919/http://www.flight... 2. Boeing Chairman President and Chief Executive Officer Jim McNerney in 2011 February said > We’re gonna do a new airplane. We’re not done evaluating this whole situation yet, but our current bias is to not re-engine, is to move to an all-new airplane at the end of the decade, or the beginning of the next decade. For source, put that quote into Google, it's everywhere. 3. Less than a year later, Southwest Airlines bought 150 of this very re-engineered plane. The 737 replacement plane disappeared. The 757 still has no replacement, twenty years after it was canned. The hole this created for the above 200 seats segment is well visible: https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/Qc47G.jpg (I posted this image to SE after digging it out of some ancient blog post) 4. The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining > Not only did Southwest management not want their pilots who flew the earlier model 737 NG to have to train in a flight simulator for the MAX, they insisted to Boeing that even classroom training be off the table, the filing shows. Southwest insisted on a clause in the sales contract stipulating a penalty of $1 million per airplane delivered if that standard wasn’t met. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal-filing-reveals-southwest-airlines-proposed-a-ploy-to-deceive-faa-on-boeing-737-max/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/legal... Rumor: It was Southwest Airlines threatening Boeing to buy Airbus instead if it delivered anything but a 737 to them that created the 737 MAX in the first place. Now you know how far a single-plane airline would go to avoid buying a different plane.

msbarnett 4y ago
> The MCAS system exists because SWA insisted on no retraining This is somewhat inaccurate (and appears to trade on the oft-repeated but completely incorrect misunderstanding that the MCAS acts as a sort of “normal 737 emulator”). In fact, the MCAS exists because without it the MAX would be 100% uncertifiable for commercial flight. The central problem is that, due to the lopsided aerodynamics of the MAX, as the nose of the MAX moves up and approaches a stall, the forces on the pilot’s stick “invert” such that it becomes easier to continue to pull into the stall than push away from the stall. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to have inverted stick forces at any angle. When Boeing realized this, they decided to implement a kind of hack that would use the trim to put pressure on the nose downwards to counteract the forces on the stick such that they never invert. The MCAS is the system that commands this downwards trim. The desire to avoid retraining led Boeing to conceal the existence of the MCAS, but it is not why it exists. The plane flatly is uncertifiable without it. No amount of training would change this, as inverted stick forces are a failure of fundamental airworthiness requirements.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

Airbus literally doesn't have the production capacity to take over Boeing's orders. Long term maybe BAA is screwed.