3 ms·

The list of orders and deliveries is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bo

The list of orders and deliveries is public: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_and_deliveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_MAX_orders_... Most orders were before the accidents but the vast majority haven't been canceled. Boeing has only delivered a fraction of them; they have another 3,000 to deliver before they get to the orders placed after the accidents (~1400).

Beldin 3y ago
If you cancel, you'll have to place an order elsewhere and end up at the back of their log. Since there isn't that much competition, this means Airbus. Moreover: this also means introducing another brand of aircraft into your fleet. That is a far greater maintenance headache than "merely" various types by the same company. Basically: Switching cost are stratospheric.
- smokefoot 3y ago
  Most carriers operate both Airbus and Boeing. Low cost carriers have less diversity and operate either 737s or A300s. Southwest is the only airline I can think of that would have their hand forced in this way.
  - selectodude 3y ago
    Southwest and Ryanair were the airlines that demanded a 737 and said if Boeing didn't make one, they were going to switch to Airbus. It's just all kind of a clusterfuck.
- SkyMarshal 3y ago
  > That is a far greater maintenance headache than "merely" various types by the same company. You would think so, but it’s actually not. I used to work at an airline in IT, and asked that question of the Ops folks when the airline was evaluating switching fleets to Airbus. They said switching fleets or operating a mixed fleet is not cost prohibitive. This was midsize regional airline fwiw.
  - danpalmer 3y ago
    I'm not an expert by any means, but this is almost the opposite of what I've heard, and the fact that most airlines are either Boeing or Airbus exclusively supports that idea. In particular, I've heard that maintenance and pilot training are big issues. If you've got half your pilots on the 737 and half on the A320, you're much less resilient to scheduling issues than having all of them on one or the other. Similarly, I believe maintenance facilities tend to be one or the other, so if you've got half your facilities for each, at the margins you're going to have more scheduling issues for maintenance. There are economies of scale with anything to do with scheduling flexibility, and dividing like this essentially halves those economies of scale.
    - StopHammoTime 3y ago
      Type ratings are not prohibitive to achieve once a pilot has achieved an ATPL. It’s about 5-6 weeks per pilot. Yeah, it’s a pain but it’s also not a devastating road block. Ironically if you hear some airlines talk about the whole point of MCAS and no extra type rating requirement didn’t actually factor in as much as Boeing thought. Training and aircraft expense is actual minor compared to fuel efficiency and availability of aircraft. If you’re running 20 year old 737NGs the new engines on the MAX are going to save a tonne of money, even after potential reputations damage. It’s all risk management. Edit: in regards to maintenance a lot of airlines are outsourcing maintenance to bigger providers so that’s less of a deal than you’d think as well. Fuel really is one of the largest factors in this and an extra 5 years of expensive gas while waiting for a new plane may be too much for budgets to bear.
      - danpalmer 3y ago
        Thanks, that's interesting to know about the outsourced maintenance, that does make sense and would certainly increase that flexibility. Re: pilot training. I could imagine that going from a 737 to a 787 would be substantially easier than from 737 to A320, due to standardisation in interfaces, processes, documentation, etc, within one manufacturer. Is that the case? 5-6 weeks does still seem like a lot of downtime for a commercial pilot, and rolling everyone through that sounds like it would be prohibitively difficult for many airlines. Plus my understanding is that it's sort of a one way street, pilots don't typically (or can't feasibly?) stay rated for two aircraft types for long periods, so it would still reduce flexibility if an airline split its fleet right?
- gumby 3y ago
  > Basically: Switching cost are stratospheric. I can’t resist pointing out that an airline of all businesses should be comfortable with anything stratospheric!
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Why can’t airbus ramp up production and soak up Boeing’s customers? Too regulated?
  - Beldin 3y ago
    I have no special insider knowledge. I reckoned it could be turn-around time coupled with needs. A quick google suggests that in optimal conditions (all parts available), it would take minimum of 2 months to assemble a large airliner plane. 6 months is suggested as a common time frame. As far as needs go, a plant would need suppliers for all pieces (over 350k by one count for one type of airbus). And you'd need a place where you can assemble the plane, with a sufficiently large runway attached. Possibly in an area where testflights would be acceptable. All in all: perhaps current suppliers are at or close to their limits, and a new facility would need a completely new supply chain. If not, I'd imagine that if the bottleneck is exclusively with the builder, a solution could be found.
fransje26 3y ago
> but the vast majority haven't been canceled. What a load of bull. Just last week the Seattle times was mentioning that the MAX had had 1200 orders cancelled. And here is a Reuters article citing 480+ MAX orders cancelled, just for the first 9 months of 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN26Y2AD/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN26Y2AD/
- nemetroid 3y ago
  80% of the orders haven't been cancelled.

Beldin 3y ago

If you cancel, you'll have to place an order elsewhere and end up at the back of their log. Since there isn't that much competition, this means Airbus. Moreover: this also means introducing another brand of aircraft into your fleet. That is a far greater maintenance headache than "merely" various types by the same company. Basically: Switching cost are stratospheric.

smokefoot 3y ago
Most carriers operate both Airbus and Boeing. Low cost carriers have less diversity and operate either 737s or A300s. Southwest is the only airline I can think of that would have their hand forced in this way.
- selectodude 3y ago
  Southwest and Ryanair were the airlines that demanded a 737 and said if Boeing didn't make one, they were going to switch to Airbus. It's just all kind of a clusterfuck.
SkyMarshal 3y ago
> That is a far greater maintenance headache than "merely" various types by the same company. You would think so, but it’s actually not. I used to work at an airline in IT, and asked that question of the Ops folks when the airline was evaluating switching fleets to Airbus. They said switching fleets or operating a mixed fleet is not cost prohibitive. This was midsize regional airline fwiw.
- danpalmer 3y ago
  I'm not an expert by any means, but this is almost the opposite of what I've heard, and the fact that most airlines are either Boeing or Airbus exclusively supports that idea. In particular, I've heard that maintenance and pilot training are big issues. If you've got half your pilots on the 737 and half on the A320, you're much less resilient to scheduling issues than having all of them on one or the other. Similarly, I believe maintenance facilities tend to be one or the other, so if you've got half your facilities for each, at the margins you're going to have more scheduling issues for maintenance. There are economies of scale with anything to do with scheduling flexibility, and dividing like this essentially halves those economies of scale.
  - StopHammoTime 3y ago
    Type ratings are not prohibitive to achieve once a pilot has achieved an ATPL. It’s about 5-6 weeks per pilot. Yeah, it’s a pain but it’s also not a devastating road block. Ironically if you hear some airlines talk about the whole point of MCAS and no extra type rating requirement didn’t actually factor in as much as Boeing thought. Training and aircraft expense is actual minor compared to fuel efficiency and availability of aircraft. If you’re running 20 year old 737NGs the new engines on the MAX are going to save a tonne of money, even after potential reputations damage. It’s all risk management. Edit: in regards to maintenance a lot of airlines are outsourcing maintenance to bigger providers so that’s less of a deal than you’d think as well. Fuel really is one of the largest factors in this and an extra 5 years of expensive gas while waiting for a new plane may be too much for budgets to bear.
    - danpalmer 3y ago
      Thanks, that's interesting to know about the outsourced maintenance, that does make sense and would certainly increase that flexibility. Re: pilot training. I could imagine that going from a 737 to a 787 would be substantially easier than from 737 to A320, due to standardisation in interfaces, processes, documentation, etc, within one manufacturer. Is that the case? 5-6 weeks does still seem like a lot of downtime for a commercial pilot, and rolling everyone through that sounds like it would be prohibitively difficult for many airlines. Plus my understanding is that it's sort of a one way street, pilots don't typically (or can't feasibly?) stay rated for two aircraft types for long periods, so it would still reduce flexibility if an airline split its fleet right?
gumby 3y ago
> Basically: Switching cost are stratospheric. I can’t resist pointing out that an airline of all businesses should be comfortable with anything stratospheric!
pfannkuchen 3y ago
Why can’t airbus ramp up production and soak up Boeing’s customers? Too regulated?
- Beldin 3y ago
  I have no special insider knowledge. I reckoned it could be turn-around time coupled with needs. A quick google suggests that in optimal conditions (all parts available), it would take minimum of 2 months to assemble a large airliner plane. 6 months is suggested as a common time frame. As far as needs go, a plant would need suppliers for all pieces (over 350k by one count for one type of airbus). And you'd need a place where you can assemble the plane, with a sufficiently large runway attached. Possibly in an area where testflights would be acceptable. All in all: perhaps current suppliers are at or close to their limits, and a new facility would need a completely new supply chain. If not, I'd imagine that if the bottleneck is exclusively with the builder, a solution could be found.

fransje26 3y ago

> but the vast majority haven't been canceled. What a load of bull. Just last week the Seattle times was mentioning that the MAX had had 1200 orders cancelled. And here is a Reuters article citing 480+ MAX orders cancelled, just for the first 9 months of 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN26Y2AD/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN26Y2AD/

nemetroid 3y ago
80% of the orders haven't been cancelled.