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.
Yay, we can look forward to more airworthiness software beta testing on live/paying pax again.
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. 😉
Expect Max 20 in 100 years. Long live the 737.
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.
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.
@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.