So from previous updates I’ve heard that the flight deck takes the longest when creating a new aircraft? If that’s the case, would it be easier to say, make the 753, A35K, 7M9, or A332 as the flight deck is the same as the other variants of the aircraft and can simply be transferred?
1 Like
Probably — that’s why, for example, the A339 got added with the A333. Same fuselage and flight deck, just needed new winglets and engines.
But just because something is easy doesn’t mean it’s worth doing. If we already have one 757 variant, why spend the time to make a second one that will cater to largely the same audience when those resources could be used to make an F-18 or Cessna 208 and increase diversity of the fleet?
7 Likes
I’m just asking whether it’s the case or not… wondering if the 7M9 will be easier to create after the 7M8—and same for the neo family.
In theory, yes, the B39M would be faster to make than the B38M. However, the reason for its non-addition to the fleet is because a large portion of B39M operators already operate the B38M. Something which is not the case for the A20N and A21N which serve different markets (A321neo XLR for example).
As Tom said above, adding the B39M wouldn’t add much to the diversity of the IF fleet.
2 Likes
For sure, I advocated for the A321N and 7M8 for being the aircraft that would bring the most diversity. But just to clarify, making the A321N after the A320N would be quicker?
Again, in theory, yes. The main, if not the only difference, being the length of the fuselage, and physics.
1 Like
Once again this is a wrong argument. Both the MAX familiy and the Neo family operate both certified variants i.e. 738/739 and 320/321. Yes the MAX has less but the quantity per carrier is more for the 739 family. But the operators of the Neo has more operators in general and more than the 739. Its not that the A321Neo has more exclusive operators as there is a few carriers using that subvariant exclusively. Majority of the carriers that are operating the Neo is using both subvariants in unison.
Examples of carriers using in unison: Frontier, Lufthansa, Spirit, American, Easyjet, Transavia (soon KLM), Indigo, China southern/Eastern, ANA, Aegean, Sky express, Juneyao air, Air Astana, Gulf Air, British Airways, Iberia, TAP, Azores, Aer Lingus, Swiss, ANZ and so forth.
Other carriers using A321 exclusively: Turkish, Delta, United, IceAir, Hawaiian and few other
Your logic is flawed and/or incomplete. Filter out all B39M in FR24, as of January 3rd 2025, 1649Z.
Only Air Tanzania is an airborne B39M without a B38M in their fleet.
Now do the same manoeuvre for the A21N/A20N:
- WAY MORE operators.
- DAL, UAL, AAL, Air Transat, La Compagnie, JetBlue, Turkish, Korean, Hawaaian, Asiana, Samarkand Air, Scoot, MEA, China Airlines all fly only the 321 NEO
So yes, a lot of airlines operate both, but on a very different scale than the 737 MAX
1 Like
Don’t forget Saudia
I didnt tell that the B39M has more operators, i told there are few 6 carriers i think. Bu the quantity of the aircraft per carriers is a lot more, with Copa (29 in fleet), United (80 with deliveries pending), AeroMexico (19 in fleet), Turkish (5 in fleet), Air Tanzania (1 in fleet), Alaska (65 deliveries pending), Corendon (2
3 in fleet), FDB (3 in fleet), IceAir (4 in fleet), Lion (4 in fleet), SCAT (5 in fleet). Well i agree we have less operators but the scale on the usage is big with United and Alaska taking deliveries still. This will cater to the American Audience the most bit still wouldn’t hurt to bring it! Just my personal thought!
Not to mention that the B38M and A21N have the better range over the B39M and A20N respectively
2 Likes
We’re looking for diversity, not quantity. Also the A321neo was much more requested than the MAX 9.
1 Like
No, we have no plans for the MAX 9 regardless.
Just because it’s “easier” doesn’t mean that time is worth it.