bzcat

I'm really not sure why BR didn't get more 789, or why it didn't bother fitting PE cabin in both 789 or 78J. I *believe* (just my opinion, no real inside knowledge) their thinking is that they would rather take 78J vs. 789 if the per seat mile cost is same or lower. The majority of their network doesn't require the 789 range so once Boeing approves PIP for 78J, you may see BR take a few with small PE cabin and use it to replace some 77W.

A 78J with fewer PE seats than 77W may be a good aircraft for routes like YVR or 2nd or 3rd daily flights to a few markets. BR's current 78J may struggle to reach LAX or IAH but should be no problem for SFO, SEA, YVR, YYZ, ORD. After PIP, 78J should have no problem reaching all the existing North America stations.

This is probably not the forum to discuss it but MAX7/8/9 has the old 737 landing gear with low ground clearance so Boeing had to mount the new bigger engines far forward of the wing which changed the flight control characteristics vs. 737NG. So Boeing developed MACS to make it behave like NG because airlines wanted to ensure common pilot ratings for MAX and NG.

MAX10 has higher weight which required new landing gear design, which then allowed Boeing to mount the engines properly (high ground clearance) and won't have the same "problem" that required the MCAS software to "fix" it so it flies like NG.

But at this point, MAX10 is probably not going to fly until Boeing solves the MACS problem on the existing MAX family.