SWA is going to need a smaller capacity plane eventually.
Why? The “they’ll run out of new markets” fallacy?
Because by having a lower cost per flight plane, "Moxie", JetBlue, and Delta will be more competitive in smaller markets. It is a question of growth rate.
So unless you need the shortfield performance of the -7 MAX, you will be able to get enough added revenue in the -8 MAX to have a higher profit margin during peak seasons (Thanksgiving, Christmas, Spring Break, and Summer).
Doesn't Southwest need the runway performance? Burbank comes to mind obviously, but what about Oakland and Midway where they run a ton of flights? Southwest had to delay a couple flights after the AN-225 left Oakland because the other runways weren't long enough. What happens if, in the aftermath of the latest overrun, runway length requirements get adjusted upwards?
Having a smaller variant available seems like a prudent idea for an airline that doesn't fly exclusively into larger airports. Maybe it'll be an incentive for Southwest to buy into a different aircraft family from whichever manufacturer.
Yes. I keep posting I expect WN to order 200 -7 MAXs.
It won't be runway requirements that are adjusted, it will be maximum tailwind. WN has a fractionally higher tailwind allowance (15 kts vs. 10 kts for other airlines per the Burbank thread). So yes, where the runway performance is required, WN will fly the -7. But other airlines will fly the A220 at a lower cost per passenger. To compete, WN needs the -8 (or -10, I'm not a fan of the -9 as it doesn't cut costs as well as the -10 as the gauge difference between -8 and -10 is small).
So it won't be zero. But Oakland? They have a LONG runway. 10,520 Ft, so short field doesn't apply.
I see the long thin going to the A220. Yes, I know WN won't buy that frame, but the cost per flight is lower which will allow DL, B6, and "Moxie" (yes, they will change their name) to make the runs. I personally am hoping for far more California to Florida flights.
The fact that IAH, BUR, SNA, and MDW have short runways is interesting and will create demand for short field performance, but not per se the -7 MAX. As I noted, I expect for about 200 737-7 MAXes to be delivered toWN. But why wouldn't CFM and Boeing develop better shortfield performance for the -8 MAX a la A320 SHARP kit? I'm in aerospace R&D, *never* assume your competition stays stagnant. The CMC PIPs to the LEAP engines will shift the 737 gauge upward. That is just the nature of PIPs (they cut costs for larger/heavier models of an aircraft line more than the smaller models compressing the cost per flight difference). With so little demand for the -7 MAX, the lease terms are poor which scares other airlines away. They will demand a short field kit for the -8 MAX. Perhaps we will see standardization of the -10 MAX's landing gear for all -8/-9/-10 MAXes (yes, excluding the -7, there won't be enough sold for a gear recertification payback)?
I can recall when the 73G was WN's largest aircraft.
oh wait, it wasn't that long ago.
78M: 25https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Sou ... rlines.htm
The trend is definitely toward larger airframes.
I do not say zero -7 MAXes. But I expect most 73Gs to be replaced by -10 MAXes actually...
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.