Mentour: "Will Killing the MAX-7 Save Southwest?!"
That's not the competing Aircraft mentioned by Mentour. Forget the A320.
He talks of picking up Breeze Airways. They currently operate EMB 190/195. BUT: That airline already took delivery of first A220s, and are in progress to get 80 of them (no mention of the timeline though) . But certainly there's no waiting for years until a viable fleet of modern and very efficient aircraft allow expansion. And how about seat capacity? Well, it's the perfect alternative to the MAX -7 in this regard.
He talks of picking up Breeze Airways. They currently operate EMB 190/195. BUT: That airline already took delivery of first A220s, and are in progress to get 80 of them (no mention of the timeline though) . But certainly there's no waiting for years until a viable fleet of modern and very efficient aircraft allow expansion. And how about seat capacity? Well, it's the perfect alternative to the MAX -7 in this regard.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
They will stick to the 737-8 which is modern and efficient enough for them in its capacity class. Delivery rate is reduced, but at least they are in the queue for 207 more -8. I mean, that's the only aircraft they can get in the short term.
Theoretically - but that assumes every airline wants deliveries as per their order - which may have been several years ago. I'm sure that for a significant SW order Airbus would shake the trees and produce a flow of early deliveries. And of course with a SW order in their pocket they'd be well placed to fund a significant increase in production
"In January, Airbus delivered 30 jets, including two A220s, 26 A320s (all NEO), and two A330s. The official A320 production rate is 45 aircraft per month and has remained at this level since the end of 2021. On average, the company delivered 48 A320s per month in 2023 compared to 43 in 2022. Production is currently being increased and an official rate hike is coming soon. In connection with the release of their 2023 full-year earnings this month, we can expect the A320 rate to be officially raised. At this time, we consider the unofficial A320 production rate to be 48 per month but will keep the rate in our charts and tables at 45 for now. The A320 program is expected to reach a monthly rate of 65 by late 2024. We can therefore expect a series of rate increases this year. Also, Airbus is working with its supply chain to increase A320 production to 75 aircraft per month in 2026."
https://flightplan.forecastinternati...0coming%20soon.
"In January, Airbus delivered 30 jets, including two A220s, 26 A320s (all NEO), and two A330s. The official A320 production rate is 45 aircraft per month and has remained at this level since the end of 2021. On average, the company delivered 48 A320s per month in 2023 compared to 43 in 2022. Production is currently being increased and an official rate hike is coming soon. In connection with the release of their 2023 full-year earnings this month, we can expect the A320 rate to be officially raised. At this time, we consider the unofficial A320 production rate to be 48 per month but will keep the rate in our charts and tables at 45 for now. The A320 program is expected to reach a monthly rate of 65 by late 2024. We can therefore expect a series of rate increases this year. Also, Airbus is working with its supply chain to increase A320 production to 75 aircraft per month in 2026."
https://flightplan.forecastinternati...0coming%20soon.
Thread Starter
It doesn't solve the short term issue however with the 150 seat fleet. A319? I doubt it, even existing Airbus customers are hesitating. SWA still need to hope for the 737-7 - or ways to get a hold on A220s. Now...
... delivered 30 jets, including two A220s, 26 A320s (all NEO), ... Production is currently being increased and an official rate hike is coming soon.
SWA simply can't close the gap in the next 2 years. Extending the use of 737-700 does not really allow expansion. Maybe some of those can be freed from routes that grew into MAX 8 territory.
Alternative to this whole mess is to keep 737-800 longer and use them with empty seats on thin routes, while new MAX 8 keep coming. Maybe this is the least risky and somehow affordable solution.
The following users liked this post:
When (if?) Boeing bites the bullet with a 737 replacement, it's a good bet that it will have high commonality of flight deck layout and handling, processes, and procedures with the current 737 (not to mention the 777 and 787). That would make training and crossover with the existing 737 fleet less of an issue than going with an entirely different platform on the A320 or A220 series.
It's worth remembering that the 777 flightdeck had a great deal of commonality with the 757/767 flightdeck (including using the same structural bits), which made the transition of existing 757/767 flight crews much easier.
It's worth remembering that the 777 flightdeck had a great deal of commonality with the 757/767 flightdeck (including using the same structural bits), which made the transition of existing 757/767 flight crews much easier.
Today it might be some 787 style flight deck and a similar FBW. But because of the upcoming next engine generation, they might target 2035 like Airbus is doing. Then it might be a single pilot operated (or at least single pilot+remote certified) cockpit with the next layout and procedures. Boeing missed the right moment. After the A320neo announcement Boeing should have launched the NSA right away and at full speed, when they had all those 787 engineers and current design experience available. Sooner or later the MAX will need replacement. With years lost the business case yields much less than hoped for.
Both Boeing and Airbus need a new narrow body. Neither company currently has the engineering talent available. Both also don’t seem to want to make the investment. It’s almost like they are colluding with each other to offer 40 year old technology. If neither makes a move the airlines have no alternative.
It’s also important to understand that Airbus did not purchase the A220 because they liked the airframe. They purchased it to eliminate a competitor. When a downturn hits and airframe sales crash I would expect Airbus to close the A220 program.
It’s also important to understand that Airbus did not purchase the A220 because they liked the airframe. They purchased it to eliminate a competitor. When a downturn hits and airframe sales crash I would expect Airbus to close the A220 program.
By buying the CSeries Airbus prevented Boeing from buying it. With the Boeing-Embraer cooperation failed Boeing had to go MAX. I am still not sure how much sense the A220, while being a top aircraft itself, makes as a separate product for Airbus. The CSeries could have been the easy way out for Boeing. A modern low end family and then some clean sheet NMA on top.
Both Boeing and Airbus need a new narrow body. Neither company currently has the engineering talent available. Both also don’t seem to want to make the investment. It’s almost like they are colluding with each other to offer 40 year old technology. If neither makes a move the airlines have no alternative.
It’s also important to understand that Airbus did not purchase the A220 because they liked the airframe. They purchased it to eliminate a competitor. When a downturn hits and airframe sales crash I would expect Airbus to close the A220 program.
It’s also important to understand that Airbus did not purchase the A220 because they liked the airframe. They purchased it to eliminate a competitor. When a downturn hits and airframe sales crash I would expect Airbus to close the A220 program.
This is more a reflection of how good the engineering teams were 40/50 yrs ago rather than how "bad" the teams are today.
The following users liked this post:
When you look at the cost of introducing and certifying a clean sheet design you can see why both Mr B and Airbus put off doing it. It used to be thought worthwhile if you could improve things by 15-20% but given the costs now I'd bet it would have to be a lot higher to take that risk. We may have to accept that like the motor car, the mass production models have reached a plateau and they're all going to look much the same from now on out with the odd tweak now and then. When you think about it, it's astonishing that the 737 set the pattern with an early 1960's design.
The CSeries seems to prove the opposite. Both big players had to beef up their established families in a hurry because the clean sheet was so much better.
So, while the CSeries is a good aircraft, it's unlikely to ever be a money maker.
Thread Starter
Neither A nor B will start another conventional short/midrange a/c program now. NEO and MAX are still quite fresh.
They will certainly start unconventional new design with tech that enable more improvements than yet another conventional design.
They need to start now. Anybody thinks they will design a conventional type in parallel, unless the new tech fails?
There's always room for improvement, so your statement will expire one day. Which in fact expires later than usual:
Neither A nor B will start another conventional short/midrange a/c program now. NEO and MAX are still quite fresh.
They will certainly start unconventional new design with tech that enable more improvements than yet another conventional design.
They need to start now. Anybody thinks they will design a conventional type in parallel, unless the new tech fails?
Neither A nor B will start another conventional short/midrange a/c program now. NEO and MAX are still quite fresh.
They will certainly start unconventional new design with tech that enable more improvements than yet another conventional design.
They need to start now. Anybody thinks they will design a conventional type in parallel, unless the new tech fails?
The following 2 users liked this post by tdracer:
We also forget the increasing burden of certification and moding older designs. -. Boeing have struggled with the 777 and the 767 derived tanker . It 's brave man who would launch a completely new design when they have a multi year order book for what they already produce
I flew from Houston to Baltimore and back this weekend on a Southwest 737-8 MAX each time.
I don't get the hysteria. Is it airframe retirement rates versus usage rates?
I think that DaveReidUK's assessment of clickbait is spot on.
Less Hair: thanks for your posts, informative.
I don't get the hysteria. Is it airframe retirement rates versus usage rates?
I think that DaveReidUK's assessment of clickbait is spot on.
Less Hair: thanks for your posts, informative.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Good news: they don't "push it no matter what".
It is mainly the GTF repair that takes time. No surprise. This might not be the right moment for SWA to consider changing fleets.
Thread Starter
Adding a different type in the 140 seat class (new or used): 2 year wait for the 737-7. other options: none in the short term. you cant built up a viable fleet.
So we come back to the initial post: buying another airline with existing 140 seat fleet.
That idea is beyond absurd if it should be meant for fleet replacement.