737-MAX 9 and 737-MAX 10 Only Order totals

FiscAutTecGarte · Thu Jun 01, 2023 9:08 pm

Folks,

When recording orders, Boeing does not list model breakdowns for the MAX family.

737-MAX7 is somewhere around 400-450. with few customers, it's easy to add them up and get a ball park figure.
737-MAX10 is somewhere above 1000 orders. lot of interest following this frame, so some folks add them up and give us this ball park figure.
737-MAX9 I have no idea (~350), and it's clouded by some 9 orders being upsized to the 10 and downsized to the 8.
737-MAX8 I understand at least half or more of the approx 5350 Maxes ordered.

My figures are off obviously. But what I'm really trying to figure out is how many MAX 9 and MAX 10 have been ordered. Just those two family members at the upper end.

frmrCapCadet · Fri Jun 02, 2023 11:57 am

This may be somewhat unknowable in that airlines can order, and up to a certain date, can then specify which model they want. I think this is without penalty?? Also A and B are pretty flexible on these sorts of final changes all up and down their line. Given airlines need to order planes more than 5 years into the (unknown) future it is almost a necessity. In effect an airline says to Airbus or Boeing, we are going to order X dollars worth of your planes, and that will give you Y dollars of profit.

texl1649 · Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:12 pm

If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

sldispatcher · Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:46 pm

texl1649 wrote:
If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

Is there a list of airports where the Max9 or Max 10 are banned from operating due to ‘poor field performance’?

jfk777 · Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:51 pm

Most MAX 7 are for Southwest, they need a 737-700 replacement. The MAX 10 just got juice from 150 Ryannair order. Delta is buying 100 MAX 9 or 10's.

Polot · Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:11 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
This may be somewhat unknowable in that airlines can order, and up to a certain date, can then specify which model they want. I think this is without penalty?? Also A and B are pretty flexible on these sorts of final changes all up and down their line. Given airlines need to order planes more than 5 years into the (unknown) future it is almost a necessity. In effect an airline says to Airbus or Boeing, we are going to order X dollars worth of your planes, and that will give you Y dollars of profit.

It is typically around 18 months lead time required. Often times the prices of each variant are pre negotiated in the contract. So airline will pay X for Max 7, Y for Max 8, Z for Max 9 etc. The airline let’s Boeing know their initial plans and if they want to make any changes just have to let them know in time.

flyaa757 · Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:14 pm

I believe there are only 228 Firm 73-9 orders, of which 169 have been delivered.

Additional firmings likely from COPA, United, Alaska, Correndon. Rumors of Aerolineas Argentinas as well.

MIflyer12 · Fri Jun 02, 2023 3:57 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

Is there a list of airports where the Max9 or Max 10 are banned from operating due to ‘poor field performance’?

IMHO, 10s won't be banned. Carriers will just need to operate at weights where takeoff performance has suitable margins for field and conditions, no different from 7M9s or anything else.

MileHFL400 · Fri Jun 02, 2023 4:40 pm

texl1649 wrote:
If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

My understanding is the 10 will have comparable or better field performance than the 9. I stand to be corrected.

FiscAutTecGarte · Sat Jun 03, 2023 9:11 pm

flyaa757 wrote:
I believe there are only 228 Firm 73-9 orders, of which 169 have been delivered.

Additional firmings likely from COPA, United, Alaska, Correndon. Rumors of Aerolineas Argentinas as well.

I know at some point the number was around 300, but a series of upsizes to MAX10 and downsizes to MAX8 have occured since.
So, I wouldn't be too far off to say something like 250 9s, and 1200 10s... for 1450 for MAX family above the 8.

Ulitmately, I'm looking to total all A321 versions, all 737-900/9 versions and the 737-10 to get an overall feel for how many single aisle planes with a nominal 200+ pax single class capacity (yeah, I know the early 900s could only do 189 due to exits... but that's only 52 planes) have been ordered in the the last 25-28 years. (I suppose I could add the 258 757s ordered from 1996 to that too) The MAX breakdown was the obstacle to arriving at a balk park figure.

flyaa757 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 3:04 am

That figure is excluding flydubai, which technically has 72 on order but took only 3 -9s and has since switched completely to -8s.

jbs2886 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:00 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:
I believe there are only 228 Firm 73-9 orders, of which 169 have been delivered.

Additional firmings likely from COPA, United, Alaska, Correndon. Rumors of Aerolineas Argentinas as well.

I know at some point the number was around 300, but a series of upsizes to MAX10 and downsizes to MAX8 have occured since.
So, I wouldn't be too far off to say something like 250 9s, and 1200 10s... for 1450 for MAX family above the 8.

Ulitmately, I'm looking to total all A321 versions, all 737-900/9 versions and the 737-10 to get an overall feel for how many single aisle planes with a nominal 200+ pax single class capacity (yeah, I know the early 900s could only do 189 due to exits... but that's only 52 planes) have been ordered in the the last 25-28 years. (I suppose I could add the 258 757s ordered from 1996 to that too) The MAX breakdown was the obstacle to arriving at a balk park figure.

Don’t ignore the 900ER. Over 500.

jbs2886 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:01 am

flyaa757 wrote:
That figure is excluding flydubai, which technically has 72 on order but took only 3 -9s and has since switched completely to -8s.

Source?

CRJ900 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 12:43 pm

I think Ryanair's order for 150 (+ 150) MAX 10 is a significant milestone for the larger MAX variants. With 228 seats, the expectation of the aircraft flying up to 8 flights a day with short ground stops and very high load factors plus being able to operate at large and small airports plus flying Canary islands flights from all over Europe - when FR is now convinced that the MAX 10 can do all this, other airlines with similar concepts will also see the MAX 10 as a viable aircraft for them too.

Sancho99504 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:17 pm

CRJ900 wrote:
I think Ryanair's order for 150 (+ 150) MAX 10 is a significant milestone for the larger MAX variants. With 228 seats, the expectation of the aircraft flying up to 8 flights a day with short ground stops and very high load factors plus being able to operate at large and small airports plus flying Canary islands flights from all over Europe - when FR is now convinced that the MAX 10 can do all this, other airlines with similar concepts will also see the MAX 10 as a viable aircraft for them too.

I expect the Max 10 to perform similarly to the Max 8 at lower fuel loads, sub 1,800nm routes. For FR, that's huge because a lot of their network is under that. The Max 10 has huge potential and if you don't need more than 1,800nm consistently, it's superior to the A321NEO.(My opinion only)

dennypayne · Sun Jun 04, 2023 7:17 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

Is there a list of airports where the Max9 or Max 10 are banned from operating due to ‘poor field performance’?

IMHO, 10s won't be banned. Carriers will just need to operate at weights where takeoff performance has suitable margins for field and conditions, no different from 7M9s or anything else.

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

ElroyJetson · Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:11 pm

Sancho99504 wrote:
CRJ900 wrote:
I think Ryanair's order for 150 (+ 150) MAX 10 is a significant milestone for the larger MAX variants. With 228 seats, the expectation of the aircraft flying up to 8 flights a day with short ground stops and very high load factors plus being able to operate at large and small airports plus flying Canary islands flights from all over Europe - when FR is now convinced that the MAX 10 can do all this, other airlines with similar concepts will also see the MAX 10 as a viable aircraft for them too.

I expect the Max 10 to perform similarly to the Max 8 at lower fuel loads, sub 1,800nm routes. For FR, that's huge because a lot of their network is under that. The Max 10 has huge potential and if you don't need more than 1,800nm consistently, it's superior to the A321NEO.(My opinion only)

I think it is pretty well established the MAX is more efficient on shorter sectors (those under 1500 nm) while the A320 Neo is more efficient on longer sectors. As I recall, the MAX performs better in climb while the Neo performs better in cruise. But any folks who have hard data would be welcome.

****EDIT**** I found a link to AirInsight numbers published from DOT data. In 2018 across all sectors the 737 MAX 8 had about a 2.1% fuel burn advantage over the A320 Neo. According to the DOT data the MAX 8 burned 9.65 per seat versus 9.86 per seat for the A320 Neo. You will note as fuel prices increased so did the MAX 8 advantage. This makes sense to me as the average sector across all MAX 8 and A320 Neo flights is probably under 1500nm.

Here is a link to the data. https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-numbers-max-vs-neo/

FiscAutTecGarte · Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:41 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:
I believe there are only 228 Firm 73-9 orders, of which 169 have been delivered.

Additional firmings likely from COPA, United, Alaska, Correndon. Rumors of Aerolineas Argentinas as well.

I know at some point the number was around 300, but a series of upsizes to MAX10 and downsizes to MAX8 have occured since.
So, I wouldn't be too far off to say something like 250 9s, and 1200 10s... for 1450 for MAX family above the 8.

Ulitmately, I'm looking to total all A321 versions, all 737-900/9 versions and the 737-10 to get an overall feel for how many single aisle planes with a nominal 200+ pax single class capacity (yeah, I know the early 900s could only do 189 due to exits... but that's only 52 planes) have been ordered in the the last 25-28 years. (I suppose I could add the 258 757s ordered from 1996 to that too) The MAX breakdown was the obstacle to arriving at a balk park figure.

Don’t ignore the 900ER. Over 500.

Clearly not... Here's is an approximation: (I want to make clear my numbers are summations of data pulled from Wikipedia pages for the A320, A320NEO, 737NG, 737MAX, & 757 Families, So admittedly not accurate to least significant digits, but at least orders of magnitude :blush:

).

Model Family Sales

A321-100 90 first delivered 1995
A321-200 1701
A321NLRXLR 4667
Total 6458

737-900 52 first delivered 1997 - some would argue this plane should not be counted becuase of the exit limit.
737-900ER 505
737-MAX9 250 wild estimate due to conversion activity
737-MAX10 1200 wild estimate due to conversion activity
757 258 orders '96 onward
Total 2265

Total of all: 8723

I'm kind of starting w/ 95/96/97 deliveries to just isolate larger NG and A321 planes. I purposely left out the MAX-8-200 as well.. it seats 197... I did include 757, but only added 258 to include it's orders from 96 onward. Just trying to illustrate demand for single aisle planes that could seat 200+ from 1996 on to look at 25-28 year demand. So my figures are suspect on the MAX side, but it still illustrates the market: It's a whole lot! (Will be interesting in Boeing's case how far they take the TWB and/or if they do anything between it and the 787-8 to fill that space.)

Strange this thread is turning into a discussion fuel economy of the MAX8 and 320, two planes that aren't important to the intent of this thread at all... Oh well...

MIflyer12 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 8:53 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:

****EDIT**** I found a link to AirInsight numbers published from DOT data. In 2018 across all sectors the 737 MAX 8 had about a 2.1% fuel burn advantage over the A320 Neo. According to the DOT data the MAX 8 burned 9.65 per seat versus 9.86 per seat for the A320 Neo. You will note as fuel prices increased so did the MAX 8 advantage. This makes sense to me as the average sector across all MAX 8 and A320 Neo flights is probably under 1500nm.

Here is a link to the data. https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-numbers-max-vs-neo/

Thanks for bringing some data to this - but these data need to be taken with some grains of salt. Fuel burn per seat needs to be normalized over carrier config. (Stage length, too, as noted by AirInsight.) NK puts 182 seats in a smaller 320neo; F9, is at 186. 7M8s: WN, 175; AA, 172; UA, 166.

There are now some pretty good size neo and MAX fleets among U.S. carriers. 2022 DOT data should be interesting.

All seat counts per planespotters.net for the respective carrier.

flyaa757 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:04 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:
That figure is excluding flydubai, which technically has 72 on order but took only 3 -9s and has since switched completely to -8s.

Source?

Boeing, press releases, Wikipedia

jbs2886 · Sun Jun 04, 2023 11:23 pm

flyaa757 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:
That figure is excluding flydubai, which technically has 72 on order but took only 3 -9s and has since switched completely to -8s.

Source?

Boeing, press releases, Wikipedia

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

Chemist · Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:14 am

I think it's also the case that for the A320 vs 737-8, the 737 has longer range. But for the A321 of course there are versions which will far exceed the longest 737 capabilities for range.

Sancho99504 · Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:46 pm

dennypayne wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:

Is there a list of airports where the Max9 or Max 10 are banned from operating due to ‘poor field performance’?

IMHO, 10s won't be banned. Carriers will just need to operate at weights where takeoff performance has suitable margins for field and conditions, no different from 7M9s or anything else.

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

Sancho99504 · Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:52 pm

Chemist wrote:
I think it's also the case that for the A320 vs 737-8, the 737 has longer range. But for the A321 of course there are versions which will far exceed the longest 737 capabilities for range.

The 738 and 7M8 have longer range than the A320 and A20N as the 737 carries a lot more fuel.

738- 26,020 litres
A320- 24,210

MrHMSH · Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:20 pm

Sancho99504 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

IMHO, 10s won't be banned. Carriers will just need to operate at weights where takeoff performance has suitable margins for field and conditions, no different from 7M9s or anything else.

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

Doesn't it just give similar performance as the MAX 9, because the MAX 10 is longer?

ikolkyo · Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:40 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

Doesn't it just give similar performance as the MAX 9, because the MAX 10 is longer?

It's only a 5ft stretch spread in-front and behind the wing.

MrHMSH · Wed Jun 07, 2023 4:48 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

Doesn't it just give similar performance as the MAX 9, because the MAX 10 is longer?

It's only a 5ft stretch spread in-front and behind the wing.

I see, for some reason I thought the difference was larger.

aviationjunky · Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:03 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Source?

Boeing, press releases, Wikipedia

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

The Wikipedia source being referred to here still lists their MAX orders as:
MAX 8 - 23
MAX 9 - 67
MAX 10 - 50

I read through their section regarding the 737 MAX and there's been no update since their finalization at the Dubai airshow in 2017.

FiscAutTecGarte · Wed Jun 07, 2023 6:16 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:

Boeing, press releases, Wikipedia

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

The Wikipedia source being referred to here still lists their MAX orders as:
MAX 8 - 23
MAX 9 - 67
MAX 10 - 50

I read through their section regarding the 737 MAX and there's been no update since their finalization at the Dubai airshow in 2017.

Which is kind of the point of this thread. Where and how to obtain an order breakdown for MAX 9 and MAX 10. So far, I've put in wild guesses of 250 for the 9 and 1200 for the 10.. (and honestly, those wild guesses are probably not that far off, but there is no way to confirm them outside of the Boeing Sales dept.) So far this is a game of horseshoes and not a marksmenship competition.

EssentialBusDC · Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:03 am

Sancho99504 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

IMHO, 10s won't be banned. Carriers will just need to operate at weights where takeoff performance has suitable margins for field and conditions, no different from 7M9s or anything else.

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

The tail strike is still a concern. But the new gear strut allows the extra length (even if its only 66” plug aft of the wing, the strut only extends 9.5 inches) of the 10 to have the same takeoff characteristics of the 9.

rbavfan · Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:13 am

sldispatcher wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
If the Max10 winds up working ‘well’ then I would expect very few comparative copies of the 9 to be produced, once they are both in serial production/service. There will be some notable exceptions like Riyadh/Alaska but most airline operations can handle the poor field performance for the extra 11 or so seats.

Is there a list of airports where the Max9 or Max 10 are banned from operating due to ‘poor field performance’?

I would bet most of those shorter runway airports would not be able to fill the 9 or 10 series on a daily bases as well as 7 or 8 series anyway. Most airports that can already have longer runways for the most part.

FiscAutTecGarte · Thu Jun 08, 2023 4:47 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
dennypayne wrote:

I believe the whole point of sldispatcher asking the question was to highlight that ‘poor field performance’ of these aircraft is an a.net trope with no basis in fact, yet it keeps being repeated.

In other words: I think the answer to his question is ‘no.’

The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

The tail strike is still a concern. But the new gear strut allows the extra length (even if its only 66” plug aft of the wing, the strut only extends 9.5 inches) of the 10 to have the same takeoff characteristics of the 9.

It's less that that.. the entire stretch was 66", 26" aft of the wing, 40" ahead of the wing:

credit seattle times twitter account:

Bradin · Thu Jun 08, 2023 5:03 pm

aviationjunky wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
flyaa757 wrote:

Boeing, press releases, Wikipedia

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

The Wikipedia source being referred to here still lists their MAX orders as:
MAX 8 - 23
MAX 9 - 67
MAX 10 - 50

I read through their section regarding the 737 MAX and there's been no update since their finalization at the Dubai airshow in 2017.

Am I looking at the same link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries

FiscAutTecGarte · Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:21 pm

Bradin wrote:
aviationjunky wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

The Wikipedia source being referred to here still lists their MAX orders as:
MAX 8 - 23
MAX 9 - 67
MAX 10 - 50

I read through their section regarding the 737 MAX and there's been no update since their finalization at the Dubai airshow in 2017.

Am I looking at the same link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries

That's a decent link and the one that I initially referenced when I began my investigaton. However, the orders stop in Jan 2022; so omits some of the recent large MAX 10 orders and the smaller MAX 9 orders. More importantly, it doesn't reflect the large number of MAX 9 jets that have been converted, osea downsized to MAX 8 and upsized to MAX 10. It's a start, but I think the actual numbers now are a bit lower on the MAX 9 and much higher on the MAX 10. But who can know for sure?

aviationjunky · Thu Jun 08, 2023 7:19 pm

Bradin wrote:
aviationjunky wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

That’s not providing a source that flydubai has no more MAX 9s on order…

The Wikipedia source being referred to here still lists their MAX orders as:
MAX 8 - 23
MAX 9 - 67
MAX 10 - 50

I read through their section regarding the 737 MAX and there's been no update since their finalization at the Dubai airshow in 2017.

Am I looking at the same link?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries

I was going based on this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flydubai#Fleet

EssentialBusDC · Sat Jun 10, 2023 11:22 am

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
Sancho99504 wrote:
The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

The tail strike is still a concern. But the new gear strut allows the extra length (even if its only 66” plug aft of the wing, the strut only extends 9.5 inches) of the 10 to have the same takeoff characteristics of the 9.

It's less that that.. the entire stretch was 66", 26" aft of the wing, 40" ahead of the wing:

credit seattle times twitter account:

Thanks. I misinterpreted an article i read that said 66” plugs, fore and aft. Though it doesn’t change the fact the new gear is allow the same t/o characteristics of the -9. Its not like the -10 is going to be short field performer because of the new gear.

Samrnpage · Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:53 pm

Why has it taken 7 years since the -8MAX got certified to get the -7MAX Certified?

ikolkyo · Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:00 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
Why has it taken 7 years since the -8MAX got certified to get the -7MAX Certified?

I’m beating a very dead horse here but it makes even less sense when the MAX 7 test bed was used to re-certify the MAX 8 and 9. The FAA got burned once and it appears they don’t want it to happen it again.

hiflyeras · Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:28 pm

With that extra length of the MAX10, it's a damn shame that they didn't add a door on the left side between the wing and the L1 door. Put it approximately between
'first' and coach. It could have been used for boarding/deplaning and you're close to a 757 replacement (other than the range).

hiflyeras · Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:32 pm

Seems that AS wishes that all future orders could be MAX10's. Wouldn't be surprised to see some juggling of their order book that coincides with certification of the -10.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/alas ... f-possible

Speedy752 · Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:19 pm

I don’t think there is an answer since once there are some “hard numbers” on MAX10s in service I expect much of the order book to shift there, just like the 320/321 breakdown. I am a bit surprised operators are taking 9s at this point but I suppose the lift is needed now not in 2025

FiscAutTecGarte · Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:35 am

Speedy752 wrote:
I don’t think there is an answer since once there are some “hard numbers” on MAX10s in service I expect much of the order book to shift there, just like the 320/321 breakdown. I am a bit surprised operators are taking 9s at this point but I suppose the lift is needed now not in 2025

I wonder if some of these recent 9 orders reflect the reality that some previous 9s on order nay parts already procured, but the customers wish to upgrad them to 10s... That leaves some 9s, with their specific parts already procured, available quite soon for some of those newer 9 orders. So logistics, availability and parts procurement, may be favoring passing some 9 orders from one customer to another. The 9 is going to be one of those planes with far more original Gross orders than eventual Net orders / Deliveries. Some regard the 10 as what the 9 should have been at launch. (Ditto for the revised 7). Again pure speculation on my part.. all of which makes it nearly impossible to know the true order counts for MAX 9s and MAX 10s.

dragonlax999 · Tue Jun 13, 2023 1:07 pm

flyaa757 wrote:
I believe there are only 228 Firm 73-9 orders, of which 169 have been delivered.

Additional firmings likely from COPA, United, Alaska, Correndon. Rumors of Aerolineas Argentinas as well.

Although AR might decide to take the MAX9 I doubt it. Currently, they are focused on replacing their 737-700s which will be in the fleet until 2025 (lease). The 737-800 bunch is basically the fleet's skeleton so I believe they will opt for more MAX8s rather than the 9 counterparts. Also the fact that many smaller airports (san luis, formosa and rio grande for example) would rather have smaller jets and don't need that extra capacity. They might even look into the E2 or 220.

FiscAutTecGarte · Tue Aug 15, 2023 3:19 pm

Well, We now have the model breakdown. Many of us were very off (25% or so) on the MAX 10 orders citing over 1000. This article from Flight Global, (https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-reveals-737-max-order-split/154474.article ), which analyzed Boeing's data on it's revised Orders tool (see Minor Models) shares the following regarding back order and deliveries (deliveries are noted in parenthesis):

Unfulfilled Orders (and already deliveries):
297 (0) x MAX 7
2751 (965 delivered) x MAX 8
344 (124 delivered) x MAX 8200
137 (187 delivered) x MAX 9
810 (0) x MAX 10

So my question is answered, Max9/10 = 1134. If you were to include the MAX 8200 (lets pretend this is horseshoes and 197 = 200 seats), then that number for Boeing Single Class Planes that permit a capacity of near and above 200 is 1602.

scbriml · Tue Aug 15, 2023 3:45 pm

So, with reference to the orders & deliveries for 737-9s -

1 - Has anyone ordered -9s since the -10 was launched?

2 - How many -9 conversions to -10s?

Sancho99504 · Tue Aug 15, 2023 4:26 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
Well, We now have the model breakdown. Many of us were very off (25% or so) on the MAX 10 orders citing over 1000. This article from Flight Global, (https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-reveals-737-max-order-split/154474.article ), which analyzed Boeing's data on it's revised Orders tool (see Minor Models) shares the following regarding back order and deliveries (deliveries are noted in parenthesis):

Unfulfilled Orders (and already deliveries):
297 (0) x MAX 7
2751 (965 delivered) x MAX 8
344 (124 delivered) x MAX 8200
137 (187 delivered) x MAX 9
810 (0) x MAX 10

So my question is answered, Max9/10 = 1134. If you were to include the MAX 8200 (lets pretend this is horseshoes and 197 = 200 seats), then that number for Boeing Single Class Planes that permit a capacity of near and above 200 is 1602.

Hopefully orders for the -10 takeoff when it gains certification, moreso than when the 10 was announced. There are a lot of places around the globe with airline networks that don't need the range of the NEO that could use it.

S3EI · Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:28 pm

There are not many airlines left who could order the -10 IMO

FiscAutTecGarte · Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:45 pm

scbriml wrote:
So, with reference to the orders & deliveries for 737-9s -

1 - Has anyone ordered -9s since the -10 was launched?

2 - How many -9 conversions to -10s?

That would be interesting to know. Here's a list of 'shed' or cancelled orders for the MAX family:
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-reveals-737-max-order-split/154474.article

"Max 8’s backlog has shed some 1,346 aircraft over time. The other Max models show smaller differences: Max 10 (108), Max 9 (96), Max 7 (28), Max 8-200 (1)."

It would be a rather large assumption to say all of those 96 cancellations went to the 10... Some could have just been cancelled (the grounding provided a good opportunity for that) or could have gone to the 8.

I can't get the Minor Models tab on the Boeing Orders and Deliveries tool to work.. It's throwing a browser error for me... Perhaps that Tab has more data (e.g. when the orders were placed) that would be helpful in determining the answer your question.

One thing that I found interesting is that allot of folks were doing back of the napkin calculations and suggesting that the MAX 10 was approaching somewhere between 1000 and 1100 orders by now. However, quick math: 810 unfulfilled + 108 cancelled shows gross orders are 918. So, some off the mark guestimations. (I guessed the MAX 9 at 350, so wasn't too far off at 137 unfulfilled + 187 delivered + 96 cancelled = 420 gross, but it would be just 324 net. However, I was further off with the MAX 7, as I guessed 400-450, but it's really 297 unfulfilled + 28 cancelled, so 325 gross.)

MIflyer12 · Tue Aug 15, 2023 5:51 pm

S3EI wrote:
There are not many airlines left who could order the -10 IMO

Every decently large carrier with -8s on order (American, Southwest, WestJet) is also a potential -10 customer.

DocLightning · Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:20 pm

Sancho99504 wrote:
The 737-900ER and Max 9 both suffer from reduced maximum rotation angles on takeoff as to not strike the tail due to the landing gear height. I believe this problem leads to reaching maximum tire speed.

The telescoping main gear of the Max 10 solves this issue.

I wonder if Boeing might consider putting MAX10 gear on the MAX9 at some point.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net