What the hell people expect the CEO to say?
«Dear Airbus, your competitor become fragile with the MAX problem, so give us a bad A320neo proposal»

He said exactly what I would say.
No, Max is on the table (even if not), Boeing is a great company that make great airplanes blablabla, we want good proposals, both need to fight to win our order

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'll admit to not being up to speed on EU airlines. Is LH a publicly held company? If so I'd be irritated if I were a shareholder and I found out Boeing offered LH the 737 at a 75% discount and they went with a more expensive A320.

I think there are significant difference between the NEO and MAX for LH, that probably would force Boeing to do steep discounts on the MAX. They seem to be in the areas of capacity, range, stability, commonality, cargo capability, cabin space, engine choice and efficiency.

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Boeing could maybe buy back LH Airbus NB's. and replace them with MAX's. It worked at Start Alliance Partners Air Canada and United.

Do share with the class, what Airbuses has Boeing bought back from AC and UA?

You are probably right. There could be a significant number of A220's for regional services though. They'll lease a few this summer.

But what about the cargo containers?!?!?!?!?

So you are of the opinion that for example a 787 or A330 should be loaded without containers? Advantage of hand loading?

The 737 and the A320 family is one size above a A220, CRJ, E-jet, ERJ. The argument that you are pushing, that because the smallest narrow bodies do not offer containerized loading, containerized loading provides no advantage in the next size above, is at least ridiculous.

mjoelnir wrote:

keesje wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The bad thing with this thread is, that people can keep dreaming for a year about LH buying the MAX, with endless posts how nice that would be. IMO all this posters will have to swallow that LH will buy more A320neo family frames in about a year.

You are probably right. There could be a significant number of A220's for regional services though. They'll lease a few this summer.

The only thing the 737, A320 and A220 have in common, is that all of them are titled narrow bodies. The A320 competes against the 737, the A220 against the E-jets, E2-jets, CRJ and ERJ.
Two completely different set of requirements.

The A220 very much competes with the A320 family and 737 family. The LH group operates something like 80+ A319s. Replacement will be between A220/E2 (direct) and A320/737 (growth). The A220 is competing for the same replacement money as the A320/737.

Everyone here wants Airbus to launch a A220-500, which is the same size as the A320. Airlines know a A220-500 is an eventual possibility. Airbus’s possible future offerings will also be back of everyone’s mind as they navigate through orders and strategic plans.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think there are significant difference between the NEO and MAX for LH, that probably would force Boeing to do steep discounts on the MAX. They seem to be in the areas of capacity, range, stability, commonality, cargo capability, cabin space, engine choice and efficiency.

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Boeing could maybe buy back LH Airbus NB's. and replace them with MAX's. It worked at Start Alliance Partners Air Canada and United.

Do share with the class, what Airbuses has Boeing bought back from AC and UA?

You are probably right. There could be a significant number of A220's for regional services though. They'll lease a few this summer.

But what about the cargo containers?!?!?!?!?

So you are of the opinion that for example a 787 or A330 should be loaded without containers? Advantage of hand loading?

The 737 and the A320 family is one size above a A220, CRJ, E-jet, ERJ. The argument that you are pushing, that because the smallest narrow bodies do not offer containerized loading, containerized loading provides no advantage in the next size above, is at least ridiculous.

Where is this sudden narrative that the A220 is a small plane suddenly coming from? Why are you lumping it together with the CRJ and ERJ? The A223 is far closer to the A320/737 than those planes. LX’s A223s seat more than their A319s.

It should be obvious I’m not serious about the cargo thing, and just pointing out Keesje’s standard sudden selective concern about cargo containers as if he is the only one who knows the 737 can’t be containerized and that airlines who selected the 737 if they were a A320 operator are being taken for a ride. I doubt cargo containerization ability is as high on LH’s list as Keesje’s. I said before this order is Airbus’s to lose. That is because of commonality with the existing large A320 fleet, not cargo containers. LH can easily deal with and survive bulk loading.

Polot wrote:

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Of course there is.
- capacity, range the MAX has nothing comparable to a A321LR. Sales confirm.
- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.
- cargo capability.. do really we have to discuss again?
- engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) There is choice & they choose 2 different engines on the CEO's too.
- efficiency. Why do you think Boeing went all out to put as big fans on the MAX as possible? The NEO's versions have significantly better BPR, sfc..

In the previouis post you can see LH is using a combination of containers/pallets & bulk.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1418843&start=100#p21229427
The 737 just doesn't have AKH option & down playing that makes no sense.
Any future Boeing NSA or NMA will have the option too, until then, the party line is to dismiss.

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Of course there is.
- capacity, range the MAX has nothing comparable to a A321LR. Sales confirm.

This is to replace A319 and CRJ apparently. I doubt LH are looking at 100 A321LRs for that.

- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.

Significant difference? I say no. And again this is for regional/European use.

- cargo capability.. do really we have to discuss again?

Cargo capacity is about the same, just how they are loaded.

- engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) There is choice & they choose 2 different engines on the CEO's too.

So you admit engine are probably not a major concern for LH and their in house MRO.

- efficiency. Why do you think Boeing went all out to put as big fans on the MAX as possible? The NEO's versions have significantly better BPR, sfc..

Per seat costs are not significantly different. Sales confirm.

Polot wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

keesje wrote:

You are probably right. There could be a significant number of A220's for regional services though. They'll lease a few this summer.

The only thing the 737, A320 and A220 have in common, is that all of them are titled narrow bodies. The A320 competes against the 737, the A220 against the E-jets, E2-jets, CRJ and ERJ.
Two completely different set of requirements.

The A220 very much competes with the A320 family and 737 family. The LH group operates something like 80+ A319s. Replacement will be between A220/E2 (direct) and A320/737 (growth). The A220 is competing for the same replacement money as the A320/737.

Everyone here wants Airbus to launch a A220-500, which is the same size as the A320. Airlines know a A220-500 is an eventual possibility. Airbus’s possible future offerings will also be back of everyone’s mind as they navigate through orders and strategic plans.

mjoelnir wrote:

Polot wrote:

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.


Do share with the class, what Airbuses has Boeing bought back from AC and UA?


But what about the cargo containers?!?!?!?!?

So you are of the opinion that for example a 787 or A330 should be loaded without containers? Advantage of hand loading?

The 737 and the A320 family is one size above a A220, CRJ, E-jet, ERJ. The argument that you are pushing, that because the smallest narrow bodies do not offer containerized loading, containerized loading provides no advantage in the next size above, is at least ridiculous.

Where is this sudden narrative that the A220 is a small plane suddenly coming from? Why are you lumping it together with the CRJ and ERJ? The A223 is far closer to the A320/737 than those planes. LX’s A223s seat more than their A319s.

It should be obvious I’m not serious about the cargo thing, and just pointing out Keesje’s standard sudden selective concern about cargo containers as if he is the only one who knows the 737 can’t be containerized and that airlines who selected the 737 if they were a A320 operator are being taken for a ride. I doubt cargo containerization ability is as high on LH’s list as Keesje’s. I said before this order is Airbus’s to lose. That is because of commonality with the existing large A320 fleet, not cargo containers. LH can easily deal with and survive bulk loading.

The A319 as well as the 737-7 are out apart from a few special cases. So if you compare size you have to go A220-300 against A320 and that is the next step up.

Why do I bundle the A220 with the E-2, CRJ and ERJ? because of the usage as regional frames. There has the size also gone up and the smaller frames drop out comparable to the 737-7 and A319 dropping out of the mainline use.

You are coming again with denying the bulk loading argument. Nobody is using bulk loading on the bigger frames and LH has as a company moved over to containers for narrow bodies a while ago. You may hum and haw, but do not expect LH to hire the additional crew needed for bulk loading frames of the size of the A320 and A321.

mjoelnir wrote:

The bad thing with this thread is, that people can keep dreaming for a year about LH buying the MAX, with endless posts how nice that would be. IMO all this posters will have to swallow that LH will buy more A320neo family frames in about a year.

Agree 100 % !! There is no really serious reason for Lufthansa suddenly to change the manufacturer!

AirbusOnly wrote:

Agree 100 % !! There is no really serious reason for Lufthansa suddenly to change the manufacturer!

There is, what if Boeing comes with a better offer?

If CRJ are to be replaced too, I would guess a combination of A220s and A320s is most likely. Although I see no reason to exclude Boeing E2's from making a chance.


Even CRJ 900s have less than 100 seats.

AirbusOnly wrote:

Agree 100 % !! There is no really serious reason for Lufthansa suddenly to change the manufacturer!

Airbus and Boeing will continue to manufacture aircraft for the LH group.

TTailedTiger wrote:

If so I'd be irritated if I were a shareholder and I found out Boeing offered LH the 737 at a 75% discount and they went with a more expensive A320.

Or you could accept that the LH Board knows damn well how to run a profitable airline and keep pocketing the dividends while the share price rises.

If they overlooked MAX with 75% discount and purchased A320neos instead, they'd have a very good reason. Even if the A320 worked out more expensive, they could just say they didn't believe the flying public had confidence in the MAX. As a shareholder, you'd have no comeback.

Don't get carried away with the A versus B chattering. If it is really a replacement for jets in the 100 seats range, there is no need to discuss A320NEO or 737MAX. These jets are hugely oversized and overweight for what LH is looking at. Please start a separate thread on A320NEO versus 737MAX.

KPDX wrote:

Does anyone actually think this is going any other direction but to top up on NEOs?

You and others still haven't learned that what seems to be so sure is not always a sure bet. That the real world of business is not that one that is built on A-net and that there are many complex factors that go into the decision making.

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Of course there is.
- capacity, range the MAX has nothing comparable to a A321LR. Sales confirm.
- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.
- cargo capability.. do really we have to discuss again?
- engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) There is choice & they choose 2 different engines on the CEO's too.
- efficiency. Why do you think Boeing went all out to put as big fans on the MAX as possible? The NEO's versions have significantly better BPR, sfc..

In the previouis post you can see LH is using a combination of containers/pallets & bulk.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1418843&start=100#p21229427
The 737 just doesn't have AKH option & down playing that makes no sense.
Any future Boeing NSA or NMA will have the option too, until then, the party line is to dismiss.

I'm pretty sure the current information is that the NMA will not have containerized loading as it wouldn't allow for the optimal design of the fuselage cross section. I can't find the article but I do know that containers add more weight in the containers themselves and as well as the roller system inside the aircraft. It depends on each airline and how they plan to use the said plane. If i do recall some airlines ordered the A320 with out the container loading system. Basically my point is i wouldn't rule out any plane because it has bulk loading.

Polot wrote:

keesje wrote:

- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.

Significant difference? I say no. And again this is for regional/European use.
[quote]

Having flown both extensively I say the 737 is significantly more cramped and for a tall guy like myself the window belt is in ridiculously low position.

fjhc wrote:

Lufthansa's management, like any airline's management, will assess all the options. This will include the MAX when looking at aircraft in that size category.

That being said, I think the NEO will have the upper hand, purely from an operational point of view. Commonality with the existing fleet (across the board, with A320s at SN, OS, LX, EW) is a big bonus operationally. However, if Boeing can offer MAXs for a good enough price, then that advantage is offset. Airbus and Boeing both know this, and so will price accordingly.

LH is the one carrier i think that you can say that not having a common fleet is a good thing for them, because of LH technik. this is the company with the a330, 787, a350, 777, 748, and a380 either delivered or on order.

bond787 wrote:

Standard negotiating tactic to get a better price from Airbus.

Or Boeing to sell frames at a virtual loss to get much boosted confidence order.

Actually, I can very much imagine see LH getting the MAX. I can imagine that LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies, and with the upcoming arrivals of the 777-9 and 787-9, they'd need a narrowbody Boeing as a feeder for pilots to the widebodies, and the MAX could be that aircraft.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Actually, I can very much imagine see LH getting the MAX. I can imagine that LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies, and with the upcoming arrivals of the 777-9 and 787-9, they'd need a narrowbody Boeing as a feeder for pilots to the widebodies, and the MAX could be that aircraft.

Except there is no commonality between the 737 MAX and the 777-9. Your post makes absolutely no sense.

bgm wrote:

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Actually, I can very much imagine see LH getting the MAX. I can imagine that LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies, and with the upcoming arrivals of the 777-9 and 787-9, they'd need a narrowbody Boeing as a feeder for pilots to the widebodies, and the MAX could be that aircraft.

Except there is no commonality between the 737 MAX and the 777-9. Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Their cockpits are similar.




Plus, transitioning to a 777 from a 737 cockpit is much easier than from an Airbus cockpit.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

bgm wrote:

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Actually, I can very much imagine see LH getting the MAX. I can imagine that LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies, and with the upcoming arrivals of the 777-9 and 787-9, they'd need a narrowbody Boeing as a feeder for pilots to the widebodies, and the MAX could be that aircraft.

Except there is no commonality between the 737 MAX and the 777-9. Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Their cockpits are similar.




Plus, transitioning to a 777 from a 737 cockpit is much easier than from an Airbus cockpit.

A 737MAX type rated pilot would have to go through the exact same training that an A320 type rated pilot would to fly the 779. Just because the cockpit layouts have a similarity does not mean that the pilot is type rated for both.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Actually, I can very much imagine see LH getting the MAX. I can imagine that LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies, and with the upcoming arrivals of the 777-9 and 787-9, they'd need a narrowbody Boeing as a feeder for pilots to the widebodies, and the MAX could be that aircraft.

......

Their cockpits are similar.

This is a good chance for you to step back graciously.
aside from the technical details (such as all future 777X LH pilots will need the full regimen of training, regardless of prior experience):

many current LH Airbus pilot previously flew.... Boeings (like 737's)
their cockpits really look nothing alike beyond both pilots facing forward with glass in front of them.....

Do tell - why do you imagine that "LH doesn't like switching pilots from Airbus narrowbodies to Boeing widebodies" exactly?

Polot wrote:

- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.

Significant difference? I say no. And again this is for regional/European use.

Personal opinion: not being particurarly tall (190cm; I guess thats 6'3) nor fat, I tend to book flights with carriers that use neo family on intra-European flights just because of that difference. I really did not enjoy being seated on a middle 737 seat. The fact that Boeing gets away with that outside Asia really amazes me.

arvo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Polot wrote:

There is no significant difference between the NEO and MAX on capacity, range, cabin space, cargo capability engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) or efficiency.

Of course there is.
- capacity, range the MAX has nothing comparable to a A321LR. Sales confirm.
- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.
- cargo capability.. do really we have to discuss again?
- engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) There is choice & they choose 2 different engines on the CEO's too.
- efficiency. Why do you think Boeing went all out to put as big fans on the MAX as possible? The NEO's versions have significantly better BPR, sfc..

In the previouis post you can see LH is using a combination of containers/pallets & bulk.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1418843&start=100#p21229427
The 737 just doesn't have AKH option & down playing that makes no sense.
Any future Boeing NSA or NMA will have the option too, until then, the party line is to dismiss.

I'm pretty sure the current information is that the NMA will not have containerized loading as it wouldn't allow for the optimal design of the fuselage cross section. I can't find the article but I do know that containers add more weight in the containers themselves and as well as the roller system inside the aircraft. It depends on each airline and how they plan to use the said plane. If i do recall some airlines ordered the A320 with out the container loading system. Basically my point is i wouldn't rule out any plane because it has bulk loading.

Are you talking about the NMA or the NSA? Surely the NMA is meant to partly replace the 767, or so we are repeatedly told here, and the 767 is certainly container-capable and has been used that way for decades.

Why would LH want to replace their CRJ-900s? They are very good little jets for thin routes,esp. in the winter and for frequency..They have good range, they're lightweight which means cheaper landing/takeoff fees and the new Atmosphere cabin provided by Bombardier makes for a nice on-board experience..Besides are they that old ? Unless they go for E-jets, i dont think the A220-100 would cost them cheaper to run..It's a lot heavier..If they go for the A220-300 which can carry up to 160pax or 145 like the LX config what will happen to the 100-pax category?

I dont understand, why are people looking for the "A223" that carries about 160, when the A320 does it already? Please excuse my ignorance.

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Could this be a favour to Boeing to bring back some confidence after all this bad PR?

That was my thought for a moment as well. But why would LH of all companies do that?

I believe choosing a plane for a flag carrier is not quiet as easy as choosing between Pepsi or Coke.
However as forum rules don't allow politics to be discussed I believe nobody here will be able to give you an answer to that question.

Ronaldo747 wrote:

According to German media, this particular order is a replacement order for A319s and CRJs, A220s and Embraer-Jets are also being considered.

in german only http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/untern ... 59882.html

IMHO, In this case this is an order for A220s to lose.

Yes because the LH group operates the E-Jets only, and one of their airlines didn't by any chance launch the A220 which they love now. If this is intended to replace some CR9s and E-Jets along with the A319 it's obviously A220 territory. Upgauge most of the routes the regionals fly to and replace them with the 221, replace the A319 with the 223 which has literally the same capacity. If they wanna completely replace them, it's gonna be a mixed order. There's simply no way they choose the E2 over the A220 to replace the A319s, and the A319neo is at a disadvantage on shorter routes.

Etheereal wrote:

I dont understand, why are people looking for the "A223" that carries about 160, when the A320 does it already? Please excuse my ignorance.

Because the 223 carries 160 people with 28'' of pitch. With that kind of pitch the A320neos can carry 186 people. If you see how Swiss has its A220s configured it'll give you a good idea of how LH would configure them if they do order them. Also LH's A320neos are equipped with 180 seats, and the A319s (the closest thing in terms of lower capacity) just 138. The 223 can carry 145 in a 30'' pitch, which for the routes it would most likely operate (3 hours at most) is good enough.

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

Because of an issue that will be resolved well before any airframe that would be ordered would even be in pre-production?

mxaxai wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Ronaldo747 wrote:

According to German media, this particular order is a replacement order for A319s and CRJs, A220s and Embraer-Jets are also being considered.

in german only http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/untern ... 59882.html

IMHO, In this case this is an order for A220s to lose.

Yes because the LH group operates the E-Jets only, and one of their airlines didn't by any chance launch the A220 which they love now. If this is intended to replace some CR9s and E-Jets along with the A319 it's obviously A220 territory. Upgauge most of the routes the regionals fly to and replace them with the 221, replace the A319 with the 223 which has literally the same capacity. If they wanna completely replace them, it's gonna be a mixed order. There's simply no way they choose the E2 over the A220 to replace the A319s, and the A319neo is at a disadvantage on shorter routes.

If they see the future to be closer to A319 territory, the A220-300 should be preferable. But if they're really looking at the lower end of the market, as a CRJ and E-190 replacement, the E2 family is decidedly better. The E2-175 is just much smaller, and lighter, than the A220-100. Unless they do something unexpected like order the MRJ as a CRJ replacement.

As much as I'd love to see them go for the MRJ I doubt that. However I have to say I believe it'll have an advantage over the E175 E2 on the hour-long flights tge CRJs and ERJs operate on today. Wasn't that part of the reason airlines keep ordering the E1 over it? Same thing that plagues the A319neo and MAX 7?

caverunner17 wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

Because of an issue that will be resolved well before any airframe that would be ordered would even be in pre-production?

hmmm .. maybe.
With all the revelations that boils up I'm not so sure.

chiad wrote:

caverunner17 wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

Because of an issue that will be resolved well before any airframe that would be ordered would even be in pre-production?

hmmm .. maybe.
With all the revelations that boils up I'm not so sure.

No, not "maybe".

My guess is that the earliest available slots would be the middle of 2020 or 2021. You have to be crazy to think that this grounding is going to last 12+ months. Not when there's billions of dollars of aircraft that are being built each month. I'd be shocked if this isn't resolved by summer, at the latest.

The pessimism is beyond stupid at this point.

marcogr12 wrote:

Why would LH want to replace their CRJ-900s? They are very good little jets for thin routes,esp. in the winter and for frequency..They have good range, they're lightweight which means cheaper landing/takeoff fees and the new Atmosphere cabin provided by Bombardier makes for a nice on-board experience..Besides are they that old ? Unless they go for E-jets, i dont think the A220-100 would cost them cheaper to run..It's a lot heavier..If they go for the A220-300 which can carry up to 160pax or 145 like the LX config what will happen to the 100-pax category?

The 100 seater will disappear in the LH fleet. If needed some will be wet leased from other operators like Zeitfracht. Current consensus is that anything smaller than an E190 has no future to be operated by an airlne in the LH group.

seahawk wrote:

marcogr12 wrote:

Why would LH want to replace their CRJ-900s? They are very good little jets for thin routes,esp. in the winter and for frequency..They have good range, they're lightweight which means cheaper landing/takeoff fees and the new Atmosphere cabin provided by Bombardier makes for a nice on-board experience..Besides are they that old ? Unless they go for E-jets, i dont think the A220-100 would cost them cheaper to run..It's a lot heavier..If they go for the A220-300 which can carry up to 160pax or 145 like the LX config what will happen to the 100-pax category?

The 100 seater will disappear in the LH fleet. If needed some will be wet leased from other operators like Zeitfracht. Current consensus is that anything smaller than an E190 has no future to be operated by an airlne in the LH group.

Eurowings operated by WDL (Zeitfracht)

WDL is getting Ejets the first ones are already delivered

caverunner17 wrote:

My guess is that the earliest available slots would be the middle of 2020 or 2021. You have to be crazy to think that this grounding is going to last 12+ months. Not when there's billions of dollars of aircraft that are being built each month. I'd be shocked if this isn't resolved by summer, at the latest.

But the reason not to order is not that, you don't know what the operational compromises might be, there is a high risk that pilot training will change increasing pilot costs, there's even some risk that the physical characteristics of the plane may change increasing operating costs. Of course those risks could be written into the contracts, but then you have the additional cost of writing those contracts, without any real benefit unless you're getting a big discount. There is no reason for boeing to offer a big discount if the problem is easily solved.

Delaying a decision until all of that is clear would be sensible and cheaper, unless the cost of the delay increases the cost of the alternative (perhaps simply by pushing deliveries later)

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

I do not doubt that there will be a recovery for the Max. I also think that the first Airline to order post the grounding (no will buy during the grounding) will get a lot of attention in the media - and a hell of a good deal.

[oquote="StTim"]

lightsaber wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

I do not doubt that there will be a recovery for the Max. I also think that the first Airline to order post the grounding (no will buy during the grounding) will get a lot of attention in the media - and a hell of a good deal.[/quote]
AF/KL have still a decision to make...

marcelh wrote:

StTim wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

I do not doubt that there will be a recovery for the Max. I also think that the first Airline to order post the grounding (no will buy during the grounding) will get a lot of attention in the media - and a hell of a good deal.

AF/KL have still a decision to make...

The next airline to order a 737MAX II™ will not be European.
Or have you all forgotten the huge song-and-dance Boeing made about Bombardier allegedly selling the C-series at less than cost?
There will no 737 MAX dumping in Europe.

My initial reaction was to favor a US carrier. (MAGA etc)

However, if Boeing are going to kick start their order book with a fire sale, they would be better off with several smaller orders, which could come from anywhere.

Of course, they will not be presented as small orders; the headlines will read "Air Global order 100 Max's", but the reality will be 20 orders plus 80 options.
The 20 confirmed orders will be at a very good price; the 80 "options" at some other figure, wrapped up with an NDA.

So, not LH, and not AF/KL either.

A new type rating wouldn’t be an issue for LH as they don’t operate any other 737. So the risk is mitigateable.

However, people seem to forget that they are ordering for the mid 20s and not for next year. So they’re replacing a lot of A319s and CRJs (and maybe include a few A320s needed to be replaced). Altogether, maybe 150planes. So I expect a mix of E2s (190/195), a220s, Max-8s and 320s. I could see OS going E2+Max, but still there’s a huge question mark on the Max, because I reckon less than 50-80 don’t make any sense of ordering.

Andy33 wrote:

arvo wrote:

keesje wrote:

Of course there is.
- capacity, range the MAX has nothing comparable to a A321LR. Sales confirm.
- cabin space 17 inch seats combined with narrow aisles aren't ideal for 6-7 hr flights.
- cargo capability.. do really we have to discuss again?
- engine choice (LH has LEAP As on order) There is choice & they choose 2 different engines on the CEO's too.
- efficiency. Why do you think Boeing went all out to put as big fans on the MAX as possible? The NEO's versions have significantly better BPR, sfc..

In the previouis post you can see LH is using a combination of containers/pallets & bulk.
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1418843&start=100#p21229427
The 737 just doesn't have AKH option & down playing that makes no sense.
Any future Boeing NSA or NMA will have the option too, until then, the party line is to dismiss.

I'm pretty sure the current information is that the NMA will not have containerized loading as it wouldn't allow for the optimal design of the fuselage cross section. I can't find the article but I do know that containers add more weight in the containers themselves and as well as the roller system inside the aircraft. It depends on each airline and how they plan to use the said plane. If i do recall some airlines ordered the A320 with out the container loading system. Basically my point is i wouldn't rule out any plane because it has bulk loading.

Are you talking about the NMA or the NSA? Surely the NMA is meant to partly replace the 767, or so we are repeatedly told here, and the 767 is certainly container-capable and has been used that way for decades.

The NMA or Middle market airplane. they where said to be looking at a hybrid tube more oval shaped with a larger cabin and smaller hold to keep weight down and improve economics.

This article from Flightglobal.com back in October 2018 discusses this. Randy Tinseth is quoted as saying the following:

“The airplane is going to carry cargo, but it's not going to be a widebody aircraft the way you think about it,” he says. “A widebody has a structure that's built to carry those big containers, and there is a cost associated with that, and it's not insignificant. We ask our customers whether they want to carry those big containers or have better economics through saving weight. It's pretty close to unanimous that they want the most efficient aircraft.”

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... is-453005/

Brett

lightsaber wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

Spoken like a true technocrat.

The cultural, behavioural, and trust aspects of the safety debacle that has been the MAX execution will take years to unfold

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

StTim wrote:

It will be a brave airline that orders the MAX at the moment.

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

Spoken like a true technocrat.

The cultural, behavioural, and trust aspects of the safety debacle that has been the MAX execution will take years to unfold

Rgds

yes. The plane could become secure, but which airline will put it first in operation... And bigger question. How passengers will be convinced to fly it? IMHO Boeing should play the re-certification card wasting some thousand hours and some month to convince everyone that the plane is safe. Hoping that nothing would happen meanwhile.

Kikko19 wrote:

astuteman wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

It will be an airline that receives a good deal. MAX operations and deliveries will be normal in six months. This is an identifiable issue with a recovery path.

Lightsaber

Spoken like a true technocrat.

The cultural, behavioural, and trust aspects of the safety debacle that has been the MAX execution will take years to unfold

Rgds

yes. The plane could become secure, but which airline will put it first in operation... And bigger question. How passengers will be convinced to fly it? IMHO Boeing should play the re-certification card wasting some thousand hours and some month to convince everyone that the plane is safe. Hoping that nothing would happen meanwhile.

Probably just re branding it. The average Joe cannot tell between an NG and a MAX anyways.

Veigar wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

astuteman wrote:

Spoken like a true technocrat.

The cultural, behavioural, and trust aspects of the safety debacle that has been the MAX execution will take years to unfold

Rgds

yes. The plane could become secure, but which airline will put it first in operation... And bigger question. How passengers will be convinced to fly it? IMHO Boeing should play the re-certification card wasting some thousand hours and some month to convince everyone that the plane is safe. Hoping that nothing would happen meanwhile.

Probably just re branding it. The average Joe cannot tell between an NG and a MAX anyways.

it could work unless someone make a fuss in the social media about it... Then it will look as a way to fool the public.
The devil's advocate