Virgin Australia Boeing 737 Max 8

[moa999]

So they got yet another exemption from the requirement for EICAS, a system that they had in place on other types 40 years ago.

Isn't that back to the whole 737Max v 7X7 debate.
If the original Max8 had EICAS then it would have been a new type and ergo lots of training required (which with hindsight might have saved Boeing a lot of headaches).

But obviously they also want the same type rating for other variants.

 

[AviatorInsight]

So they got yet another exemption from the requirement for EICAS, a system that they had in place on other types 40 years ago.

Instead, this is what they’ve come up with.

An enhanced crew alerting system (eCAS). Retrofitted to the -8 and customer option for the NG.



How nice of them to provide an arrow so I know where to look.

 

[Lucass]

Virgin Australia exec flags further B737-MAX order

Virgin Australia says its single-fleet strategy limits regional expansion as it considers another aircraft order and cuts routes amid rising fuel costs.

aerosouthpacific.com

Interesting article. VA eyeing a further 737 MAX order. Also, apparently its not decided whether the 10 737-10s will be converted to -8s instead.

From the article..
"Strauss confirmed that all or some of those ten aircraft could instead be converted to B737-8s."

“They will either be the MAX 10 variant… or they’ll be MAX 8s,” he said. “We need to make that decision.”

 

[liam1098]

Thats a big suprise. I struggle to see the benefit in converting the -10s to -8s

 

[Saab34]

I believe that comment was based on delays from Boeing.

Considering the edge the -10 has over the 321 for short haul/high density, and thinking about how the triangle works, it’s a no brainer.

Obviously some downsides being a small sub fleet with different configuration, higher purchase cost, crew differences training, and unknown Boeing prangs which could pop up.

 

[liam1098]

I believe that comment was based on delays from Boeing.

Considering the edge the -10 has over the 321 for short haul/high density, and thinking about how the triangle works, it’s a no brainer.

Obviously some downsides being a small sub fleet with different configuration, higher purchase cost, crew differences training, and unknown Boeing prangs which could pop up.

agreed, the -10 is a great plane on those short sectors, and with Qantas and Jetstar going for the a321neo, VA will need more capacity to compete

 

[MooTime]

Obviously some downsides being a small sub fleet with different configuration, higher purchase cost, crew differences training, and unknown Boeing prangs which could pop up.

haha Boeing prangs, nice one.

 

[eastwest101]

agreed, the -10 is a great plane on those short sectors, and with Qantas and Jetstar going for the a321neo, VA will need more capacity to compete

I must have missed it in the previous discussion, but why did VA/Bain not consider the Max-9? Am I mistaken that the Max-9 gives you some extra capacity without losing the range, so they could run Bali bogan buses from the East Coast to Bali with the Max-9s during peak season?

 

[HS-TQE]

I must have missed it in the previous discussion, but why did VA/Bain not consider the Max-9? Am I mistaken that the Max-9 gives you some extra capacity without losing the range, so they could run Bali bogan buses from the East Coast to Bali with the Max-9s during peak season?

Australia-Indonesia bilaterals are seats based not frequency baded so even if Virgin wanted to up-gauge 737 equipment, they need to cut elsewhere to keep within their approved bilateral rights.

 

[Harrison_133]

I must have missed it in the previous discussion, but why did VA/Bain not consider the Max-9? Am I mistaken that the Max-9 gives you some extra capacity without losing the range, so they could run Bali bogan buses from the East Coast to Bali with the Max-9s during peak season?

I don't believe the MAX 9 would give VA what they are wanting in terms of a 200 seater aircraft, and wouldn't be enough of a bump in capacity to justify a new sub fleet.

The main issue with the MAX 9 is that it doesn't increase seating capacity that much. Based on the technical specs published by Boeing, it only provides around an extra 15 seats compared to the MAX 8. Whereas the MAX 10 is around an extra 25-30 seats.

Obviously, this is dependent on the chosen configuration. More premium seating will reduce the bump in capacity that can be achieved.

Comparing some -8, -9 and proposed MAX 10 seat counts:

	800/MAX 8	900/MAX 9	MAX 10*
Alaska	161	178	188
United	166	179	189
Delta	160	180	182
Aeromexico	166	181	-
Copa	166	174	-
WestJet	174	-	196
WestJet (abandoned densification plan)	180	-	212
Virgin	182	-	-
Ryanair	197	-	228

I think the WestJet densification plan is the closest comparison to the current VA layouts. On their -700 and -800 layouts, there is a difference of 2 seats, with WS having an extra row of business class.

The MAX 9 has less range than the MAX 8, and given the issues with bilateral agreements as mentioned above by HS-TQE, I don't see VA using larger gauge aircraft on much international flying purely because of the lack of available seat capacity. Indonesia was, and will soon again be, maxed out. Fiji is maxed out. Runway limitations would likely rule out Queenstown.

Any use of larger gauge aircraft on their international network would have to come at the expense of frequency, which is somewhat important to maintain when their competitors are flying multiple daily flights.

Also, it's worth noting that the MAX 10 is probably going to kill the MAX 9. Alaska and United are the biggest MAX 9 operators. Alaska is only taking the -10 (and a small batch of -8s) from here on out. United's MAX 9 deliveries wrap up in 2027 and only expects to take -10s beyond that point.

 

[liam1098]

I must have missed it in the previous discussion, but why did VA/Bain not consider the Max-9? Am I mistaken that the Max-9 gives you some extra capacity without losing the range, so they could run Bali bogan buses from the East Coast to Bali with the Max-9s during peak season?

Agreed, I thought when they converted MAX-10s to MAX-8s a couple years ago they should have converted all 25 to MAX-9s. More capacity than the MAX-8 and more range than the MAX-10, and they likely could have had a full fleet by now.

 

[Harrison_133]

Agreed, I thought when they converted MAX-10s to MAX-8s a couple years ago they should have converted all 25 to MAX-9s. More capacity than the MAX-8 and more range than the MAX-10, and they likely could have had a full fleet by now.

Range is a non-issue. The MAX 10 has the range to fly anywhere on the VA network.

 

[eastwest101]

Australia-Indonesia bilaterals are seats based not frequency baded so even if Virgin wanted to up-gauge 737 equipment, they need to cut elsewhere to keep within their approved bilateral rights.

I don't believe the MAX 9 would give VA what they are wanting in terms of a 200 seater aircraft, and wouldn't be enough of a bump in capacity to justify a new sub fleet.

The main issue with the MAX 9 is that it doesn't increase seating capacity that much. Based on the technical specs published by Boeing, it only provides around an extra 15 seats compared to the MAX 8. Whereas the MAX 10 is around an extra 25-30 seats.

Obviously, this is dependent on the chosen configuration. More premium seating will reduce the bump in capacity that can be achieved.

Comparing some -8, -9 and proposed MAX 10 seat counts:

	800/MAX 8	900/MAX 9	MAX 10*
Alaska	161	178	188
United	166	179	189
Delta	160	180	182
Aeromexico	166	181	-
Copa	166	174	-
WestJet	174	-	196
WestJet (abandoned densification plan)	180	-	212
Virgin	182	-	-
Ryanair	197	-	228

I think the WestJet densification plan is the closest comparison to the current VA layouts. On their -700 and -800 layouts, there is a difference of 2 seats, with WS having an extra row of business class.

The MAX 9 has less range than the MAX 8, and given the issues with bilateral agreements as mentioned above by HS-TQE, I don't see VA using larger gauge aircraft on much international flying purely because of the lack of available seat capacity. Indonesia was, and will soon again be, maxed out. Fiji is maxed out. Runway limitations would likely rule out Queenstown.

Any use of larger gauge aircraft on their international network would have to come at the expense of frequency, which is somewhat important to maintain when their competitors are flying multiple daily flights.

Also, it's worth noting that the MAX 10 is probably going to kill the MAX 9. Alaska and United are the biggest MAX 9 operators. Alaska is only taking the -10 (and a small batch of -8s) from here on out. United's MAX 9 deliveries wrap up in 2027 and only expects to take -10s beyond that point.

Ok thanks for explaining that - not enough additional seats in the MAX 9 for the increased capital cost.

I am sceptical about the ability to turn around a MAX 10 in Golden Triangle services as quickly as a -800 or MAX-8, as I am thinking the extra seats are just adding to ground time and overhead tic-tac-toe when full, although there is undoubtedly the cost per seat advantage of spreading the two pilots over a larger number of passengers given the common type rating across the Boeing 737 fleet. As you suggest, the MAX10 is sold as the high-density and high-frequency shuttle aircraft, but I am just thinking with WSI now open, maybe SYD isn't quite as slot-constrained as it has been. If VA really are more "gate constrained" at SYD, MEL and BNE then maybe that might have been part of their consideration?

 

[ben95]

I am sceptical about the ability to turn around a MAX 10 in Golden Triangle services as quickly as a -800 or MAX-8

It’s just an extra 5-6 row - there will be some difference but not significant and marginal if both front and back door are used. JQ doesn’t buffer extra time for A321 compared to A320 - no reason why Virgin would need to.

If VA really are more "gate constrained" at SYD, MEL and BNE then maybe that might have been part of their consideration?

It’s never gate at SYD that is the constraint but rather a cost per seat mile benefit. Adding a new flight meant you increase your revenue and cost proportionality, but replace a MAX8 flight with a MAX10 sway that by increasing revenue more than how much cost would increase, leading to a better “efficiency” of the network.

 

[AuSammy]

I don't believe the MAX 9 would give VA what they are wanting in terms of a 200 seater aircraft, and wouldn't be enough of a bump in capacity to justify a new sub fleet.

The main issue with the MAX 9 is that it doesn't increase seating capacity that much. Based on the technical specs published by Boeing, it only provides around an extra 15 seats compared to the MAX 8. Whereas the MAX 10 is around an extra 25-30 seats.

Obviously, this is dependent on the chosen configuration. More premium seating will reduce the bump in capacity that can be achieved.

Comparing some -8, -9 and proposed MAX 10 seat counts:

	800/MAX 8	900/MAX 9	MAX 10*
Alaska	161	178	188
United	166	179	189
Delta	160	180	182
Aeromexico	166	181	-
Copa	166	174	-
WestJet	174	-	196
WestJet (abandoned densification plan)	180	-	212
Virgin	182	-	-
Ryanair	197	-	228

I think the WestJet densification plan is the closest comparison to the current VA layouts. On their -700 and -800 layouts, there is a difference of 2 seats, with WS having an extra row of business class.

The MAX 9 has less range than the MAX 8, and given the issues with bilateral agreements as mentioned above by HS-TQE, I don't see VA using larger gauge aircraft on much international flying purely because of the lack of available seat capacity. Indonesia was, and will soon again be, maxed out. Fiji is maxed out. Runway limitations would likely rule out Queenstown.

Any use of larger gauge aircraft on their international network would have to come at the expense of frequency, which is somewhat important to maintain when their competitors are flying multiple daily flights.

Also, it's worth noting that the MAX 10 is probably going to kill the MAX 9. Alaska and United are the biggest MAX 9 operators. Alaska is only taking the -10 (and a small batch of -8s) from here on out. United's MAX 9 deliveries wrap up in 2027 and only expects to take -10s beyond that point.

So the densest config other than RyanAir, not a big claim to fame

 

[Harrison_133]

It’s never gate at SYD that is the constraint but rather a cost per seat mile benefit.

Which is pretty much why all airlines globally are up-gauging their narrowbody fleets while the smaller variants like the A319 and 737-700 are dying out.

It’s just an extra 5-6 row - there will be some difference but not significant and marginal if both front and back door are used. JQ doesn’t buffer extra time for A321 compared to A320 - no reason why Virgin would need to.

The minimum turn time for JQ on the A321 is 40 minutes.