With the classics 300/500 out of the picture...

and it took Southwest years to finally order the -800 series...

and with the new MAX8 in the fleet...

Do y'all think its possible that they will order the 900ER series or MAX9, and for shits and giggles the 737 MAX10?

Just about zero chance for the 900ER, very doubtful for the MAX9 but a reasonable probability for the 10.

The MAX10 would definitely be helpful in alleviating the congestion in some of its airports like LAX, SAN, MDW, DAL and would boost yields on its transcons.

Could see the MAX 10 happening. The MAX 9 has been made pretty much redundant by the 10.

Max 10? I understand why a larger aircraft for congested airports might make sense, but why would they choose a plane that would likely have operational problems at one of their largest and most congested airports (MDW)? They would probably also have limits at SNA, LGA and DCA.

ericm2031 wrote:

The MAX10 would definitely be helpful in alleviating the congestion in some of its airports like LAX, SAN, MDW, DAL and would boost yields on its transcons.

How would a larger aircraft boost yield? It's usually the opposite...

What's the average age of the 700's

socko wrote:

What's the average age of the 700's

13.4 years. Can't wait for WN to start retiring the older ones, the 738's are much more comfortable.

LotsaRunway wrote:

Max 10? I understand why a larger aircraft for congested airports might make sense, but why would they choose a plane that would likely have operational problems at one of their largest and most congested airports (MDW)? They would probably also have limits at SNA, LGA and DCA.

The -300 had operational problems at all of those places, especially with wet or contaminated runways (it could get ~110 passengers out of MDW on a 500 mile flight with contaminated runways). The story of the efficiencies of a single fleet type for WN has morphed into a myth that every WN aircraft can fly every route in the system, but that has not been true for 20 years or more.

Cubsrule wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

Max 10? I understand why a larger aircraft for congested airports might make sense, but why would they choose a plane that would likely have operational problems at one of their largest and most congested airports (MDW)? They would probably also have limits at SNA, LGA and DCA.

The -300 had operational problems at all of those places, especially with wet or contaminated runways (it could get ~110 passengers out of MDW on a 500 mile flight with contaminated runways). The story of the efficiencies of a single fleet type for WN has morphed into a myth that every WN aircraft can fly every route in the system, but that has not been true for 20 years or more.

I don't know the answer to this, but does WN have operation limits at these airports with their current fleet? The point I was trying to make was why bring in a new fleet type to reduce congestion at key airports when it would have operation issues at a top hub.

LotsaRunway wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

Max 10? I understand why a larger aircraft for congested airports might make sense, but why would they choose a plane that would likely have operational problems at one of their largest and most congested airports (MDW)? They would probably also have limits at SNA, LGA and DCA.

The -300 had operational problems at all of those places, especially with wet or contaminated runways (it could get ~110 passengers out of MDW on a 500 mile flight with contaminated runways). The story of the efficiencies of a single fleet type for WN has morphed into a myth that every WN aircraft can fly every route in the system, but that has not been true for 20 years or more.

I don't know the answer to this, but does WN have operation limits at these airports with their current fleet? The point I was trying to make was why bring in a new fleet type to reduce congestion at key airports when it would have operation issues at a top hub.

While certainly a consideration, the bread and butter of the WN network is shorter regional routes. They are not pushing the limits on the majority of their flights. NorthEast to West Coast, Hawaii those are the routes where the 7310 would be best for more revenue potential on the longest stage lengths.

molitvic20 wrote:

With the classics 300/500 out of the picture...

and it took Southwest years to finally order the -800 series...

and with the new MAX8 in the fleet...

Do y'all think its possible that they will order the 900ER series or MAX9, and for shits and giggles the 737 MAX10?

The -9 versions (NextGen & MAX) really don't fit with WN's strategy, as they've really never ever operated a plane larger than the 737-800... I would be very shocked in WN ordered these jets...

Or what about the 797 or MOM plane that Boeing has in the works?

FA9295 wrote:

molitvic20 wrote:

With the classics 300/500 out of the picture...

and it took Southwest years to finally order the -800 series...

and with the new MAX8 in the fleet...

Do y'all think its possible that they will order the 900ER series or MAX9, and for shits and giggles the 737 MAX10?

The -9 versions (NextGen & MAX) really don't fit with WN's strategy, as they've really never ever operated a plane larger than the 737-800... I would be very shocked in WN ordered these jets...

Then prepare to be shocked, because Gary Kelly has talked openly recently about converting a few existing orders to MAX-10's. Not only that, he said in a recent interview that WN would be closely looking at the 797 if and when Boeing decides to move forward with it. Things are changing rapidly at WN and the old assumptions about WN not flying larger equipment are starting to change. Let's face it, WN has both the scale and route network to deploy larger equipment longer distances very effectively.

SWA dog is correct. Southwest will look at other options including whatever the Boeing 797 ends up being. There's information about SWA that's not publicly available yet.

The -700 also has weight issues, especially when it's a long flight with extra fuel for weather and a full house in the back. I know some markets can't handle it but the -800 is a gift from heaven for WN.

I expect SW to eventually shock everyone and place a substantial order for the 797 if you want to talk about something interesting.

FA9295 wrote:

molitvic20 wrote:

With the classics 300/500 out of the picture...

and it took Southwest years to finally order the -800 series...

and with the new MAX8 in the fleet...

Do y'all think its possible that they will order the 900ER series or MAX9, and for shits and giggles the 737 MAX10?

The -9 versions (NextGen & MAX) really don't fit with WN's strategy, as they've really never ever operated a plane larger than the 737-800... I would be very shocked in WN ordered these jets...

Once upon a time people used the exact same argument when people would ask if WN would ever order the 737-800. WN never operated a plane larger than the 733/73G, it would ruin operations because need to add 4th FA, they can no longer substitute any other 737 on the route w/o problems (like they could with the 733/73G), etc. Yet now here we are with WN having ~175 738s in 5.5 years.

Super80Fan wrote:

The -700 also has weight issues, especially when it's a long flight with extra fuel for weather and a full house in the back. I know some markets can't handle it but the -800 is a gift from heaven for WN.

Ah, no. You have that completely backwards.

The 700 has far more performance than the -800.

barney captain wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The -700 also has weight issues, especially when it's a long flight with extra fuel for weather and a full house in the back. I know some markets can't handle it but the -800 is a gift from heaven for WN.

Ah, no. You have that completely backwards.

The 700 has far more performance than the -800.

Not based on the -700 flights I've been on. Can't tell you how many delays I've had due to them calculating the weight and then we took up 3/4 of the runway...

Boeing778X wrote:

Could see the MAX 10 happening. The MAX 9 has been made pretty much redundant by the 10.

Where would WN fly the MAX 10, considering it has less range than the MAX 8?

Couple of questions,

1. Considering WN is has been, and still is taking in a bunch of new planes this decade (738's, MAX 8's, etc), why would they need to order additional aircraft at this time?

2. Why exactly did WN order the MAX 7 (considering they ordered only 30 of them). Do they have some specific plans for some niche longer-range routes into South America that only the MAX 7 can do?

3. In light of WestJet's order of the 787, and if WN really wants to expand their influence beyond the boundaries of North America, could WN at some point bite the bullet and buy the 787, or do they want to continue with their all-737 fleet?

Super80Fan wrote:

barney captain wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

The -700 also has weight issues, especially when it's a long flight with extra fuel for weather and a full house in the back. I know some markets can't handle it but the -800 is a gift from heaven for WN.

Ah, no. You have that completely backwards.

The 700 has far more performance than the -800.

Not based on the -700 flights I've been on. Can't tell you how many delays I've had due to them calculating the weight and then we took up 3/4 of the runway...

There are -700 subfleets for this very reason. (Delta).
Considering the respondent flies them I would say your examples were probably including other operational issues.

ADrum23 wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Could see the MAX 10 happening. The MAX 9 has been made pretty much redundant by the 10.

Where would WN fly the MAX 10, considering it has less range than the MAX 8?

WN doesn't need the range. If they end up ordering Max10 it will be because it has the extra capacity.

As noted, WN can probably use more seats at places like LAX or MDW. We don't know all the details of Max10 runway performance yet so that will be the limiting factor where WN orders it or not.

Super80Fan wrote:

socko wrote:

What's the average age of the 700's

13.4 years. Can't wait for WN to start retiring the older ones, the 738's are much more comfortable.

My sister liked the 800 over the 700 because they have longer seatbelts and the seats were more comfortable.

I was just on a fully loaded MAX8 out of MDW to DAL and those engines do make a difference. Not only are they quieter on takeoff but also they have such brute power that the takeoff off of Runway 31C was short and effortless.. Climbout pwerformance also was amazing.

From what I've read around here the max 10 should be able to fly routes out of MDW due to the taller gear, just maybe not longer flights needing full fuel, but probably the high density east/south routes. I didn't think it'd have the power to use use 6000ft runways, but supposedly it does? The 757 never had a problem at MDW fully loaded, not that that matters for the max 10.

wrongwayup wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

The MAX10 would definitely be helpful in alleviating the congestion in some of its airports like LAX, SAN, MDW, DAL and would boost yields on its transcons.

How would a larger aircraft boost yield? It's usually the opposite...

Well the operating costs between the different variants is pretty small compared to the revenue potential. WN has said that the -800 only costs a little bit more to operate than a -700, but they have 32 more seats of revenue potential.

Sooner or later we're going to see a thread about what kinds of routes Southwest would fly with a 797 .

Super80Fan wrote:

socko wrote:

What's the average age of the 700's

13.4 years. Can't wait for WN to start retiring the older ones, the 738's are much more comfortable.

Wow, Crazy how time flies. I remember working ramp for WN at LAX in the early 2000's. I remember when the first 700 came in and remarkably parked next to a 732. I remember marveling at the difference in wing length, wing height, the longer gear, squared flap canoes, and the almost completely larger circular engine as opposed to the 733 and 735. Not to mention the cabin and flight deck differences. I flew one that very week LAX-ABQ-DAL and was blown away when the captain announced a 41,000' cruising altitude as I was so used to the 33,000' norm on the 1st generation 737's.

ericm2031 wrote:

wrongwayup wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

The MAX10 would definitely be helpful in alleviating the congestion in some of its airports like LAX, SAN, MDW, DAL and would boost yields on its transcons.

How would a larger aircraft boost yield? It's usually the opposite...

Well the operating costs between the different variants is pretty small compared to the revenue potential. WN has said that the -800 only costs a little bit more to operate than a -700, but they have 32 more seats of revenue potential.

Ah. Ya, definitely a potential revenue increase with the -10. I was thinking about yield in the "industry jargon" sense of fare per mile, which had me confused. Usually when you put a bigger airplane on a route you end up selling a few more discount fares, bringing yields down but total revenue up.

I would really love to see a Max 10 for South West.

Super80Fan wrote:

barney captain wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Ok, we're not all aeronautical engineers but .... same wing and engines, the -700 is shorter and lighter than the -800, all else being equal, a lighter plane usually takes off in a shorter distance, climbs faster and has a longer range. Unless I'm missing something.

You are not missing a thing - what you stated is 100% accurate.

I'm not sure why Super80 has experienced the issues they have, but whatever the issues were they would have been compounded if it were an 800. The 800 absolutely needs more pavement, climbs slower, cruises lower and burns more. I love the airplane, but the -700 outperforms the 800 in every area.

You're right, I don't know what would've happened if it was a -800. All I know is it wouldn't have happened if it was an A321 or A319.

No you don’t. If you think an A321 has better runway performance than a -700, you really don’t understand airplanes.

Ufsatp wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

barney captain wrote:

You are not missing a thing - what you stated is 100% accurate.

I'm not sure why Super80 has experienced the issues they have, but whatever the issues were they would have been compounded if it were an 800. The 800 absolutely needs more pavement, climbs slower, cruises lower and burns more. I love the airplane, but the -700 outperforms the 800 in every area.

You're right, I don't know what would've happened if it was a -800. All I know is it wouldn't have happened if it was an A321 or A319.

No you don’t. If you think an A321 has better runway performance than a -700, you really don’t understand airplanes.

Absolutely - pretty elementary most would think.

I'd go so far as to say not just runway performance, but performance by any measure.

Thrust to weight ratio baby

Acey wrote:

737max8 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Ok, we're not all aeronautical engineers but .... same wing and engines, the -700 is shorter and lighter than the -800, all else being equal, a lighter plane usually takes off in a shorter distance, climbs faster and has a longer range. Unless I'm missing something.

I'm pretty sure the -700 and -800 have something different with the wing and the thrust rating on the engines is different.

There is wing reinforcement in the -800 but I believe it be negligible in the context of this discussion. There are different ratings available for the -600, -700 and -800 such that there is overlap between the offerings. Without checking, I imagine that most of WN's -700 have 24k and the -800 are 27k; in that scenario the power to weight still favours the -700 as far as I know, and with it being a lighter frame with the same fuel capacity it will definitely fly further.

Not questioning distance - I agree there. Just take-off performance.

Probably fair to assume a 700 can outperform an 800 in every aspect of flight performance.

Super80Fan wrote:

The -700 also has weight issues, especially when it's a long flight with extra fuel for weather and a full house in the back. I know some markets can't handle it but the -800 is a gift from heaven for WN.

The 700 makes up for its relative weight with it being the smallest overall in the family and therefore the most relatively powered. It's kinda like putting a V8 in a Civic.

And WN could've been flying the 800 the while time it's been available. It's rally a gift from the pilots and flight attendants allowing it in their contracts.

Southwest is learning how to handle a new airplane with the MAX. The MAX flight I was on last month from MDW-DAL was a little late do to a weight and balance, CG issue. They had freight on board and had to move a bunch of bags from the rear bins to the front to solve the issue.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... yptr=yahoo

bzcat wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Boeing778X wrote:

Could see the MAX 10 happening. The MAX 9 has been made pretty much redundant by the 10.

Where would WN fly the MAX 10, considering it has less range than the MAX 8?

WN doesn't need the range. If they end up ordering Max10 it will be because it has the extra capacity.

As noted, WN can probably use more seats at places like LAX or MDW. We don't know all the details of Max10 runway performance yet so that will be the limiting factor where WN orders it or not.

If the extra rotation allowed by the extended landing gear improves the runway performance enough, perhaps the 10Max could be used at MDW. The range could probably be used to Hawaii. A plane that could handle both extremes would be great for WN.

Why did WN order the MAX 7, and only 30 of them? Are they planning some longer routes into South America or something where only the MAX 7 can reach it? Could they not convert some of the orders to the MAX 10?

CarlosSi wrote:

Sooner or later we're going to see a thread about what kinds of routes Southwest would fly with a 797 .

Not necessarily dedicated threads, but in the 797/MoM threads, there have been questions asked about exactly that!

And I think there have been "Southwest and the MoM" threads before...