Boeing's 737 MAX 10 could be certified within days, opening the door for airlines like Alaska, American, Delta, and United to fly the most efficient 737 variant yet.
Westjet is the launch customer for the MAX10
The Max10 will be a great add for Alaska Airlines.
The Seattle airport is so dang packed and crowded they can swap in the Max10 to reduce some frequencies and free up some space.
Personally, I’m kind of hesitant about this Frankenstein airplane.
I think it's more about allowing airlines to increase capacity with the same frequencies, or in Alaska's case, adding flat beds domestically.
Yay, we can look forward to more airworthiness software beta testing on live/paying pax again.
as sad as it might be, but i agree on those lines! Who on earth is willing to get on a plane that's dangerous from day 1?
So far i only had to cancel 3 of my original itineraries because of such a crazy plane, i would NOT set foot on it for various reasons and thankfully there is still airlines out there who will not get any variant of this aircraft in the fleet!
There have been some green shoots from Boeing after the new CEO took over. Hopefully this is a flawless launch for this variant.
How does this compete against the 321CEO and NEO? Sounds like a plane for high capacity under 2K mile routes-major city pairs and trunk routes for hub carriers.
I think AA is also considering this plane.
My layman's understanding is that the 321neo can have slightly more capacity and higher range, but the Max10 has better economics on shorter—up to 3-4 hour-ish— flights.
I would assume that the fact that the 737-10 basically has the same wing and fuel tanks as the 737-8 has more to do with the limited range than having the same engines.....
I believe in boeing design philosophy. So i will manufacture a car that veers sharp left as speeds increase to 30mph. But do not worry. A computer knows what happens and will prevent the sharp left turn and prevent an accident. I will not tell customers or sales about that life saving feature.
The Max saga is coming to a close. There won’t be any issues with the -10, or any others. That said, I don’t fly on third world airlines.
Yowzers! For a pilot with allegedly 27,000 hours, you made several wild presumptions there…
LOL, who wants to inform this doof that the actual definition of "third world" would mean that he doesn't fly airlines like Swiss International.
How ancient are you? I’m not referring to unaligned nations, (the 60’s term) but the modern description of an underdeveloped or low income country, but you knew that. Your assertion that the “actual definition” is wrong. Scroll down when you google something.
"but the modern description of an underdeveloped or low income country"
^ Hey y'all, found the 'tard who doesn't understand the difference between a definition and a colloquialism. 😉
Use of language changes over time, and definitions change as a result of this.
For example, you use the word "retard" which began life a medical term, but is now an offensive insult.
Dating yourself much? The third world as a colloquialism for the underdeveloped nations is definitely not modern. Scroll down when you google something.
Expect Max 20 in 100 years. Long live the 737.
People think this guy is joking... but there is a high chance this is true.
It's much easier to continuously certify derivatives of the same plane over and over vs a completely new plane.
Really such a short memory of those Boeing murdered in the Max 8, chasing profits above safety ? The entire series still has a lifetime ban for me.
@ David in So Cal - it's not hard to fly while avoiding all 737 MAX variants, though...I've been all over North America, Europe, and Asia since the 8's "problems" with no problems...
One must congratulate American Airlines for improving their World Ranking by +17 places and only one place below the UK’s best low cost airline Ryanair, who were ranked number 64.
United and Alaska also achieved ranking improvement of +6 places on last year.
Sadly Southwest slipped a place while jetBlue dropped two places on last year’s ranking.
The largest drop was a disappointing minus three place drop for Delta, the Airline which believes itself to be an air line, better known as a tube or pipe for conveying compressed air.
I know where you're going (went?) with this, and what you posted is technically true. But I'm never a fan of ranking for quality comparisons. It can be statistically dishonest. Why?
- If everyone sucks, someone is always first.
- If everyone is exceptional, someone is always last.
Ranking is only relative. Scoring is more objective. Think of a golf leaderboard - if you only report the rank the players finished, it gives the impression that the players get equally worse the further down you go, when that's often not true. Furthermore, if today's top player was 10 over par, and yesterday's top player was 4 under par, they sound like they played equally well if you report only ranking. They obviously didn't.
But if you report the scores, you see the true difference in the results. You can see how a dozen players may be closely bunched and only within a single stroke of each other, and then there may be a huge drop-off to the ones that follow behind. That's more honest about how each performed, rather than just "first... second... third..."
You also see our favorite Delta fanatic / propagandist revert to ranking with discussing cancellation rates, on-time rates, and baggage mishandling for this very reason. Specific results are used when Delta is behind, but close to the competition, to avoid the negative-sounding "4th place out of 4" description. Then, ranking is used with Delta is ahead, but the competition is close, to disguise the nearly-identical (but very small) differences in performance.
Another way to see the problem with ranking in the results you cited: Did Delta drop three places because they got worse, or because they were unchanged and other airlines got better? With only ranking, we don't know. With scoring, we'd know.
no, it is UA fan nut jobs that went ALL IN on DL's operational problems at the beginning of the year.
Except UA fell off the wagon - literally. Their on-time for August was about 5 percent less than DL - which easily led the industry. 5% is noticeable.
DL got better, not worse. But just as your nut job colleagues try to spend the disaster that was UA's earnings, you do all you can to avoid admitting that UA's operation not only never caught up w/ DL but has gotten worse.
and the cancellation difference between DL and UA is gone. DL and UA's mainline cancellation rate is the same now.
and UA STLL is at the bottom of the industry in bagggage handling. Me saying that is what you really don't want to hear, is it?
@Tim.
Reading comprehension problem with what Pilot Paul said? What he said, is the differences are statistically insignificant, i.e, a meaningless comparison. That includes baggage handling. And I'm not even going to argue the difference in measuring the statistics, because you won't get it anyway.
@Lucky, Have you seen the latest news about more 737 MAX software glitches?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/09/26/boeing-flags-737-max-software-glitch/91960630007/
I would be hesitant to say that Boeing's 737 MAX quality control issues are behind them.
The official Boeing response has been to say that it's only an issue under "specific landing scenarios", which is kind of reminiscent of the 737 Max crashes where the MCAS was only problematic under certain circumstances.
Right, because there is never any Airworthiness Directive or Corrective Action for any other type of plane. If you dig a little, all airplanes from every manufacturer get literally hundreds of Airworthiness Directives over their service life.
Just for reference, here's what AI says is the list of Airworthiness Directives for the Airbus' newest pride and joy, the A321XLR, just in 2026 alone:
1) AD 2026-04-677 / 2026-03-10: Revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) targeting freezing fog/icing protection (affects the Pratt & Whitney powered -271NY).
2) AD 2026-14-05: Mandates software updates to the Digital Radio and Audio Integrating Management System (DRAIMS) (affects both -253NY and -271NY).
3) AD 2026-15-13: Overhaul requirements for High-Pressure Bleed Valve (HPV) clips to mitigate engine duct burst risks.
4) March 2026 Structural Update (via Docket FAA-2025-3437): Formally expanded airworthiness limitation requirements to account for structural boundaries on the -253NY.
5) July/August 2026 Updates (Docket FAA-2026-3480 / AD 2026-09-17): Continues to adapt earlier interim restrictions specifically to pull the -271NY and -253NY into full hardware line compliance.
AD's don't indicate a fault in design - they show that the system is working. Threats are being mitigated by continual testing, surveillance, monitoring, and reporting by the industry and regulators through a robust safety management system. But new AD for the MAX is a scary headline! Scary MAX!
UA flys the Max9 with 20/159 and AS with 16/162. Given the 5'5" extra length, we're talking two rows. So, UA with 20/171 or 24/165 makes sense. And, AS with 20/168 sounds right. Since we're seeing 30" pitch on the UA Max9, I can't see them going for more than 191 seats. That will, of course, let them keep required FAs at 4.
If airlines stick with <200 seats so they don't have to deploy an extra FA, then what's the point of flying the MAX 10 when a 9 does exactly the same job?
I'll wait a few months just in case.
Can someone walk me through the process for each airline to be approved to fly the new variant? I know there is required employee training but don’t understand the timeline to get the training plan created, submitted, reviewed, approved, and executed.
Excellent news!
Higher max t/o weight, longer fuselage, the same engine and the same wing….won’t exactly be a great performer. Maybe the pogo stick gear will help launch it into the air, otherwise it’s going to be spending more time on the runway and more time climbing to a lower cruise altitude. Oh yeah don’t forget to “brace for landing “.