South American carriers were making it work on the NGs so I don't think the MAX-10 is a magic bullet.

 

I would love to see somebody attempt UIO-ATL with a MAX 10, I highly doubt it would be able to do that, neither will any version of a 321neo. The A320-253N/273N with 29K engines could, a MAX 8/7, a 752, and widebodies because they have so much range. That route is also 5hrs with bags + cargo, the MAX 10 from sea level will be around a 5.5-6hr plane. LIM has had a 333 or a 359 for cargo, so that's out. The MAX 10 is not some performance monster at all, not even close.

 

I was not referring to their reliability (or lack thereof). I was referring to the fact that there seems to be this perception by many pilots that the 220 only works on long, thin routes and is not suitable for shorter flights. The reality is newer modern engines are always going to be better on longer flights because they are heavier and burn more fuel getting to altitude, but once there have much lower fuel burn. So minimizing time in climb and maximizing cruise time is the way they are the most efficient.

when we have relatively few aircraft with those engines it makes sense they will be concentrated on longer flights, but as we park older airframes there is no reason the 220 can’t do shorter flights. Also the same reason the 220 is not optimized for shorter flights applies to the NEO and max, so someone saying the 220 “doesn’t work” on short flights so we need to look at the max does not make much sense.

back to the 220 reliability problems, I’m somewhat surprised we are not mitigating our losses, at least for now, and converting remaining 223 orders to the 321NEO. We have 220s that are almost 25% through their expected life* and we are still having a ton of problems. At this point is it still “teething” or just a poor design?

*assuming a 30-35 year airframe life span

 

I HIGHLY doubt the -10 will have anywhere near the performance needed to do any SAQ SA airport. I’m expecting the -10 to have comparable performance to a -900NG.

 

If the MAX10 performance anywhere near what the other MAX variants do, it’ll have no problem at all. The MAX variants are very capable planes when it comes to performance

 

the MAX 8 is a great performer, the MAX 9 a bit better than the 739ER, yet that variant still doesn’t go to these hot and high airports. The MAX 8 can clearly handle BOG and UIO, LIH, SNA to an extent. The MAX 9 isn’t showing up on 4-6hr routes from these airports though. Unless we think the 10 is going to have drastically better performance than the 9.

 

The bigger variants of what aircraft have good performance? Even when the big boys do have "good" performance it's just because they we paid for a higher MTOW certification.

 

the -10 will have the exact same engines as the -9 with a heavier airframe. If the -9 can’t do it, the -10 certainly won’t be able to.

 

Exactly, the -10 is just going to be an efficient high CASM people mover with more premium seating than a 739ER, of course it will have the range to do 4-6hr flights, but no high performance routes at all. It will live at sea level and perform extremely well there with long runways

 

Excellent points. I think you are both correct. Wonder what Delta will do for high altitude airports when the 757 goes away?

Seems like 220/319/737-800 will be the only options