Boeing gets a lifeline: First deal to sell 737 Max planes since the fatal crashes is made

The LA Times ^ | 6/18/19 | JULIE JOHNSSON and BENJAMIN KATZ

[Yo-Yo]

Boeing Co. won a huge endorsement for its troubled 737 Max aircraft: The parent company of British Airways promised to build its future short-haul fleet around the model with a plan to buy 200 jets.

In a commitment valued at $24 billion, IAG signed a letter of intent to take the single-aisle planes between 2023 and 2027, Boeing announced Tuesday. It was the first deal for the 737 Max since the plane — the best-selling model in Boeing’s history — was grounded in March after two deadly crashes.

The pact ends months of unrelenting bad news for Boeing’s flagship aircraft, which the company is struggling to return to the skies. IAG’s willingness to bet on the model provided a special boost since Chief Executive Willie Walsh is a former 737 pilot who has flown a Max simulator equipped with an update to a software system implicated in both crashes.

[Yo-Yo]

So much for the naysayers who predicted that Boeing would never sell another MAX again.

Not only is it a 200 aircraft sale, it is to an operator that was exclusively an Airbus A320 operator.

I'm sure they got a helluva deal...

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Boeing is considering renaming the aircraft, removing the “Max”.

Let’s just call it the “737 London”?

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

I have yet to see any indication that the $27B deal with Vietnam Air was called off.

[ConservativeStatement]

Stock up 17 points today.

[Midwesterner53]

Note to self: Avoid British Airways.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

That $120 million per copy price is in line with the list prices I found on MarketWatch for the 373 MAX family (May 2017):
* 737-8, a smaller 737 MAX 7 (737-7, list price $92.2 million)
* 737 MAX 200 (list price $115.4 million)
* 737 MAX 9 (737-9, list price $119.2 million)
* 737 MAX 10 (737-10, no list price as of 2017)

I wouldn’t be surprised if the price includes plenty of spare parts, engines, maintenance, and engine overhauls.

[RayChuang88]

One possibility: 737 Advanced Generation.

Mind you, Airbus could land 200+ orders for the A321XLR, essentially an A321neo fitted with a redesigned extra internal fuel tank and uprated engines so the plane could travel up to 4,700 nautical miles on a full pax/cargo load. Indeed, JetBlue may announce within the next few days a large order for the A321XLR, intended to fly transatlantic routes from New York-JFK and Boston.

[Yo-Yo]

Boeing is considering renaming the aircraft, removing the “Max”.

Let’s just call it the “737 London”?

That was advice from President Trump in a tweet last April.

[Yo-Yo]

That $120 million per copy price is in line with the list prices I found on MarketWatch for the 373 MAX family (May 2017):

The sale price is never disclosed to the public. That line "valued at $24 billion" IS the list price, which is the only price that is reported publicly.

[Yo-Yo]

Mind you, Airbus could land 200+ orders for the A321XLR, essentially an A321neo fitted with a redesigned extra internal fuel tank and uprated engines so the plane could travel up to 4,700 nautical miles on a full pax/cargo load.

The same corporate parent IAG did order 14 A321XLRs for Aer Lingus and Iberia airlines.

The A321XLR has additional permanent fuel tanks in the cargo compartment, so that it no longer has the same cargo capacity as the A320 NEO.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Thanks for clarifying that.

Duh! Of course that’s true. In all the companies I worked for, we NEVER disclosed sale price - that was ALWAYS confidential.

I’ll claim a senior moment here.

[Yo-Yo]

Duh! Of course that’s true. In all the companies I worked for, we NEVER disclosed sale price - that was ALWAYS confidential.

I’ll claim a senior moment here.

Look at the bright side: You confirmed the math in the story!

[rjsimmon]

Why not just go with the 737-800?

[Yo-Yo]

Why not just go with the 737-800?

Because of the 20% fuel savings of the MAX-8 over the -800.

[Moonman62]

The 737 MAX was a safe aircraft, and will be safer when it goes back into service.

It’s been a PR disaster for Boeing because of the Fake News Media and how easily they can fool and scare people.

[rjsimmon]

Because of the 20% fuel savings of the MAX-8 over the -800.

Given its foibles, I would go with the more reliable model. The -700 and -900 are also reliable.

[cymbeline]

“Because of the 20% fuel savings of the MAX-8 over the -800

That’s why it will continue to sell, plus the MCAS problem (assuming it’s a problem) will be super duper fixed.

[cymbeline]

“It’s been a PR disaster for Boeing because of the Fake News Media”

But I kinda don’t like the fact one of the problems was that MCAS relied on only one sensor that was on the outside of the plane, and that failed, and that they offered a multiple-sensor option that cost extra (probably a few million dollars).

[Yo-Yo]

That’s why it will continue to sell, plus the MCAS problem (assuming it’s a problem) will be super duper fixed.

MCAS wasn't the problem, it was the Boeing engineer's lack of thoroughly thinking through the consequences of a failed AOA sensor that is the issue.

The fixes that Boeing has devised include comparing both AOA sensors and disabling MCAS if they disagree by more than 5.5 degrees, displaying an AOA DISAGREE warning to the pilots for all versions of software, and preventing MCAS from performing more than one stabilizer trim movement per detected high AOA manual flight occurrence.

I posted an article outlining all of the Boeing fixes here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3754940/posts

[RayChuang88]

Actually, I read that Airbus extensively redesigned the underfloor of the A321neo so they could accommodate the extra fuel tank without a major sacrifice of cargo capacity. That’s how they were able to push the range to 4,700 nautical miles, even more range than the 757-200.