Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mjoelnir wrote:If Boeing builds the 737-7 and certifies it, what does it matter when Southwest takes some of them. The production line is running producing 737-8. The 737-7 has become a straight shrink. It should be no problem to run once in a while a shorter fuselage through the final assembly line, everything else being the same parts.
ericm2031 wrote:According to CNBC, they are still taking 7 MAX 7's next year...as of right now. Although the article does say it will have 143 seats but I thought the MAX 7 was larger than the -700NG.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -soon.html
MIflyer12 wrote:jplatts wrote:There are SWA routes to and from some of the smaller markets served by Southwest Airlines where the 737-800 and 737 MAX 8 are too big and where the 737-700, 737 MAX 7, or mainline aircraft slightly smaller than the 737-700 are a better fit than the 737-800, 737 MAX 8, and larger planes. Southwest will really need to have planes smaller than the 737-800 and 737 MAX 8 and similar in size to the 737-700 in its fleet before the retirement of its last 737-700 planes.
Southwest has over 500 active -700s, some delivered as recently as 2011. There should be zero operational urgency to take MAX 7s.
jbs2886 wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:jplatts wrote:There are SWA routes to and from some of the smaller markets served by Southwest Airlines where the 737-800 and 737 MAX 8 are too big and where the 737-700, 737 MAX 7, or mainline aircraft slightly smaller than the 737-700 are a better fit than the 737-800, 737 MAX 8, and larger planes. Southwest will really need to have planes smaller than the 737-800 and 737 MAX 8 and similar in size to the 737-700 in its fleet before the retirement of its last 737-700 planes.
Southwest has over 500 active -700s, some delivered as recently as 2011. There should be zero operational urgency to take MAX 7s.
Many of the -700s, however, are 20 years old. While that may not be "operational urgency" - citing recently delivered -700s doesn't mean WN doesn't need to plan to replace older -700s or begin taking new aircraft.
Polot wrote:jbs2886 wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:
Southwest has over 500 active -700s, some delivered as recently as 2011. There should be zero operational urgency to take MAX 7s.
Many of the -700s, however, are 20 years old. While that may not be "operational urgency" - citing recently delivered -700s doesn't mean WN doesn't need to plan to replace older -700s or begin taking new aircraft.
They are taking new aircraft. Plenty of MAX8s coming in, they got 13 last year and 200 more are on the way. They can bump -700s off routes where the extra capacity is manageable.
Just because they have ~500 73Gs now doesn't mean they need ~500 73G sized aircraft in the future. Less than 50 of their 73Gs were delivered before 2000, the average fleet age despite all the earlier builds is still less than 15 years old.
lightsaber wrote:Polot wrote:jbs2886 wrote:
Many of the -700s, however, are 20 years old. While that may not be "operational urgency" - citing recently delivered -700s doesn't mean WN doesn't need to plan to replace older -700s or begin taking new aircraft.
They are taking new aircraft. Plenty of MAX8s coming in, they got 13 last year and 200 more are on the way. They can bump -700s off routes where the extra capacity is manageable.
Just because they have ~500 73Gs now doesn't mean they need ~500 73G sized aircraft in the future. Less than 50 of their 73Gs were delivered before 2000, the average fleet age despite all the earlier builds is still less than 15 years old.
I would emphasize there Isa high likelihood that many 73Gs, if not most, are replaced with -8 MAXs. Many of the 73Gs were bought used opportunistically. (Much lower prices than used 738s).
If -8 shortfield performance is good enough, than WN will take few -7s. Finance terms will be worse on -7s (which means WN will sell bonds to purchase instead of aircraft financing).
Lightsaber
lightsaber wrote:Polot wrote:jbs2886 wrote:
Many of the -700s, however, are 20 years old. While that may not be "operational urgency" - citing recently delivered -700s doesn't mean WN doesn't need to plan to replace older -700s or begin taking new aircraft.
They are taking new aircraft. Plenty of MAX8s coming in, they got 13 last year and 200 more are on the way. They can bump -700s off routes where the extra capacity is manageable.
Just because they have ~500 73Gs now doesn't mean they need ~500 73G sized aircraft in the future. Less than 50 of their 73Gs were delivered before 2000, the average fleet age despite all the earlier builds is still less than 15 years old.
I would emphasize there Isa high likelihood that many 73Gs, if not most, are replaced with -8 MAXs. Many of the 73Gs were bought used opportunistically. (Much lower prices than used 738s).
If -8 shortfield performance is good enough, than WN will take few -7s. Finance terms will be worse on -7s (which means WN will sell bonds to purchase instead of aircraft financing).
Lightsaber
hOMSaR wrote:What is the 7M7?
lowfareair wrote:I do wonder what the net cost difference would be for Boeing to scrap the MAX 7 and offer no/low-cost upgrades to the MAX 8 versus the extra costs of building what looks like a ~60 unit production run, an that's assuming Southwest doesn't want to ultimately scrap their order.
Polot wrote:ericm2031 wrote:According to CNBC, they are still taking 7 MAX 7's next year...as of right now. Although the article does say it will have 143 seats but I thought the MAX 7 was larger than the -700NG.
They are larger, but WN also intends to outfit them with the same 32-33" of pitch as found on their -800/MAX 8 fleet (vs 31" on the -700 fleet). That said I think 149 seats has been the number most often thrown around.
INFINITI329 wrote:hOMSaR wrote:What is the 7M7?
737 MAX 7... not official however
ADrum23 wrote:I'd just cancel the MAX 7 and exercise all the remaining options on the MAX 8's, then order the MAX 10 and the 797/MOM (when it becomes available). What is the point of keeping only 30 MAX 7's anyway? Where will they use them? It is not nearly enough for them to replace all the 737-700's they have (unless the 738's and the MAX 8's are the long term replacement for the 737-700's).
Stitch wrote:The ICAO codes for the Max Family are B37M, B38M and B39M, respectively, for the MAX-7, MAX-8 and MAX-9. I expect the 737-10 will be the B38X.
INFINITI329 wrote:Stitch wrote:The ICAO codes for the Max Family are B37M, B38M and B39M, respectively, for the MAX-7, MAX-8 and MAX-9. I expect the 737-10 will be the B38X.
While that may be true, airlines may not necessarily use that.Both American and Southwest, for example, use 7M8 as their identifier for their Max 8s.
hOMSaR wrote:I'll have to get used to these IATA codes. When I first read 7M7, I was thinking in the context of 7E7, 7J7, etc., as some placeholder designation for a future Boeing model not yet launched (such as the MOM). Now that I realize it refers to the MAX, some of the previous posts make a bit more sense now.
jbs2886 wrote:lightsaber wrote:Polot wrote:They are taking new aircraft. Plenty of MAX8s coming in, they got 13 last year and 200 more are on the way. They can bump -700s off routes where the extra capacity is manageable.
Just because they have ~500 73Gs now doesn't mean they need ~500 73G sized aircraft in the future. Less than 50 of their 73Gs were delivered before 2000, the average fleet age despite all the earlier builds is still less than 15 years old.
I would emphasize there Isa high likelihood that many 73Gs, if not most, are replaced with -8 MAXs. Many of the 73Gs were bought used opportunistically. (Much lower prices than used 738s).
If -8 shortfield performance is good enough, than WN will take few -7s. Finance terms will be worse on -7s (which means WN will sell bonds to purchase instead of aircraft financing).
Lightsaber
I agree with both posts. It will be interesting to see how WN does address smaller markets.
Polot wrote:ericm2031 wrote:According to CNBC, they are still taking 7 MAX 7's next year...as of right now. Although the article does say it will have 143 seats but I thought the MAX 7 was larger than the -700NG.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -soon.html
They are larger, but WN also intends to outfit them with the same 32-33" of pitch as found on their -800/MAX 8 fleet (vs 31" on the -700 fleet). That said I think 149 seats has been the number most often thrown around.
ericm2031 wrote:Polot wrote:ericm2031 wrote:According to CNBC, they are still taking 7 MAX 7's next year...as of right now. Although the article does say it will have 143 seats but I thought the MAX 7 was larger than the -700NG.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -soon.html
They are larger, but WN also intends to outfit them with the same 32-33" of pitch as found on their -800/MAX 8 fleet (vs 31" on the -700 fleet). That said I think 149 seats has been the number most often thrown around.
Ah, I guess that makes sense as well as the FA issue. Guess this will help when put on longer routes
WNCrew wrote:Why would Boeing add an additional window exit
WNCrew wrote:and then WN not add any additional seats beyond 149 which is what they would've been allowed before the exit was included.
airliner371 wrote:WNCrew wrote:Why would Boeing add an additional window exit
Because instead of being it's own unique aircraft, the Max 7 is just a shrink of the Max 8 which has four window exits.WNCrew wrote:and then WN not add any additional seats beyond 149 which is what they would've been allowed before the exit was included.
150 seats on a Max 7 would be maximizing revenue for 3 flight attendants while also expanding legroom on par with the -800s and Max 8.
WNCrew wrote:airliner371 wrote:WNCrew wrote:Why would Boeing add an additional window exit
Because instead of being it's own unique aircraft, the Max 7 is just a shrink of the Max 8 which has four window exits.WNCrew wrote:and then WN not add any additional seats beyond 149 which is what they would've been allowed before the exit was included.
150 seats on a Max 7 would be maximizing revenue for 3 flight attendants while also expanding legroom on par with the -800s and Max 8.
The math just doesn't make sense here (to me anyway)
The current -700 is max certified to 149, WN holds 143 and pitch of 31" (difference of 6 seats)
The current -800 is max certified to 189, WN hold 175 and pitch is 32-33" (difference of 14 seats... with additional lavatory)
Original MAX 7 was also 149, WN configured to hold 143 w/pitch of 31"
New MAX 7 received additional overwing exit to FACILITATE more seats (not to make it like a small MAX8)
- This increases maximum seating to 172
- If WN had 150, that's a difference of 22 seats! That's a TON of wasted cabin space! Maximizing the 3rd FA?.... to do what?..attend to the open floor space in the cabin?
I feel like I'm missing something hahaha!
Again, the entire point of adding the exit was to increase seating...
WNCrew wrote:The current -700 is max certified to 149, WN holds 143 and pitch of 31" (difference of 6 seats)
Original MAX 7 was also 149, WN configured to hold 143 w/pitch of 31"
- This increases maximum seating to 172
lightsaber wrote:
I do expect WN to buy -7 MAX. I just do not expect many. There will be no resale market (it is the new 736) and so the cash nature of purchases (financed by bonds to keep cash flow healthy) will limit quantities.
Lightsaber
XT6Wagon wrote:lightsaber wrote:
I do expect WN to buy -7 MAX. I just do not expect many. There will be no resale market (it is the new 736) and so the cash nature of purchases (financed by bonds to keep cash flow healthy) will limit quantities.
Lightsaber
I'm not sure it needs to for WN.
WNCrew wrote:airliner371 wrote:WNCrew wrote:Why would Boeing add an additional window exit
Because instead of being it's own unique aircraft, the Max 7 is just a shrink of the Max 8 which has four window exits.WNCrew wrote:and then WN not add any additional seats beyond 149 which is what they would've been allowed before the exit was included.
150 seats on a Max 7 would be maximizing revenue for 3 flight attendants while also expanding legroom on par with the -800s and Max 8.
The math just doesn't make sense here (to me anyway)
The current -700 is max certified to 149, WN holds 143 and pitch of 31" (difference of 6 seats)
The current -800 is max certified to 189, WN hold 175 and pitch is 32-33" (difference of 14 seats... with additional lavatory)
Original MAX 7 was also 149, WN configured to hold 143 w/pitch of 31"
New MAX 7 received additional overwing exit to FACILITATE more seats (not to make it like a small MAX8)
- This increases maximum seating to 172
- If WN had 150, that's a difference of 22 seats! That's a TON of wasted cabin space! Maximizing the 3rd FA?.... to do what?..attend to the open floor space in the cabin?
I feel like I'm missing something hahaha!
Again, the entire point of adding the exit was to increase seating...
XT6Wagon wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Maybe WN wants to keep the option to a buy a better 130 seater (C Series) at a later time?
If by better you mean worse, then sure.
At WN's fleet size, there is no possible way a C series would be cheaper to fly than a Max-7.
rheinwaldner wrote:XT6Wagon wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Maybe WN wants to keep the option to a buy a better 130 seater (C Series) at a later time?
If by better you mean worse, then sure.
At WN's fleet size, there is no possible way a C series would be cheaper to fly than a Max-7.
Not sure how on earth the fleet size can make the Max-7 better than the C-Series.
swacle wrote:[list=][/list]737max8 wrote:^WN sends 738's to BUR all the time. The MAX8 even went there.
I think SNA is really the only place I don't see 738/MAX8.
And people please....the MAX7 is NOT an order to replace the 737-700s. The MAX8 will do that. MAX7 is for a certain mission.
738 and 7M8 already visit SNA on a daily basis from WN and other carriers. The type does not face many limitations there.
737max8 wrote:^WN sends 738's to BUR all the time. The MAX8 even went there.
I think SNA is really the only place I don't see 738/MAX8.
And people please....the MAX7 is NOT an order to replace the 737-700s. The MAX8 will do that. MAX7 is for a certain mission.
swacle wrote:[list=][/list]737max8 wrote:^WN sends 738's to BUR all the time. The MAX8 even went there.
I think SNA is really the only place I don't see 738/MAX8.
And people please....the MAX7 is NOT an order to replace the 737-700s. The MAX8 will do that. MAX7 is for a certain mission.
738 and 7M8 already visit SNA on a daily basis from WN and other carriers. The type does not face many limitations there.
ODwyerPW wrote:By the time Boeing needs to replace the majority of it's 511 73G planes, the Leap1B may have seen a Pip or Two. Like many, I agree most will be replaced with the 8MAX.
However, the 7MAX @ 32-33" pitch, carrying 150pax with 3 flight attendants is the perfect replacement on allot of the 122/137/143 pax routes that the older 300s, 500s and 700s are/were flying. If you are selling just 135-145 seats on a route consistently, then the 175max capacity of the 8MAX just becomes an unnecessary expense... Higher acquisition costs, Higher Fuel Burn, Higher Landing Fees, Extra Flight Attendent, etc...
I can imagine WN ordering a fair amount of the 7MAX... it will certainly be more than 7 . If they ordered 100 of the type, then I would imagine the development costs of the 7MAX (basically a direct shrink of 8MAX) will be easily recovered. Their routes structure is big enough with sufficient secondary market opportunities to ensure these planes will be well utilized.
airliner371 wrote:Well according to CNBC, WN will take 7 next year. So while you guys can feel free to debate whether Southwest NEEDS the Max 7, it appears it's happening, and it's happening next year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -soon.html
seabosdca wrote:airliner371 wrote:Well according to CNBC, WN will take 7 next year. So while you guys can feel free to debate whether Southwest NEEDS the Max 7, it appears it's happening, and it's happening next year.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/03/southwe ... -soon.html
Also interesting from that article:
- "Southwest intends to fly the smaller MAX 7 with 143 seats." I expect this confirms my speculation that in the short term they will SELL the MAX 7 with 143 seats and fly it interchangeably with 700s.
- The new MAX 7 delivery schedule "lines up with retirement of older 737s." So looks like we know when the early -700s will start to leave the fleet. It's interesting because this timing is not driven by necessity. WN's oldest -700s currently have around 42k cycles. Accumulating further cycles at the same rate, they'll have about 52k cycles by 2023, well under either the 75k design service goal or the 100k limit of validity. New MAX frames must be cheap enough to buy and fly that the economics are driving the replacement.
INFINITI329 wrote:I believe 150 is target goal for the 7M7. That would be accomplished by adding a row of six seats and moving row 11 back to allow a seat by the emergency exit row. However, if the 150th seat triggers additional emergency exits I would question the feasibility of going to 150 vs 149.
737max8 wrote:INFINITI329 wrote:I believe 150 is target goal for the 7M7. That would be accomplished by adding a row of six seats and moving row 11 back to allow a seat by the emergency exit row. However, if the 150th seat triggers additional emergency exits I would question the feasibility of going to 150 vs 149.
We already know the MAX7 has 2 over wing exits on each side vs 1 of the 737-700. I am not sure why this is still a debate. We know facts.
lightsaber wrote:I would emphasize there Isa high likelihood that many 73Gs, if not most, are replaced with -8 MAXs. Many of the 73Gs were bought used opportunistically. (Much lower prices than used 738s).
If -8 shortfield performance is good enough, than WN will take few -7s. Finance terms will be worse on -7s (which means WN will sell bonds to purchase instead of aircraft financing).
Lightsaber
lightsaber wrote:I do expect WN to buy -7 MAX. I just do not expect many. There will be no resale market (it is the new 736) and so the cash nature of purchases (financed by bonds to keep cash flow healthy) will limit quantities.
The -7 MAX is just too costly for the number of passengers. It will have to compete against CS300s, A320NEOs, and other -8 MAX. I just do not see how WN would box themselves in.
Polot wrote:It might be possible to plug a pair of the overwing exits in you have <150 seats though (just like how many 739ER operators plug the exit behind the wing). That is what he was getting out.