It’s interesting that most of the complaints about the 737 revolve more around what we want to fly rather than what the bean counters think will generate the most revenue. The Max as it is designed now is perfectly safe, and those with the data seemed to think that it was a better overall fit than the NEO. We look at automation, performance, cockpit comfort, and hand flying qualities. Our customers for the most part just see a metal tube with a bunch of seats. A safe, reliable, and comfortable ride that gets them there on time is all the vast majority of them care about. What we want to fly is irrelevant. We can embrace the dream guppy for all that is and enjoy a larger fleet with more bidding options, or we can bid the bus and deal with a much smaller fleet with less planned growth. I wish that they went with the NEO as well, but those who know more than line pilots decided that the max is going to make up the vast majority of our NB lift.

Alaska just announced they're ditching the Bus for an all-737 fleet. I guess that says something about the capabilities of the 73.

they’re only ditching the Airbus because they don’t to deal with the hassle of removing the “proudly all Boeing” stickers.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/11/17/b...ost/index.html

“Boeing has detailed about $20 billion in direct costs from the grounding: $8.6 billion in compensation to customers for having their planes grounded, $5 billion for unusual costs of production, and $6.3 billion for increased costs of the 737 Max program.”

that doesn’t include the initial costs of R&D for the 737 MAX either.

It costs $5-10 billion to build and certify a clean sheet airliner. Bombardier did it for $6 billion on the C Series, which Boeing pushed into Airbus’s hands for free.

Boeing management is about as high-level incompetent as it gets.

For a regional airline that doesn’t want to expand outside of the PNW, the 737 makes a lot of sense.

That's right, except it isn't Boeing making the decisions.

Boeing and Airbus are in regular contact with their customs, airlines and leasing companies. They discuss possible designs and what the airline might be interested in buying. The MAX line was built because that's what Boeing's customers wanted at the time. They wanted a more efficient airplane, sooner, at lower cost, and with training commonality, which a clean-sheet design wouldn't provide. If Boeing didn't deliver, most of those MAX orders would have gone to Airbus.

i was responding to a specific comment about xlr’s vs max 10.

the customer isn’t always right. The customer doesn’t always know what they want. Sometimes you have to tell them what they want.

its what one customer wanted - SWA. The rationale was simple on the Boeing side. SWA was expected to buy 1,000 MAX alone. That in itself makes it worth it.

All it says is the cost to switch their parts inventory, tech training, pilot training, etc far exceeded the benefit of a better aircraft. It was predominately the same decision process for United. If you’re just looking at straight capability then the Airbus 320 series is a clear winner, but the costs associated with refleeting types can be prohibitive without some major incentives from the manufacturer or other accounting wizardry.