VC10er wrote:Polot wrote:VC10er wrote:I have a typo in my post!
I meant to say/ask:
Would United create a sub-variant of the 789MAX with the new lie-flat F cabin if the -10 doesn’t arrive?
With only 5’ of difference wouldn’t only be losing 2 rows of Y or reduce Y and add one (2 seats) in First?
Last, would the MAX-9’s range increase vs the slightly heavier-10?
Thx
The max 9 and 10 are too close in size for that to be worthwhile. The -10 is (eventually) coming- the certification deadline was extended in the government funding bill signed in December. And while the Max 9 will have slightly more range the -10 can easily fly anywhere within the continental US no problem. UA will have the XLR for longer routes.
THANK YOU. Perhaps the weight differences are so small it won’t make much difference.
Will the 737MAX-10 with the F cabin lie-flat seats be heavier, lighter or almost the same weight as the -9?
I don’t know if the final seat count F is 12 (or 16) of lie-flat mini suites with one pax per-seat will lighten the air-craft?
Does the lie-flat seat and its structure put back more weight with 1 pax in each…vs rows of Y and plus passengers?
I have no clue if 2 pax in two flat suites is = 12 pax in 2 rows Y seats?
The simplest way to think about this: Will 12 or 16 First Class lie-flat suites save weight, add weight or basically net about the same as in a regular configuration?
If the answer is yes (on a MAX-10), would that sub-fleet of lie-flat 737MAX-10, be lighter and add a bit of range???
Vs the rest of the MAX-10 without a lie-flat F cabin…
THX!
While firm numbers haven't been published yet, the MAX10 is probably a bit heavier than it *should* be for a 5' 4" stretch. it also gives back some of it per-seat efficiency gain due to COG issues -- the 10's stretch is mostly in front of the wing to avoid tail strike issues. There was once talk about moving the engines back a couple of inches to help recover some of this COG loss -- not sure whether that happened.
A 64" stretch gives 2 or 3 more rows of E seats or 1 row of First and a row of E+ or Y. The Y count is a matter of E+ to E ratio changing throughout the cabin. They could go with a much smaller E+ cabin and squeeze in that 3rd row.
A 2-row E increase yields a 6.7% increase in capacity. 3-row E increase yields a 10% increase in seating capacity. This is large enough to make a difference over a large fleet, hence the "demand" from airlines for it over the MAX9 to be more competitive with the A321.
However, as stated above, the per-seat economics (cost) only marginally improve -- less-so than would typically be expected of a simple stretch. UA's play with the MAX10 is about revenue maximization -- and must less so about per-seat cost. Some ANet expert (I forget who) once posted a chart showing the relatively small difference in CASM between 9/10.
When empty, a lay-flat configured MAX10 is probably slightly heavier than it's non-layflat peer. Full of passengers, the non-layflat is obviously heavier -- it seats more. For the same pax load, they're probably about the same. The bigger problem I see for the MAX10 is that the lay flats are in the wrong area of the plan for COG reasons. When the back of the plane isn't full to counter-balance, these will probably burn 1-2% more trip fuel due to suboptimal COG than it "should".
On the other hand, a MAX10 is essentially the same size as the 757 and will burn 25-30% less fuel over the same mission. Huge savings.
On short segments, the MAX10 ought to burn a little bit less fuel than a A321neo in UA's config.
On long missions, the A321neo ought to burn a couple percent less. However, as UA is not configuring the regular neo's with a belly tank, the MAX10 should have ~300nm more range. (Ignoring the XLR which is a different animal).
Exciting times ahead for UA flyers. The new planes are comfortable and efficent.
