Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

In reality, this is what A and B both want: a stable duopoly.

I maintain that the A321neo is slightly better as everything else being close to equal, the extra capability, better performance and better flexibility give it a sizeable edge, but as I said before, the MAX 10 will allow Boeing a credible competitor to snatch some 50/50s and prevent switches from all-737 customers (thinking KE for example), more than enough routes with the capabilities for the MAX 10 to be successful, the next step will be getting a large order from a well-known customer that wasn't interested in the MAX 9 (the largest MAX 10 orders at present were previously large MAX 9 orders).

The other thing in the A321's favour is that it's much more established, it's practically been on its own as a competitor for most of its life.

Why does the NEO have LEAP-A fans on their aircraft? Why not the LEAP-B ?

It would easily fit & be lighter. Why the hassle?

keesje wrote:

Why the hassle?

Looks man! Just looks

MrHMSH wrote:

I maintain that the A321neo is slightly better as everything else being close to equal, the extra capability, better performance and better flexibility give it a sizeable edge, but as I said before, the MAX 10 will allow Boeing a credible competitor to snatch some 50/50s and prevent switches from all-737 customers (thinking KE for example), more than enough routes with the capabilities for the MAX 10 to be successful, the next step will be getting a large order from a well-known customer that wasn't interested in the MAX 9 (the largest MAX 10 orders at present were previously large MAX 9 orders).

The other thing in the A321's favour is that it's much more established, it's practically been on its own as a competitor for most of its life.

I mean, it’s certainly a far more useful aircraft, considering the 737 cannot do things such as carry pallets.

At that point, the next deciding factor for airlines would either be maintenance (very low for both models) or fleet commonality.

MrHMSH wrote:

the A321neo is slightly better as everything else being close to equal, the extra capability, better performance and better flexibility give it a sizeable edge, but as I said before, the MAX 10 will allow Boeing a credible competitor to snatch some 50/50s and prevent switches from all-737 customers (thinking KE for example), the next step will be getting a large order from a well-known customer that wasn't interested in the MAX 9...

And that next large order won't be from Delta. No points of ordering a slightly less capable/less performing/less flexible frame (and slightly less comfortable too). Unless Boeing drops its price (a la $22M UA 737-700 maybe?) and/or drop a certain complaint...

I also find you very optimistic on that 50/50 order split.

I fear that this will turn into another A321-bashing thread. Just have a look at the sales figures, the only thruth that matters.

How do you think Boeing will be the one to cut prices versus the overpriced A321 being forced to cut. The report claim there isn't a difference between the two planes. Meaning the Airbus will have to cut price not the Boeing. The arrival of 10 has eliminated the ability to price 321 higher.

The MAX 10 isn't to far below the range of the A321 NEO but it is dramatically below the A321 NEO LR. I suspect maybe not to disrupt the market for their new MOM, but at this time any airline interested in crossing the Atlantic would probably prefer the NEO.

In the A321, Airbus enjoys higher margins / lower cost of production than Boeing on the MAX10, so potentially more wriggle room.

This time around, Boeing may enjoy a short-term win, especially with the ability to do something to end the C Series issues.

If the 737-10 can do almost all transcon flights, has significantly better airfield performance than the 737-9 and is cheaper than the A321NEO, it is a serious competitor.

keesje wrote:

If the 737-10 can do almost all transcon flights, has significantly better airfield performance than the 737-9 and is cheaper than the A321NEO, it is a serious competitor.

What tells you the -10 will have "significantly better airfield performance" than the -9?

arcticcruiser wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the 737-10 can do almost all transcon flights, has significantly better airfield performance than the 737-9 and is cheaper than the A321NEO, it is a serious competitor.

What tells you the -10 will have "significantly better airfield performance" than the -9?

Mainly the MLG modification.

I’m sure a similar analysis of the 737-8/A320NEO would reveal a similar conclusion.

barney captain wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the 737-10 can do almost all transcon flights, has significantly better airfield performance than the 737-9 and is cheaper than the A321NEO, it is a serious competitor.

What tells you the -10 will have "significantly better airfield performance" than the -9?

Mainly the MLG modification.

What is the MLG configuration? And has it been confirmed the 737-10 will get higher thrust variants if the Leap-1B? I’ve seen the 31,000lbs thrust number tosesed around.

RalXWB wrote:

I fear that this will turn into another A321-bashing thread. Just have a look at the sales figures, the only thruth that matters.

That's a joke, right? The A321 is the most fellated plane on a.net. And it isn't even the best Airbus!

At this level of parity, the precise differences barely matter. If one frame is 1% or 2% better on average, the other OEM can deal with that through pricing and likely an availability advantage. Boeing had to go from MAX 9 to MAX 10 to get that close to the A321neo, but we can see from the sales figures that A320neo and MAX 8 are already there.

Now, on the other hand, if you have a 10% difference, there's not much the loser can do to make up for it.

To me, the A321 will always better, because it's wider than the 737. And if you think the extra inch doesn't matter, you lead a blessed life and don't fly coach on 737s and 757s. Or an airline who doesn't care.

But the Boeing Sky interiors feel wider, I know it's an illusion but they somehow do.

Cheers, Ralph

Revelation wrote:

In reality, this is what A and B both want: a stable duopoly.

Precisely, both programs will be quite profitable for both companies and thats the goal at the end of the day.

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

Two thoughts ...

I) Small advantage in running costs matters ALOT because airline profit margins are small. Delta (which today chose the A321) has a profit margin of 7%. So telling me some plane costs 5% less to fly is a huge advantage.

2) The A321NEO is outselling the 737-10MAX by a 1496:274 ratio. Airlines prefer the A321NEO over the 737MAX alot. (As per wikipedia, which does not yet have the delta order.)

3) This makes me doubt Leeham, not the A321.

And as we have known, both the 737/320 are impressive planes - in almost all of their models. That they were first birthed decades ago, and only now have reached their full potential is one of the marvels of aviation.

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

Impressive for a non GTF 737 drawing even with GTF A321 in operation numbers.

MD80Nut wrote:

To me, the A321 will always better, because it's wider than the 737. And if you think the extra inch doesn't matter, you lead a blessed life and don't fly coach on 737s and 757s. Or an airline who doesn't care.

But the Boeing Sky interiors feel wider, I know it's an illusion but they somehow do.

Cheers, Ralph

How much wider? the difference is negligible flying both the 737 and the 320s will not elicit any differences. It also depends so much on the type of seats, and the fuselage configuration.

william wrote:

Impressive for a non GTF 737 drawing even with GTF A321 in operation numbers.

The real differences could appear much further down the road. PW apparently have some margin in hand for a meaningful PIP, and the CFM needs to prove that the CMC parts and other innovation can handle the hotter core.

It makes the future interesting. Certainly it will be worth watching metrics like performance retention and medium term maintenance on the CFM, and whether Pratt and Whitney can put the well-documented launch issues to bed and then work on improving the core to put clear distance between the two engines. The CFM has definitely had the better start.

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

At the Paris airshow there were similar statements made (I.e. the A321 neo and the 737-10 MAX are highly competitive in terms of economics. In addition, the analysis I have seen says for most missions the 78M is slightly better than the A320 Neo.

Where Airbus killed it is against the 737-9 MAX which was obviously a dud. Bottom line: both are highly competitive, but Boeing clearly dropped the ball with the 737-9 MAX and gave Airbus a big head start. I don't think any airline could go wrong ordering either aircraft.

Actually the economics vary quite a bit. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. The 737 is 3-5% smaller and lighter so it requires smaller engines.

A321 advantages.
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights over 2000nm.
2) 2" wider aisle saving a minute or two in turnaround.
3) 10% greater range at max payload.
4) 10-15% shorter takeoff run flying same payload the same distance. (Double slot flaps)
4) LD3-45 containers.

737-10 advantages
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights below 1000nm.
2) Cheaper purchase price.
3) As CASM includes both price and fuel burn it has better CASM on the majority of flights.

alyusuph wrote:

[How much wider? the difference is negligible flying both the 737 and the 320s will not elicit any differences. It also depends so much on the type of seats, and the fuselage configuration.

The A320 family is 2.8" wider at shoulder level.

Most airlines make the aisle 2" bigger to speed up boarding. However on long A321LR's you could make each seat half an inch wider instead.

This extra size has the disadvantage of being heavier and the 737 is better in short trips.

barney captain wrote:

arcticcruiser wrote:

keesje wrote:

If the 737-10 can do almost all transcon flights, has significantly better airfield performance than the 737-9 and is cheaper than the A321NEO, it is a serious competitor.

What tells you the -10 will have "significantly better airfield performance" than the -9?

Mainly the MLG modification.

The MLG mod is required to help the -10 be able to leave the ground at all. However in and off itself that is not something that "significantly" improves field performance. And it does basically nothing for landing performance.

RJMAZ wrote:

Actually the economics vary quite a bit. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. The 737 is 3-5% smaller and lighter so it requires smaller engines.

A321 advantages.
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights over 2000nm.
2) 2" wider aisle saving a minute or two in turnaround.
3) 10% greater range at max payload.
4) 10-15% shorter takeoff run flying same payload the same distance. (Double slot flaps)
4) LD3-45 containers.

737-10 advantages
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights below 1000nm.
2) Cheaper purchase price.
3) As CASM includes both price and fuel burn it has better CASM on the majority of flights.

Talking about 739 take off runs and landing speeds, I recently experienced travelling with Jet Airway's fully loaded B739ER to Kathmandu. Despite the 3,050 feet runway and the surrounding hills (Himalaya ranges). I think the AC fared very well. The landing speeds were high, though, and on take off the pilots made sure they took every inch from the beginning or the runway. For flight tests, Boeing should take the B737 Max 10 to Bhutan (Paro Airport)

kitplane01 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.

Boeing claims the MAX 10 is 5% more economical than the A321neo on seat-mile and trip costs. Airbus says its airplane is up to 10% more economical, depending on the configuration.

Pish-posh.

LNC’s independent analysis, normalizing configurations and specifications to there is truly an apples-to-apples comparison, concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits, varying a little depending on whether the GTF or LEAP is on the A321neo.

There is no real advantage for either company on the economics.

Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

Two thoughts ...

I) Small advantage in running costs matters ALOT because airline profit margins are small. Delta (which today chose the A321) has a profit margin of 7%. So telling me some plane costs 5% less to fly is a huge advantage.

2) The A321NEO is outselling the 737-10MAX by a 1496:274 ratio. Airlines prefer the A321NEO over the 737MAX alot. (As per wikipedia, which does not yet have the delta order.)

3) This makes me doubt Leeham, not the A321.

Leeham is saying the differences are negligible, not 5%.

It’s also not exactly fair to compare the A321neo sales to MAX 10 sales since the latter was only launched this summer. Boeing is trying to dig out of a massive hole they created by offering the MAX 9 instead of the MAX 10 in the first place. Had they offered the MAX 10 from the start, I would be comfortable betting that the sales gap would be closer to 50/50 than today’s current split. Not necessarily exactly 50/50, since the A321neo still offers better field performance, but closer than today’s large gap.

RJMAZ wrote:

Actually the economics vary quite a bit. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. The 737 is 3-5% smaller and lighter so it requires smaller engines.

A321 advantages.
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights over 2000nm.
2) 2" wider aisle saving a minute or two in turnaround.
3) 10% greater range at max payload.
4) 10-15% shorter takeoff run flying same payload the same distance. (Double slot flaps)
4) LD3-45 containers.

737-10 advantages
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights below 1000nm.
2) Cheaper purchase price.
3) As CASM includes both price and fuel burn it has better CASM on the majority of flights.

For what it's worth I think this analysis is right on the money. The only thing I would dispute is range. From what I've read at mtow both planes are virtually identical.

heavymetal wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Latest independent analysis by LNC concludes that 737 MAX 10 and A321neo are on pair regarding economics. It wipes the marketing claims of Boeing and Airbus off the table.



Article
https://leehamnews.com/2017/12/11/ponti ... -decision/

As both aircraft have similar economics, advantages must be looked elsewhere (think about price tag and/or leasing costs, maintenance, support, training, runway performance, range capabilities etc).

Two thoughts ...

I) Small advantage in running costs matters ALOT because airline profit margins are small. Delta (which today chose the A321) has a profit margin of 7%. So telling me some plane costs 5% less to fly is a huge advantage.

2) The A321NEO is outselling the 737-10MAX by a 1496:274 ratio. Airlines prefer the A321NEO over the 737MAX alot. (As per wikipedia, which does not yet have the delta order.)

3) This makes me doubt Leeham, not the A321.

Leeham is saying the differences are negligible, not 5%.

They wrote "concludes the economic differences are in the low single-digits". That cannot be far from 5%.

My point is that small differences are large when compared to the profit margin. A 15% increase in profits would be large, and for Delta and similar airlines that would be a reduction of 1% of costs

RJMAZ wrote:

Actually the economics vary quite a bit. Both aircraft have advantages and disadvantages. The 737 is 3-5% smaller and lighter so it requires smaller engines.

A321 advantages.
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights over 2000nm.
2) 2" wider aisle saving a minute or two in turnaround.
3) 10% greater range at max payload.
4) 10-15% shorter takeoff run flying same payload the same distance. (Double slot flaps)
4) LD3-45 containers.

737-10 advantages
1) 1-2% less fuel burn per passenger on flights below 1000nm.
2) Cheaper purchase price.
3) As CASM includes both price and fuel burn it has better CASM on the majority of flights.

This would be very interesting if true. Can your provide a source for the economic claims. (I'm not saying you're wrong.)

Max 10 was a clever and necessary move by Boeing.I am not sure anybody saw that 777 style mod to the MLG coming.Would be interesting to see what additional range it might confer if fitted to a max9 with acts.

I wonder what the optimal size for these stretches is for the airlines.If one uses the Ryanair mantra of maxing seats per flight attendants then I suppose it would be 250.A321 NEO/flex is close to this.
Might (could) Airbus respond by announcing a small stretch in a year's time?No rush with the present backlog mind.

parapente wrote:

Max 10 was a clever and necessary move by Boeing.I am not sure anybody saw that 777 style mod to the MLG coming.Would be interesting to see what additional range it might confer if fitted to a max9 with acts.

I wonder what the optimal size for these stretches is for the airlines.If one uses the Ryanair mantra of maxing seats per flight attendants then I suppose it would be 250.A321 NEO/flex is close to this.
Might (could) Airbus respond by announcing a small stretch in a year's time?No rush with the present backlog mind.

Literally no reason to the Max 10 has 300 odd orders - A321 has 1100 odd. Boeing are the back foot here.

Revelation wrote:

In reality, this is what A and B both want: a stable duopoly.

That is exactly it: the D word.

And the market is supply-restricted so that both manufacturers are helped by very long order queues...besides the fact that the lion's share of fuel efficiency gains are now provided by engine innovations, not airframe developments...


Faro

ElroyJetson wrote:

For what it's worth I think this analysis is right on the money. The only thing I would dispute is range. From what I've read at mtow both planes are virtually identical.

No the A321 has greater range.

The A321 has a 10% greater maximum takeoff weight. While carrying the same 230 seat payload the A321 can carry 28% more fuel before hitting maximum takeoff weight. This is done by carrying two ACT tanks in the cargo hold.

The 737-10 would have to carry 40 less passengers if it wanted to fly the same distance.

The A321 if it reduces passengers by the same 40 seats could then carry a third ACT tank which turns it into a A321LR.

The advantage of greater range and heavier weight becomes a disadvantage on shorter trips. This is why the 737 is more efficient under 1000nm

RalXWB wrote:

I fear that this will turn into another A321-bashing thread. Just have a look at the sales figures, the only thruth that matters.

Sorry the sales figures don’t tell the story. There’re are many reasons for fleet decisions.

If more A321s are sold at the same time as the -10 is for sale it might just indicate that they secured a few larger customers.

We rarely hear the real reason behind fleet decisions.

If the economics is essentially the same, factors like finance, engine, apu, existing fleet etc will drive decisions.

Need to give credit where credit is due, if they have got the -10 within spitting distance of the A321 they have exceeded my expectations.

lostsound wrote:

The MAX 10 isn't to far below the range of the A321 NEO but it is dramatically below the A321 NEO LR. I suspect maybe not to disrupt the market for their new MOM, but at this time any airline interested in crossing the Atlantic would probably prefer the NEO.

Was it really possible for Boeing to build a long range 737MAX that matches the range of the A321LR and they chose not to do so? I highly doubt it, the MOM hasn't been announced yet and by the time it enters service there'll be hundreds of A321LRs flying. The 737 is 20 years older than the A320, that's the only reason why we don't have a 737MAX that can compete with the A321LR.

Speaking of the A321LR I've read on this forum many times that it's not a true 757 replacement, it carries the same number of pax, its range is ~90 miles longer than 757, so where does it fall short? The only thing I can think of is cargo capacity.

I think the marketshare difference 737-9/-10 ivs A321 s much bigger than most people see. There are 5000 NEO's in the backlog and A321 deliveries are closing in on 50% of total A320 family deliveries.

Telling each other the A321NEO has e.g. 1400 A321 doesn't mean so much. There is a constant A320->A321 conversion stream going on, that doesn't make the news but is visible on the deliveries / FAL's. In reality there's 2500 A321's in the backlog.

Meanwhile many 737-9 have been converted to -8's.

RalXWB wrote:

I fear that this will turn into another A321-bashing thread. Just have a look at the sales figures, the only thruth that matters.

Comparing sales figures is not an easy task as the A321neo was launched many years ahead of the 737 MAX 10.

L0VE2FLY wrote:

lostsound wrote:

The MAX 10 isn't to far below the range of the A321 NEO but it is dramatically below the A321 NEO LR. I suspect maybe not to disrupt the market for their new MOM, but at this time any airline interested in crossing the Atlantic would probably prefer the NEO.

Was it really possible for Boeing to build a long range 737MAX that matches the range of the A321LR and they chose not to do so? I highly doubt it, the MOM hasn't been announced yet and by the time it enters service there'll be hundreds of A321LRs flying. The 737 is 20 years older than the A320, that's the only reason why we don't have a 737MAX that can compete with the A321LR.

Speaking of the A321LR I've read on this forum many times that it's not a true 757 replacement, it carries the same number of pax, its range is ~90 miles longer than 757, so where does it fall short? The only thing I can think of is cargo capacity.

You thought about the difference, cargo capacity. It is even more a space problem, with 3 ACT and passenger bags, there is not a lot of space left. On reduced range the A321neo and A321neoLR at full passenger load does not have enough MZFW to load up on cargo even if ACTs are removed.

So Boeing is adding like 2 rows and some modifications to the 739 and suddenly this plane is supposed to be on pair or even better than the 321? I doubt that and considering the success of the 321...the sales figures will speak eventually and actually have already spoken. #teamwestilltrytocatchupwithour321

zeke wrote:

economics is essentially the same, factors like finance, engine, apu, existing fleet etc will drive decisions..

Those are all things you can attach numbers too. But an external analyst those are of hard to model, But in the end it is all just economics.

Best regards
Thomas

While openly admitting to a heavy bias toward anything Boeing, I do, of course, love to fly any time I am fortunate enough to have the chance, be it a Boeing or an Airbus that I am booked on. That said, there is an obvious and overwhelming bias and slant toward Airbus here on A-net that gets very annoying, very quickly. We call ourselves Aviation enthusiasts, but I continue to read message boards arguing over favored aircraft for the bean counters rather than the very aviation enthusiasm that brought most of us to this website to begin with.

Boeing aircraft, and especially the 737 MAX retain for me that purity, good looks and performance that a true aviation enthusiast longs for, while by contrast I find the Airbus A320 NEO (or CEO) family to be among the most dull to look at and dull to fly on aircraft on the market today. So, as this conversation about the MAX 10 and the 321LR heats up, I prefer the MAX 10, all night long, and at the end of the day, regardless of which racks up the most sales when this race eventually dies down, I'd venture to bet that most airlines will be more pleased with their decision to invest in the Boeing 737 MAX, with better operating economics on the majority of the route lengths that airline use narrow body jets on, along with better and proven dispatch reliability and far less chance of a glitch of automation that an Airbus might have that puts a dent in your day at a moment's notice, not to mention a much better looking jet. It still boggles my mind how people are such fanatics of the 321LR here on A-net, which has to be to most dull, tube and wing aircraft in production to this day.

This is merely my own opinion as a true aviation enthusiast, and I expect to be roasted by the overwhelming number of Airbus fans that dominate these message boards, but that's okay. Roast away, and thanks for reading my little post.

alyusuph wrote:

Despite the 3,050 feet runway and the surrounding hills (Himalaya ranges). I think the AC fared very well.

There is no Twin around that looks bad in regular all engines running without fail take offs.
The differences come out into the wild open with one engine out.
Same for required performance in obstacle clearing (differences) invisible in regular use.

zeke wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

I fear that this will turn into another A321-bashing thread. Just have a look at the sales figures, the only thruth that matters.

Sorry the sales figures don’t tell the story. There’re are many reasons for fleet decisions.

If more A321s are sold at the same time as the -10 is for sale it might just indicate that they secured a few larger customers.

We rarely hear the real reason behind fleet decisions.

If the economics is essentially the same, factors like finance, engine, apu, existing fleet etc will drive decisions.

Need to give credit where credit is due, if they have got the -10 within spitting distance of the A321 they have exceeded my expectations.

This is post is so spot on, had to repost it again.

And depends on which sales team leaves you with the best swag.

parapente wrote:

Max 10 was a clever and necessary move by Boeing.I am not sure anybody saw that 777 style mod to the MLG coming.Would be interesting to see what additional range it might confer if fitted to a max9 with acts.

It wouldn't add additional range per se, but it might improve field performance a bit and therefore improve range out of airports without extremely long runways. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the change backported to the MAX 9, if the MAX 9 even stays in production.

Would there be any market advantage to installing the Max10 MLG on a Max9? It would improve runway performance and increase range compared to the existing Max9. It would also offer more range than the Max10. Wouldn't it be useful for a BBJ version of the Max9?