Max 7 would be a good replacement for the 717. It’s slightly longer than the -700 so it can carry almost exactly 150 people w/ 3 FAs. It’s built to do the 717 flying. Not sure the company is wild about putting a 221/3 on the ATL routes that the 717 currently operates.

 

The MAX 7 absolutely would not be a good 717 replacement. Theres more to it than just the physical dimensions of the aircraft and how many pax it can hold. As I mentioned in a previous post, we already flew the -700 NG (only 10 at that) and promptly ditched them after covid. There really isn't a purpose built aircraft designed to do what the 717 does really well on the market right now. When the angry puppies get parked, I would expect 221/319/E175/CR9s to move on to those routes and perhaps a top up order of 223s to backfill the 221/319 flying.

 

The only thing the 717s do really well is have zero capital tied up in them. I agree with you that there's no way we're getting MAX 7's, but would characterize the demise of the -700s differently. They were a niche sub-fleet and we got rid of them in the interest of simplification. It was the same logic behind getting rid of the 777. Both left during covid to shed costs. -700's were absolutely peak 737, but we also had 319s, and they decided to keep those instead. We only needed one to do the flying. We'd probably prefer 220-500's to fill that niche if Airbus would make them.

Back to the 717's though, they were a convenient upguage option for RJ flying when the regionals were really strapped for pilots coming out of covid. The 220 was ordered specifically to replace it and is easily capable of doing the flying. It's just that once network realized all the other things they could do with the 220, it turned out we could make more money by opening up new long thin routes and put a high quality product on our flying into other airlines' hubs. The 220 will eventually replace the 717s once we get enough to satisfy those additional opportunities first and then, pick up the regional flying.

 

We already have an option for a real airplane doing real flying right now (at other carriers) to fit the bill - MAX 8. Don't be too shocked if we get them for this purpose of the EGEs, EYWs erc

 

how will the MAX 8 really do out of EYW? I am just surprised AA and UA haven’t jumped on it out out of there if it supposedly has the performance to do it. EGE wise UA already use it to DEN, albeit it’s a very short flight. Even the 738 should do EYW then, a bunch of 738’s go through SDU in Brazil which only has 4300ft.

 

Not worthy of a new thread, but:

"US jury awards family of Boeing 737 MAX crash victim $49.5 million"

Stemming from the MCAS related crashes in 2018 and 2019.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litiga...on-2026-05-14/

Most of the victims families were compensated via a class action settlement. A few sued on their own.

This is one award I hope doesn't get reduced on appeal.

(The last few lines were interesting. Boeing was going to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge but the DOJ flipped it when the administration changed hands)

The innocent suffer when justice sleeps.

 

the only thing I can think of is all but 4 of our -800s don’t have the short field package. Maybe with that it could do EYW better and with only 4 SFP -800s it’s not worth trying to keep those tails on that route.

 

as others have said the max 7 is not a good 717 replacement.

- why order the -7 when for marginally higher fuel burn and 1 extra FA you can fly a -10 that has significantly higher revenue potential. It really does not cost much more to fly a max 10 with 130 pax than a -7 with the same number, so why limit your potential revenue. Remember the -7 caries a lot of the structural weight of the -10.

- we already fly the 220. There is a popular notion at DL that the 220 “doesn’t work” on short routes but that’s just not true. The 220 was our first jet, and for almost 5 years our only jet, with this new generation of modern engines. While it’s obviously better on longer flights so is the NEO and the MAX. Using the 220 on short hops may not be the best use when we only have a few new planes and have a bunch of -88s and 717s, but with those gone it will do just fine on short legs. It’s not like there is something magical about the 220 that doesn’t apply to other planes with the similar engines.

 

The 220 reliability problem goes well beyond the engines. After 8 years we are still finding new "teething" issues and band aides for them. DH on one and we sat in the dark at the gate for 10 minutes with no communication or lights or wifi.

 

MAX 10 could open up some South America flying on the 73 fleet, especially if the MAX10 has the high altitude take off and landing the 700 had. BOG, MDE, UIO, MAO, LIM, GYE