In recent weeks, the Boeing 737 MAX has been back in the spotlight, following an incident with an Alaska 737 MAX 9 at the beginning of the year. Regulators have made it clear that they’re now investigating Boeing, and this will fundamentally change the relationship between the aircraft manufacturer and regulators.
It’s worth keeping in mind that the Boeing 737 MAX 7 and 737 MAX 10 haven’t yet been certified. Up until recently, the goal was for these jets to be certified in the coming months, though at this point that no longer seems realistic. This has the biggest implications for Southwest and United, since the two airlines are relying on the 737 MAX 7 and 737 MAX 10 (respectively) for fleet renewal and growth.
With this latest reality, United’s management is preparing for a fleet strategy that doesn’t include the 737 MAX 10. United hinted at this some time back, but has now made more concrete plans.
In this post:
United Airlines building plan without 737 MAX 10
United Airlines is Boeing’s biggest customer, and the airline has hundreds of Boeing 737 MAXs on order. In addition to the 737 MAX 8 and 737 MAX 9 (which are already in service), the airline also has 150 737 MAX 10s on order. This is the largest variant of the aircraft, and is a key part of United’s plan to increase capacity in many markets.
During a Squawk Box interview in late January 2024, United CEO Scott Kirby made some interesting comments about Boeing, and in particular about the 737 MAX 10. Among other things, he said:
- “I have a lot of confidence in the people of Boeing, but they’ve been having these consistent manufacturing challenges, and they need to take action”
- “We’re now best case five years behind on the original delivery of the MAX 10, and as we’ve gone through the last year, internally at United, we’ve grown increasingly to believe that best case, the MAX 10 just gets pushed further and further to the right, so we’ve already started working on alternative plans”
- “I think the MAX 9 grounding is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back for us, we’re gonna at least build a plan that doesn’t have the MAX 10 in it”
The 737 MAX 10 has been delayed by years, and up until recently, it seemed like certification was imminent. At this point it’s pretty clear that there’s no timeline for the 737 MAX 10 entering service.
For United, the 737 MAX 10 was going to have the best per-seat costs of any narrow body jet. On top of that, United was planning on installing flat beds on some 737 MAX 10s, using them as the new aircraft for premium transcontinental routes (in the same way American will use A321XLRs, and Delta will use A321neos).
United tells Boeing to stop building 737 MAX 10s
United CEO Scott Kirby has taken his stance on the 737 MAX 10 a step further. Yesterday, he stated that United has asked Boeing to stop building the 737 MAX 10 for the carrier, and to instead focus on building 737 MAX 9s. At this point the 737 MAX 10 isn’t in United’s fleet plan in the coming years, and the airline is no longer counting on the jet.
Now, I don’t think this development will come as much of a surprise. It’s not like United could even take delivery of the 737 MAX 10 until it’s certified, so the situation has been fairly low risk for the airline. But it is interesting that United is basically just telling Boeing to build more 737 MAX 9s for the carrier, since those are certified and can actually enter service.
If the 737 MAX 10 is out of the picture for United (at least in the coming years), where does that leave the airline? Aircraft manufacturing is essentially a duopoly, so United’s options are limited:
- United could keep flying its existing aircraft for longer, and this would likely spell a longer life for the Boeing 757, among other aircraft
- United could order even more Airbus A321neos, which are the best direct replacement for the 737 MAX 10, and United already has 130 of these on order; the airline is currently in negotiations with Airbus for more of these jets
- United could simply swap Boeing 737 MAX 10 orders for more 737 MAX 9s and 737 MAX 8s, as those planes are already certified
I suspect that we’re probably going to see a combination of these strategies — United will probably order more A321neos, and will focus on continuing to take delivery of 737 MAX 9s. Once United gets to the end of its 737 MAX 9 order book, the airline may convert some 737 MAX 10 orders to 737 MAX 9s, or may just continue to focus on the A321neo.
I think one big question now is when United will make plans for its new premium transcon plane. Some 737 MAX 10s were supposed to feature flat beds and be used on routes like Newark to Los Angeles. I have to imagine that United may now instead create a premium A321neo configuration for these kinds of routes, since the airline needs a concrete plan there, and can’t wait forever.
Bottom line
United Airlines’ management is no longer counting on the Boeing 737 MAX 10 being certified any time soon, given Boeing’s latest 737 MAX issues. At this point, United is telling Boeing to just work on delivering the existing 737 MAX 9 order to the airline, rather than building any 737 MAX 10s.
Ultimately United has some flexibility here — I imagine we’re going to see more Airbus A321neos ordered, and for the next couple of years United can also focus on its existing 737 MAX 9 order with Boeing. If the 737 MAX 10 is certified in that timeline, we might still see the jet join United’s fleet. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t happen.
What do you make of United’s Boeing 737 MAX 10 situation?
Boeing's issues began with the McDonnell Douglas merger in the 1990's where the latter's execs took control. Boeing was known as an "engineers' company" where product quality and safety was paramount. Then the "bean counters" took over and look what happened.
Moving the headquarters to Chicago and then Arlington, VA was a huge mistake and a return to Seattle should be on their agenda. Then came the great idea to transfer all production of the...
Boeing's issues began with the McDonnell Douglas merger in the 1990's where the latter's execs took control. Boeing was known as an "engineers' company" where product quality and safety was paramount. Then the "bean counters" took over and look what happened.
Moving the headquarters to Chicago and then Arlington, VA was a huge mistake and a return to Seattle should be on their agenda. Then came the great idea to transfer all production of the 787 to non-union South Carolina where all assembly people had to be trained. We all know about MCAS and the Max. What should be brought up is the fact that the 737 "upgrade" was a mistake. An entirely new aircraft should have been built and built in Seattle. Now doors are flying off and more.
Bottom line is that a great American company is now in big trouble and its largest competitor, Airbus, is taking business from them. I have taken transcontinental flights on everything from a 747, 767, 330 and 380. My all-time favorite is the 380 in Business Class. I will also take a 320neo over a Max any day. I do check the aircraft I wlll be flying on and I do try to avoid the MAX. Hello, Delta.
Keep flying those 28 year old Airbuses I guess.
funny, though.
United has made the national news in the "A block" more times in the past week than any other airline - perhaps ever.
They are talking about United Airlines and Boeing which is the supplier of the majority of the planes in UA's fleet.
But UA is in the news so it is all good, right?
In the 60's it took three to four years to get a certification once the design is frozen. They used slide rules to boot.
Yes, the DE Haviland Comet was certified in 22 months (with square windows) and soon thereafter 3 fell out of the sky, killing everyone on board.
At this point, Boeing should rebrand and drop the word MAX. Maybe Supreme, Deluxe, Royal.
The 737 DICE 10
you got me with the deluxe, LOL! a la Katy Perry Prism Deluxe Edition. it would be even more tacky. I wouldn't count on Boeing anyway, I don't think we'll see those planes in UA's fleet this decade. They better get their hands on as many airbuses as they can, the better plane for the american flyer.
What about the long-awaited swap of A359 order slots for A321neos? United clearly has no interest in ever flying the A359 and yet they persist
The A321 production line is likely full; Airbus is trying to convert the former A380 plant for other models but there are no production slots for the A321 to be had in any significant amounts.
And UA does say it will consider the A350 as a replacement for the 777-200 fleet and the A350-1000 would do wonders as a 777-300ER replacement.
but UA wants to hold onto its 777-200ERs.
And as much as it rubs...
The A321 production line is likely full; Airbus is trying to convert the former A380 plant for other models but there are no production slots for the A321 to be had in any significant amounts.
And UA does say it will consider the A350 as a replacement for the 777-200 fleet and the A350-1000 would do wonders as a 777-300ER replacement.
but UA wants to hold onto its 777-200ERs.
And as much as it rubs some people all kinds of wrong ways, Delta will be adding all kinds of new routes using the A350-900s over the next few years that the 787 simply cannot fly.
And then they will put the A350-1000s into service and will run circles around UA in not just cost efficiency for a large widebody but also for capability as the -1000 will also be doing routes that no aircraft in UA's fleet can or will do - until UA orders the A350 for itself.
Airbus and Boeing don't build directly competitive products anymore = and not just on the basis of who can deliver what and when.
United made a wholesale commitment to Boeing with a tad of Airbus on the side and a few A350s on the dessert menu and they are paying a high price that will only get bigger.
meanwhile AA and DL will have all of the airplanes they need
Didn't Delta run into issues retiring their 777-200LR's which had better performance on some routes (JNB-ATL). Delta also did not have that much long haul capacity by preamptively retiring their 777's while United does by still holding onto very capable planes. According to people at Delta there are routes Delta hasn't brought back after covid (IND-CDG) purely because there aren't enough long haul planes and the long haul planes they currently have could be used...
Didn't Delta run into issues retiring their 777-200LR's which had better performance on some routes (JNB-ATL). Delta also did not have that much long haul capacity by preamptively retiring their 777's while United does by still holding onto very capable planes. According to people at Delta there are routes Delta hasn't brought back after covid (IND-CDG) purely because there aren't enough long haul planes and the long haul planes they currently have could be used more profitably elsewhere
the 777-200LR, like the 757-200 is extraordinarily capable and the 777-200 is very fuel INEFFICIENT whether as the -200, 200ER, or LR.
DL had 10 LRs and 8 ERs; they didn't have engine maintenance rights for either of those engines (GE and Rolls Royce) which added to the cost.
DL chose to get rid of its relatively small 777 fleet during the pandemic because it had A350s on order.
The early A350s...
the 777-200LR, like the 757-200 is extraordinarily capable and the 777-200 is very fuel INEFFICIENT whether as the -200, 200ER, or LR.
DL had 10 LRs and 8 ERs; they didn't have engine maintenance rights for either of those engines (GE and Rolls Royce) which added to the cost.
DL chose to get rid of its relatively small 777 fleet during the pandemic because it had A350s on order.
The early A350s were not near as capable as the 777LR in range but DL put up w/ the payload restrictions due to range and the A350-900 and probably the -1000 will never be as capable as the LR out of JNB.
DL's JNB and CPT to ATL flights are the longest out of both of those airports on any airline with any type of aircraft.
It simply is not worth making a fleet decision based on one airport.
DL has saved tens of millions of dollars in fuel using A350s compared to 777s.
DL now has dozens of far more capable A350s coming in the next few years on top of the A330-900s which have comparable fuel economy as the A350 but less range.
UA burned $1.4 billion more in fuel in 2023 than DL; the profit difference between the two was $2 billion.
Flying old, inefficient aircraft doesn't help if they cut directly into profits.
IND was related to a corporate contract which DL may or may not have been able to obtain post-covid.
DL has enough 767s and TATL widebodies if it wanted to add a bunch of TATL routes.
They are just now returning to growth position for TPAC and Asia capable widebodies.
UA will spend 3X more on fleet growth and replacement than DL through the end of this decade. DL hasn't and won't be left behind despite UA's higher fleet spending.
UA will simply be growing with much lower efficiency which means they are TRYING to grab market share but aren't turning it into profit
I think it's safe to assume SW, UA, others are going to litigate Boeing for failure to perform: the usual excuse, 'force majuere', extraordinary event (war, natural disaster, Covid) beyond the control of the parties, isn't there.
Can Boeing survive those claims? It's already drained some hefty portion of its insurance limits. I'm guessing, we'll find out within a few months if Boeing really is "too big to fail."
Boeing as well as Airbus and the engine manufacturers predominantly provide credits for future purchases rather than direct cash compensation.
United has received billions in credits from Boeing which is part of why they have ordered such huge numbers of aircraft - and yet the delays persist on the same models they have been given credits from.
Boeing's future is very much at risk for lots of reasons but whether they pay UA cash or credits is not the reason.
Boeing needs to go out of business. Yes the American economy will take a hit with a huge company go under but America will survive. Airbus or another aircraft builder could purchase the facilities in Charleston and Renton to expand their lines.
no, Boeing doesn't need to go out of business.
They need to have everyone including Wall Street and Washington DC to put endless pressure on them until the problems are fixed.
Competition is needed.
If Raytheon or Lockheed or other aerospace companies want to be part of carving up Boeing, that is and should be on the table.
Creating a western monopoly for western built large jets should never even be a consideration.
You can’t polish a turd. They need to go out of business.
I'd personally love to see BCA and Boeing Defense completely separated.
The latter could hopefully form a j/v with the likes of Lockheed, and go back to being an ENGINEERING firm with production primarily in-house. SkunkWorks designs, Boeing produces.
I've zero concern for what happens to the spun-off Defense. Nationalize it, for all I care.
Just hope that someday, Boeing (or whatever's left of it) can purge *every* Welchian/Stonecipherian aspect out of the company, and...
I'd personally love to see BCA and Boeing Defense completely separated.
The latter could hopefully form a j/v with the likes of Lockheed, and go back to being an ENGINEERING firm with production primarily in-house. SkunkWorks designs, Boeing produces.
I've zero concern for what happens to the spun-off Defense. Nationalize it, for all I care.
Just hope that someday, Boeing (or whatever's left of it) can purge *every* Welchian/Stonecipherian aspect out of the company, and stop trying to be a stockbroking/lobbying outfit who just happens to produce aircraft.
..."create a premium A321neo configuration..." How revolutionary !
It WAS United that created the Premium Transcend product - so why not start from the ground up with a new product on the PS routes rather than copy everyone else?!
NK circling the drain with a lot of airbus planes going back to lessors looking for a new home. You have to imagine UA is in a position to pick these up at a pretty good price if needed and would certainly be able to close the gap to get them to the MAX10 or the next traunch of open slots in the airbus orderbook.
United's entire business plan for the last 3 years has been to "win" because of the failures of other airlines and it is now finding that it is subject to the same reasons those other airlines are failing, not because of United being any smarter than any other airline.
Spirit is in trouble because they were an early adopter of the A321NEO powered by the Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofan. They have dozens of planes...
United's entire business plan for the last 3 years has been to "win" because of the failures of other airlines and it is now finding that it is subject to the same reasons those other airlines are failing, not because of United being any smarter than any other airline.
Spirit is in trouble because they were an early adopter of the A321NEO powered by the Pratt and Whitney Geared Turbofan. They have dozens of planes out of service as do scores of airlines that have early generation GTFs. P&W is having to divert substantial production capacity to send parts to its MROs which have backlogs for months to even take engines apart to find out if the engines have parts that need replacement.
Guess what engine UA picked to power its A321NEOs? The GTF and they did it in part because P&W offered compensation to UA for the PW 4000 fan blade issues that kept the UA PW fleet grounded for months. CFM can't build LEAP engines fast enough.
Spirit and JetBlue are struggling because they can't grow capacity due to the GTF issue; Southwest is struggling because of MAX 7 certification issues and Boeing delays.
United thought they were smarter than everyone else and ordered the same planes and engines and were special so they would cut the line and they doubled down on that strategy right after the Alaska door blowout when the FAA and Congress turned their focus on Boeing like nobody has ever seen with an American manufacturer.
United claimed just yesterday that it has gained share because of dropping the change fee and innovated because of it. WN never had change fees and all UA did was match WN. WN is not growing because of the MAX 7 delays and operational issues of WN's doing.
UA is not going to jump the queue and NEXT as UA has laid it out won't happen
Oh, and you know who is the authorized airline MRO for the GTF in the US?
Delta Tech Ops
Delta has made a killing fixing the Trent 1000 issues on the 787 and will do the same and even more on the GTF.
Some people carried on endlessly about the "luck" Delta has had and how it makes money because it monopolizes its core 4 hubs.
Delta simply has outsmarted its competitors.
United thought it would outsmart its low cost competitors and gain from their misfortunes.
We are here today because UA was wrong - and DL was right.
Why did my comment about NK and UA devolve into DL? It’s about the potential of NK going bankrupt and having a bunch of usable (upon retrofit) planes hit the market. You’re welcome to go manipulate your stock holdings elsewhere, but for this comment let’s talk about what happens to the NK fleet if something terrible for consumers (and thus, good for your stock holdings) happens.
sorry if I have to bring out the crayons.
In summary, UA thinks it was going to gain an advantage over NK and B6 even though UA is subject to the exact same issues that are impacting NK and B6.
If you want to believe that UA really has built a better mousetrap that has nothing to do with airframe and engine issues, go for it, but the reality, whether you or anyone...
sorry if I have to bring out the crayons.
In summary, UA thinks it was going to gain an advantage over NK and B6 even though UA is subject to the exact same issues that are impacting NK and B6.
If you want to believe that UA really has built a better mousetrap that has nothing to do with airframe and engine issues, go for it, but the reality, whether you or anyone wants to accept it or not, is that UA is not going to win at a game that is negatively impacting other airlines.
and the DL connection is that DL is the MRO provider for the GTF which means that UA's engines - or an equivalent portion of the GTF capacity - will pass through DL's shops. and DL has the right to prioritize work on its own engines even if it doesn't get to jump the line with PW in getting parts for its engines ahead of any other airline.
NK's business model is not broken as much as Scott Kirby wants to tell you otherwise. NK is in trouble because of having such a huge percentage of its fleet out of service.
NK is going to receive cash compensation - which is what happens when enough in-service aircraft are impacted (in comparison to delays in receiving orders).
They are not on the verge of bankruptcy and even if they do file for Chapter 11, that doesn't mean other airlines can come in and raid their fleet or orders.
I am nauseous.
I didn't read that word vomit. I assume it's about how Delta is winning again because it's smarter than everyone.
yes. Delta has outsmarted its competition over and over and over again.
And that is why Delta is winning - if winning has anything to do with being more profitable and generating more revenue, paying its people more, being awarded more than other airlines, and running a measurably better operation.
Mark and others argued breathlessly yesterday that Delta makes money because of its cheap to operate hubs - like ATL - and its "luck"...
yes. Delta has outsmarted its competition over and over and over again.
And that is why Delta is winning - if winning has anything to do with being more profitable and generating more revenue, paying its people more, being awarded more than other airlines, and running a measurably better operation.
Mark and others argued breathlessly yesterday that Delta makes money because of its cheap to operate hubs - like ATL - and its "luck" in having dumb competitors like Eastern that went out of business so Delta is able to monopolize its hubs and gouge its customers.
I said then and still say - because it is fact - that Delta is so much more profitable and generates so much more revenue than any other airline - because Delta had the foresight to diverse its revenue stream and manage its costs better than other airlines.
Delta didn't invent the credit card partnership or loyalty program but earns more from those relationships than any other airline.
Delta wasn't the first to do MRO deals; American had the Rolls Royce Trent contract, gave it up to order GE engines for its 777-300ERs and 787s, and Delta has the Rolls contract now.
Delta insisted on getting the GTF contract to place an order for massive number of A220 and A320 aircraft and is the exclusive airliine MRO provider for the GTF in the Americas.
Delta uniquely bought a refinery and saves hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes billions on fuel compared to AA and UA.
Delta has outsmarted the competition which is why they make so much more money.
Ben takes the stories the way they happen in the industry. The more stories are discussed, the more feeble the arguments others make and the more DL's version of how the industry works - which I myself speak about whether DL says it or not.
UA isn't getting the number of planes it wants.
NEXT and the massive growth that UA and its fankids have discussed isn't happening anywhere close to what anyone wants to believe.
UA will wait for airplanes just like WN. If another MAX gets developed first, it will be the MAX 7 which will benefit WN the most.
AA and DL also have ordered MAX 10s but they have healthy Airbus orders. They can and will wait and will still grow.
WHY ARE YOU SOOOO IN LOVE WITH DL. CHILL A LITTLE.
Why are you such a coward that you mock someone else instead of using your own name or simply BUTTING OUT of a conversation which you are incapable of participating in?
I'm in love with the truth and against hyper fanboyism that is based on emotion and devoid from reality.
Delta has nothing to do with it.
sure buddy
you praise delta every chance you get.
if you really want to know my real name it is Ben Dover
The king of using a fake name, Tim Dunn, and he accuses others of using one.
Work must be slow, Tim. You've spent the last two days in your basement in the comments sections of articles not even related to Delta.
I can't even imagine how strange it must be to tie your mental well-being to an airline.
Might be time for some therapy.
and you are going to tell me that the name you posted on is fake?
Can you and the internet ilk get on the same page?
We have one set of stooges say that I was fired by Delta and you and others think I am using a fake name.
You would have to collapse in tears at the insanity of the thinking (or lack thereof) that is displayed if you didn't laugh first
...and you are going to tell me that the name you posted on is fake?
Can you and the internet ilk get on the same page?
We have one set of stooges say that I was fired by Delta and you and others think I am using a fake name.
You would have to collapse in tears at the insanity of the thinking (or lack thereof) that is displayed if you didn't laugh first
The only truth is that I am, once again, calling out United and Scott Kirby's stupid strategies and explaining why Delta has stayed out of the places UA is in now and there are a host of people that can't stand to read that - let alone accept it - so they engage in all manner of trying to trash me, even as yet another discussion about the industry turns into one about me.
Get over yourselves and accept clear reality which will be apparent for everyone to see.
By that point, you will have moved onto something else to try to belittle me - all because I am providing accurate color commentary on the industry that you are incapable of even understanding.
Why are you so invested in this? This is an enthusiast page. You get nasty every chance you can for no good reason.
because I enthusiastically love to prove people wrong who tried to do the same thing to me.
want to be the first to take the boxing gloves off?
I still can't seem to understand you.
I've called you out on some other posts and you've ignored it when you realize I knew more than you.
I'm tired of you
Tim,
it's amusing that you seem to think your past airliners.net history/username is just forgotten in history. Your actual name, work history, and background was widely known and shared by other delta employees who found you incredibly annoying. You can try lying here now because you think you can and do your usual smoke & mirrors, but your background is well-known.
While it must be fun for you to think you can hide behind...
Tim,
it's amusing that you seem to think your past airliners.net history/username is just forgotten in history. Your actual name, work history, and background was widely known and shared by other delta employees who found you incredibly annoying. You can try lying here now because you think you can and do your usual smoke & mirrors, but your background is well-known.
While it must be fun for you to think you can hide behind a fake name in your basement, you do have a history and it's not one people forget. You have annoyed people for more than a decade. Frankly, many at Delta still find you terribly amusing with your basic understanding of airline economics.
Just curious, who is he? Did he used to work for Delta?
Even Tim would tell you he worked for Delta. Beyond that, I'm not Tim and don't plan to lower myself to his normal nastiness. But he does have a past on other websites that he likes to pretend others forget. He's been banned on other sites. And, apparently, he thinks that history never existed when he tries to be nasty to other commenters.
But, when he goes after other posters for things he's been doing...
Even Tim would tell you he worked for Delta. Beyond that, I'm not Tim and don't plan to lower myself to his normal nastiness. But he does have a past on other websites that he likes to pretend others forget. He's been banned on other sites. And, apparently, he thinks that history never existed when he tries to be nasty to other commenters.
But, when he goes after other posters for things he's been doing himself for decades (using a fake name as one example), it's worth mentioning.
Geneva,
all you and a half dozen other people have proven is that you can't accept the reality which I posted in the very first reply to this article 9 hours ago.
United NEXT is finished. Scott Kirby dreamed up a plan that anyone with an iota of common sense could see couldn't possibly happen. He thought he could beat others at the same game that he is playing and from which they...
Geneva,
all you and a half dozen other people have proven is that you can't accept the reality which I posted in the very first reply to this article 9 hours ago.
United NEXT is finished. Scott Kirby dreamed up a plan that anyone with an iota of common sense could see couldn't possibly happen. He thought he could beat others at the same game that he is playing and from which they are suffering.
He lost the gamble. He already bet the farm.
And because you can't accept that reality, you resort to all kinds of attacks on me because I speak (write) the truth that you don't want to hear.
I don't care what anyone thinks. That should be clear.
and my beef is with people that repeat Scott Kirby's arrogance and BS and attack anyone that tells them it won't work.
Forget the personal attacks.
I was right 7 years ago when I said that Scott Kirbywould not be able to match DL's performance and I am right now.
Quit blindly following him, all of you, and don't attack other people because they understand the airline industry better than you do and speak their mind about it.
Do you have friends? Who treats people like this? Enjoy your basement and your smirking.
you better believe I have friends.
The issue, in case you haven't figured it out, is that my friends are not anonymous, use their own names (a huge beef I have w/ people posting anonymously), they don't accuse other people of being false, and they sure don't drag mine or anyone else's past.
You argued incessantly yesterday about DL and yet a day later we are proving why what I said was right, whether...
you better believe I have friends.
The issue, in case you haven't figured it out, is that my friends are not anonymous, use their own names (a huge beef I have w/ people posting anonymously), they don't accuse other people of being false, and they sure don't drag mine or anyone else's past.
You argued incessantly yesterday about DL and yet a day later we are proving why what I said was right, whether you want to admit it or not.
Do you get why this site turns into a cesspool and the role you play in it?
I can't believe you have anger issues over someone posting with an anonymous name. You seriously act like a two year-old some times Tim. You are always praising DL and critiquing UA/Scott Kirby and AA.
PLEASE chill out
I never said Delta isnt doing well today. In fact, I complimented it.
I did, however, provide evidence that over the last 45 years they werent always on top and they werent always the best, as you claimed repeatedly.
I also did say that others certainly had problems over the last 45 years. But you ignored it when I provided that information because you didnt like hearing it.
Regardless, Delta is on top...
I never said Delta isnt doing well today. In fact, I complimented it.
I did, however, provide evidence that over the last 45 years they werent always on top and they werent always the best, as you claimed repeatedly.
I also did say that others certainly had problems over the last 45 years. But you ignored it when I provided that information because you didnt like hearing it.
Regardless, Delta is on top now and does well and has made a lot of good decisions, as I stated yesterday. I choose not to fly them because they are not convenient for me and do not have nonstops in the markets I need.
no, Jason,
I didn't say what you said I did which is why I pushed back.
I never condemn or criticize the personal decisions that people make as consumers.
I do push back heavily when people make statements that are contrary to fact...and to be fair, others were far worse than you.
Let's make this and other aviation sites better... you appear to be a kind gentleman
You need a life, Timmy
Time to emerge from your basement and get some psychiatric help. It’s fairly obvious you have no work or family given your comment frequency.
A company should never govern your life. Especially one you don’t work for and one that doesn’t care about you. Just walk away. Take a walk in the fresh air and realize delta or a website doesn’t need to govern your life.
Atlanta...
You need a life, Timmy
Time to emerge from your basement and get some psychiatric help. It’s fairly obvious you have no work or family given your comment frequency.
A company should never govern your life. Especially one you don’t work for and one that doesn’t care about you. Just walk away. Take a walk in the fresh air and realize delta or a website doesn’t need to govern your life.
Atlanta and your friends you so desperately want will be ok without you defending delta ;)
You should read the very last comment set below
"Stop hating on every single American airline that isn't Delta.
please!"
it is OTHER AIRLINE fans that have their identity wrapped up in their airlines such that THEY are pleading with me to be nice to other airlines.
It is an airline. I don't talk about people other than their leadership which are public figures.
I've done this aviation social media thing for 20...
You should read the very last comment set below
"Stop hating on every single American airline that isn't Delta.
please!"
it is OTHER AIRLINE fans that have their identity wrapped up in their airlines such that THEY are pleading with me to be nice to other airlines.
It is an airline. I don't talk about people other than their leadership which are public figures.
I've done this aviation social media thing for 20 years. I know how it works and who posts what.
It is other airlines' fans - and mostly UA's - right now that get SO wrapped up with everything that is said negatively and have a compulsive need to artificially belittle the true leaders in the industry which even UA's CEO acknowledges.
It is other airline fankids that can't disconnect what happens in the media - social or otherwise - from reality. THAT is what should result in mental health assistance.
They have an outstanding order of 130 A321Neos with a couple deliveries. This order alone can take probably a year and half if not two to deliver; earliest 2026. The 739s seems like the quickest replacement but then the delays and the safety concerns.
It's all Trump's fault.
The sooner UA orders 321s the better for the airline and it's customers.
UA already has A321s in its possession and more than 100 incoming.
Maybe this will finally teach Boeing that focusing on short term financial results hurts the company in the long term. Of course, the executive team can stil take their money and parachute to another company.
They already have 130 A321NEOs on order, and they've loss confidence in the MaX10 being certified any time soon. If United makes a decision now to install lie flat seating on some of their A321NEOs depending on how quickly the seat manufacture can manufacture the seats those planes could probably be ready to enter service in Q1 or Q2 of 2025.
there are supply chain constraints from seat and galley manufacturers that will prevent United from ordering large numbers of lie flat cabins.
unless United simply tells Airbus to just switch the cabins it ordered for its A321XLRs to A321NEOs, they won't get any more lie flat equipped aircraft any faster than the MAX 10 can be ordered
You need only look at how long it has taken Delta to convert the ex-Latam A350s to...
there are supply chain constraints from seat and galley manufacturers that will prevent United from ordering large numbers of lie flat cabins.
unless United simply tells Airbus to just switch the cabins it ordered for its A321XLRs to A321NEOs, they won't get any more lie flat equipped aircraft any faster than the MAX 10 can be ordered
You need only look at how long it has taken Delta to convert the ex-Latam A350s to Delta standard configuration which is supposed to begin this fall - over 3 years after those aircraft entered service with just cosmetic upgrades and 4 years after DL bought the aircraft.
You also see this with the much slower pace of AVOD installation on in-service UA aircraft.
The supply chain simply cannot support massive conversions and orders. Every other airline on the planet that has a future also has orders and conversions. UA isn't going to jump the line just because Boeing can't deliver.
That is all quite accurate. United also has the smallest domestic network of the US3 and needs the growth to keep up and also to fill those long haul flights. It will eventually cut a huge deal with Boeing and it will fly the MAX10, though perhaps late this decade.
United has contracts for hundreds of Boeing planes. Boeing just can't deliver them. Those orders were already boosted by UA cashing in on some of the compensation that BA gave UA for previous delivery delays and groundings.
Money can't fix every problem.
AA and DL decided years ago that it was better to diversify their fleets esp. in light of known longstanding issues with Boeing.
AA and DL didn't envision massive growth and...
United has contracts for hundreds of Boeing planes. Boeing just can't deliver them. Those orders were already boosted by UA cashing in on some of the compensation that BA gave UA for previous delivery delays and groundings.
Money can't fix every problem.
AA and DL decided years ago that it was better to diversify their fleets esp. in light of known longstanding issues with Boeing.
AA and DL didn't envision massive growth and will be much closer to their fleet plans than WN or UA will be.
United is now finding out what Southwest has lived with for more than 5 years and was known over a decade ago. Boeing has had quality control and production delays that go back over a decade.
Even by switching to the MAX 8 or MAX 9, Boeing can't deliver the planes it promised ontime. Southwest converted orders repeatedly to MAX 8s to make up for the lack of certification on the MAX 7 but...
United is now finding out what Southwest has lived with for more than 5 years and was known over a decade ago. Boeing has had quality control and production delays that go back over a decade.
Even by switching to the MAX 8 or MAX 9, Boeing can't deliver the planes it promised ontime. Southwest converted orders repeatedly to MAX 8s to make up for the lack of certification on the MAX 7 but Boeing is going to deliver dozens less of even those.
Boeing's order book is full; they will be behind schedule for years.
United's massive NEXT plan is not going to happen. They have an older fleet than any other US airline and they have hundreds of less efficient regional jets.
There are about a dozen MAX 10s already built for United sitting on the ground, just as there are MAX 7s for WN. Delta and now American as well as Ryanair also have large orders for the MAX 10. Given that United says they will wait until the MAX 10 is certified, it could well be that other airlines start receiving MAX 10s in large quantities before United.
And it is also likely - as I have said - that United is not going to be willing to pay the price to get a significant number of Airbus aircraft; Airbus' order book is already pretty full and their planes are delayed due to engine supplier issues which means they are also paying penalties.
United's capex (aircraft spending) on its balance sheet is now more than AA, DL and WN's COMBINED. UA simply cannot afford to add a bunch of new orders from Airbus.
United NEXT will not happen; UA's fleet will remain old and inefficient.
American and Delta still have significant capacity coming from Airbus with Delta esp. focused on widebodies over the next 5 years.
Stop hating on every single American airline that isn't Delta.
please!
nobody is hating on anything.
I am telling the truth that alot of people don't want to hear.
Stop being part of the crowd that is personally injured everytime anything true about "your airline" is said that isn't flattering.
YOU would act the same way if DL was critiqued too. Please just be a little kind on these posts and don't HATE on other airlines that aren't DL.