The Plane that Boeing Can’t Build

Something pretty remarkable is happening in the aviation world. Right now, dozens of small narrowbodies are making the long trek across the Atlantic. Airlines like Aer Lingus, Iberia, American, and JetBlue are all doing it, using planes like the A321LR and XLR to do this seemingly impossible task. Now, the A321 actually started out as a short to medium haul workhorse, but by tinkering with its design, Airbus has boosted its range so that now it can cross oceans, and airlines are reaping the benefits. Meanwhile, Boeing's kinda just been twiddling its thumbs. Only one airline, Icelandair, uses its competing 737 MAX to cross the ocean, and they're only able to do so because their home base at Keflavik sits about two hours west of the European mainland. In truth, the MAX just doesn't have the legs to handle these kinds of missions. And with Airbus seeing so much success with the XLR, you'd think Boeing would be doing everything in its power to follow suit. And yet, a 737 MAXLR is nowhere to be found. So what is going on here? What's stopping Boeing from building a long-range version of the 737 MAX? Let me explain. Now, before we hop into it today, I have a really exciting announcement, and that is that I'm getting married at the end of the month. That means I'm going to be honeymooning for most of June, and this channel is going to be kind of quiet for most of that month. Obviously, when I am not posting, I am not making money. So if you guys could comment, like, and subscribe to help boost this video's reach, it would honestly be like the best wedding gift that you could get me. It'll let me actually enjoy the time off with the new Mrs. Explains without really having to worry about the channel. Also, we're going to be circumnavigating the globe on our honeymoon and flying some pretty cool planes. So if you want to follow along, be sure to follow me over on Instagram. Of course, the honeymoon won't be paying for itself, so I want to take a moment to thank today's sponsor, Olafly. Now, we're actually going to be using Olafly on our trip since we'll be out of the country for 17 days. Normally, our phone plan would charge us over $400 for roaming during our trip, and that makes Olafly a real no-brainer here. That's because they have a global monthly eSIM plan called Olafly Plans. It works in over 160 destinations. No changing SIMs, no swapping plans. So before we leave, we'll just install an Olafly plan, and when we land in the Philippines, Japan, or Hong Kong, we'll just turn off airplane mode and be connected. They come in two different flavors, a 25 gig plan for lighter use, and an unlimited plan with unlimited hotspotting that also comes with a mobile number for texts from the US, UK, and Canada. And once your plan ends, The Always On feature gives you an extra gig of data per month for things like emergencies. Olafly has been a great partner and a great asset when I travel. And if you want to help support my work and help me fund my honeymoon, then be sure to check it out at the link below. When you do so, you'll get a nice discount. All right, now let's dive into it. In order to understand why Boeing's been unable or unwilling to build a long-range version of the MAX, we really need to compare it to its primary competitor, the A320neo family. For now, let's specifically contrast the MAX 9 with the A321neo. On paper, they are clear peers. They're practically the same size, they share the same generation of engine, and they both benefit from the same incremental updates, like new winglet technology. Even their ranges and capacities are nearly the same. Clearly, there is very little daylight between these two jets. Well, except in one key way. Airbus has taken the A321neo and turned it into its own mini-family, building the derivative A321LR and XLR, which both have extended ranges. This evolution has allowed the A321 platform to step into the mid-market segment that was once occupied by the 757. Now, like we've covered at length in previous videos, the mid-market has exploded in popularity, and the XLR has become the only modern-day option that fills this niche. With the Neo and the MAX being so similar, it's kind of surprising that Boeing hasn't taken the 737 and tried to turn it into an XLR competitor. So what's actually stopping Boeing from turning a plane like the MAX 9 into a mid-market solution? Is it more that Boeing can't do it, or that they won't? Well, it turns out to be a bit of both. First, let's talk about some of the key technical limitations that are preventing Boeing from making this change. In order for Airbus to boost the range of the XLR, it had to build a conformal fuel tank directly into the plane's belly. That boosted fuel capacity by about 3,400 gallons. A similar tank would also need to be added to the MAX. But the 737 platform has some real limitations that would make such an effort a real challenge. First and foremost, the MAX's cross-section is about 5% narrower than the Neo. That might not sound like much, but since we're talking about cross-sectional area here, and not just width, that 5% reduction in diameter leads to a roughly 10% reduction in usable belly space. In other words, an ox tank on the MAX would be closer to 3,000 gallons, a near 400-gallon drop. But that's not even the biggest challenge that Boeing faces. The real challenge is just how low that tank would sit to the ground. When Boeing was designing the 737 back in the 60s, things like jet bridges and baggage belts were pretty rare. So to make it easier for customers to climb the air stairs and easier for crews to load the bags, Boeing built the plane with a very low stance. But as the 737 family has continued to evolve, this has created a lot of issues when it comes to ground clearance. And frankly, it would make adding a belly tank a huge pain in the ass. I had previously mentioned that the XLR has a conformal fuel tank. What that actually means is that the tank is built directly into the structure of the plane itself. So when the plane is on the ground, the only thing that separates the tarmac from thousands of gallons of jet fuel is a thin layer of aluminum. Now, Airbus had to work really hard to prove that this wouldn't pose a safety risk in the event of something like a gear failure. But with the A320 sitting so high off the ground, regulators were at ease knowing that the tank and the tarmac had such a big gap between them. But on the 737, with its super low ground clearance, there is no such luxury. And it could make it way harder for Boeing to get a conformal tank certified, knowing that even a partial landing gear failure could cause the tank to directly touch the tarmac at high speeds. Now, there are a couple of workarounds that Boeing could try here. First, they could add a Kevlar lining to reinforce the inside of the tank. This is actually an idea that Airbus explored on the XLR, but they managed to get the tank approved without it. Second, Boeing could instead use a separate containerized fuel tank that actually sits inside the cargo hold. This would create a buffer zone between all that fuel and the outside world. But both of these solutions are imperfect. They both add weight and further cut into fuel capacity. Then there are the engines, which are a whole headache in and of themselves. While the NEO and the MAX both use engines from the CFM Leap line, the version on the MAX has been shrunken down and derated to fit under the 737's low slung wing. Now, if Boeing added an extra fuel tank, suddenly the plane would be a whole lot heavier. In turn, that would demand more thrust, which means Boeing would have to change the engines. Either they'd have to use a bigger version of the Leap, which would be hard to fit under the wing, or they'd have to upsize the core of the existing engine to generate more thrust, which would hurt both durability and efficiency. So even if Boeing could find a way to increase the plane's fuel capacity, the propulsion math just still doesn't add up. But let's pretend for a second that all of these technical issues didn't exist. Even if Boeing could push the MAX into XLR territory, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'd want to. In fact, doing so might go against the plane's core philosophy. The one common theme that has underpinned the entire MAX program, both for good and for bad, is commonality. When designing the jet, Boeing wanted it to share a common type rating with its predecessor, the 737NG. And the reason's pretty straightforward. There are thousands of NGs flying across the globe today, and if the MAX strayed too far from its design, well, tens of thousands of crew members would need to be retrained on the new platform. This would be a huge burden on airlines worldwide, and likely hurt the MAX's sales. Now it is true that Airbus was able to get the XLR certified with the same type rating as the NEO and the LR, letting pilots fly them interchangeably. But there is no guarantee that Boeing could do the same for the MAX. The 737 platform is really old, and adding an extra fuel tank could demand a big change to the fuel management system. This is where history becomes a serious problem for Boeing. When the MAX was originally certified, the FAA's training requirements for the jet were honestly pretty laughable. All it took for NG pilots to fly the MAX was a mere two-hour online course. This left pilots ill-equipped to deal with a new system called MCAS. And when it malfunctioned, many pilots didn't know how to override it. Two planes crashed as a result, and 346 people died. Now the FAA does not want to make that mistake again. So if Boeing came to them with a heavily modified MAX, one with new tanks, a new fuel system, and potentially new handling, it would receive way more scrutiny. Regulators would be far more likely to require extra costly training, which would directly diminish one of the plane's biggest selling points. Now all of this might be worth it if Boeing saw a ton of upside here, but leadership's been pretty clear that they just don't. Sure, everyone loves the 757, but there's a reason it never sold as well as other narrowbodies. The mid-market segment it was serving was just too niche. And while the mid-market has grown since the 757's heyday, it is still relatively small. Just look at the XLR's sales figures as proof. Even though it owns 100% of this market, Airbus has only sold about 500 units. That certainly doesn't make it a flop, but it is 8 times less than the standard A321neo. For now, the XLR remains a pretty specialized tool. And for Boeing, it's just not clear that chasing this market segment is worth all the trouble. What is clear is that airlines are happy with the MAX's range today. The MAX 8 already has a 400 nautical mile range boost over its predecessor, and it's unlocked a few of these niche missions itself. Flights like Brasilia to Orlando and Newark to Lima push well past the 7-hour mark. And while the plane can't really fly transatlantic, Boeing thinks that's okay. After all, a lot of the transatlantic routes that the XLR hopes to open are speculative ones, ones that have never proven to make money. Meanwhile, the missions that the MAX can and is flying are guaranteed moneymakers. For now, Boeing seems content to just wait it out. By the time they're ready to launch the 797 in the 2030s, the mid-market segment will have grown quite a bit. And once we've reached that point, the company might throw their hat in the ring and build a proper XLR competitor. But given the MAX's constraints and the realities of today's market, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to push the 737 into long-haul territory. So what do you guys think? Is Boeing smart to keep the MAX family contained? Or are they missing an opportunity here? Let me know your thoughts down in the comments section below. Thank you so much to my patrons for helping to make this video possible. If you like what I do and want to help the channel grow, go ahead and check out this link right here. And as always, if you learned something new today, leave a like and subscribe to keep learning. And until I see you again, don't forget to look up.