Back to Squawk list
  • 47

Lufthansa Plans to Buy Either Boeing 737 MAX or Airbus A320neo Aircraft

Deutsche Lufthansa AG plans to buy a triple-digit number of either Boeing 737 MAX or Airbus A320neo jetliners to replace jets in its fleet, Chief Executive Carsten Spohr said on Tuesday. “We have not lost our trust in Boeing” following two fatal 737 MAX crashes and the grounding earlier this month of the worldwide fleet of that aircraft, Spohr said in a meeting with reporters. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

djames225 4
So an airline wants to replace regional jets, with a full size craft? Would it not make more sense to go down the middle with either E2 195's or A220-300's?
Leon Kay 1
I agree. For regional jets the Airbus A220 or Embraer E 190's should be more suitable.
indy2001 2
Finally, an airline exec that sounds like he knows what he's talking about. I'd take Spohr's opinion over all the fear-mongering idiots that think they know exactly what happened in the 2 MAX crashes and have been splashing their opinions, often anonymously, all over the eager media. He has dealt with both Boeing and Airbus. Whatever plane LH chooses, it will be a well-thought-out decision.
Colin Seftel 2
Lufthansa is still a good Boeing customer with the largest fleet of 748 (19), plus 13 744. They also have 20 779 and 20 789 on order. Sources:
Hmmm think you forgot to mention the 255 Airbus aircraft of almost every model in their fleet.
But historically yes they have been a very good Boeing customer, after all weren't they the launch customer for the 737-100, following with 200, 300, 400, 500 and 700 models, so yeah pretty loyal.
737-300 launch customer in Europe was JAT!
I vote for the Airbus A320neo Aircraft.
Gary Bain 1
Not me. Every actually fly one?
Not yet...
Kobe Hunte 2
well don't vote then!
Anton1 1
flew several, great planes! No way they will buy the Max or as they say Boeing, going, gone!
LethalThreat -1
I’m honestly surprised that LH is considering the MAX with all the MCAS software bugs right now. Especially also since their short range fleet is only made up of the 320 family. Adding in another completely different type might be tough on crews. LH is one of the most professional operators out there so if anyone could do it, it’s probably them.
Tobin Sparfeld 11
Even if they are not considering Boeing, they would never say so publicly. "We are looking to buy 100+ planes next year and we are only looking at Airbus." --That pretty much kills any negotiations. Airlines always announce that they are considering everything and then try to get the best price on whatever plane they really want.
djames225 0
Not just tough on crews, but also maintenance..getting MAX's would mean stockpiling more for 1 aircraft family
william baker -2
Why is that. LH is a great customer so isn’t boeing. Boeing will find the bug and fix the issues with the plane. It’s a great plane. Yes it has had issue but all new planes do.
LethalThreat 1
You are right. As soon as next month Boeing will have out a software patch that supposedly eliminates the bug with the MCAS. Since Lufthansa won’t be ordering these aircraft until next year, that should be plenty of time for the MAX to prove itself again as reliable. It’s just since their short haul fleet is all a320 family jets, I don’t see the point in mixing in some completely different Boeings. My favorite aircraft is in fact the 737 so if this does happen, it would be pretty neat.
Kobe Hunte 0
If i was them I would go with the 737 Max. Once the issue with the MCAS is figured out there will be no looking back
Except that passengers prefer the 18 inch wide seats of the A320.
Kobe Hunte 1
true.. does the 737 Max have more overhead bin storage that the A320neo?
alex hidveghy 1
Do t know about that but I do know that the toilets o. The AAL fleet are tiny and the flight attendants hate them!!
Kobe Hunte 1
i usually try to use the airports bathrooms before the flight..
alex hidveghy 1
Just as well!
You might not fit in American’s on an intercontinental trip!!
I don’t know, I’ve avoided them for ages. Absolutely nothing to do with safety though, I feel the record of both show how safe aviation really is. But we need to wait for the final reports of the two recent crashes to be in a position to judge.
Peter Doll -3
So during this entire MCAS issue, why does no one mention the fact that when the computer is turned off, the plane seems to fly correctly. Maybe I'm missing something, but the problem seems to manifest itself far enough down field with enough altitude to recover if the system is disabled and the flight crew 'hand flies' the plane.
As a point of record, I don't drive them, I just ride in them.
Highflyer1950 11
Normal function of the MCAS is when the aircraft is being flown by hand. Under certain full thrust conditions the nose can pitch up more quickly than anticipated due to engine location. In manual flying the MCAS moves the elevator to pitch the nose down to prevent entering an possible aerodynamic stall. The issue is when the warning system fails or transmits erroneous information (bad or damaged sensor) and the aircrraft “thinks” it’s getting near the stall and lowers the nose without pilot input! Now the flight crew have to determine what’s wrong and what to do about it? A few hundred feet off the ground doesn't allow for a great deal of time to troubleshoot the problem. However, well trained pilots with clear understanding of the system simply turn off two switches to maintain safe control. Given the fact that this model variant has, an added 6-8 inches of nose wheel length/ bigger powerful engines located further forward that can cause an abrupt pitch up at full thrust/that just about every legacy airline ordered the aircraft with the optional AOA instrument package/and the legacy airlines have better training programmes it’s a pretty great airplane. But when put in the hands of inexperienced crews, unfortunately all pilots, in all countries are not of the same caliber. Comparison is, when did you last read the owners’ manual for your last car, you have a licence but did you really understand everything in the manual before looking? Hope this helps, sorry for the long winded reply!
Kerem Gocen 7
No car manual will read as "the car might try to change lanes under full throttle conditions if the lane correction utility thinks it's leaving the lane" and a proper manufacturer would notice this lethal error through testing before putting the lives of millions at risk to make a couple of $$. The car manual would say how to disable the auto lane correction utility though but then again you would not be expected to change it while driving.
sbirch 3
I would be careful to reference and draw comparisons to the car industry and safety. They have a long track record of cutting corners and not informing the public of hazards. GM (ignition switches, gas tanks), Toyota (floor mats), Takata (airbags), etc. I would also argue that who in aviation believes machines, and especially aircraft systems, are always 100% reliable. We as users of aviation know even simple things go wrong on aircraft. Critical thinking is what we are trained to prepare for, otherwise we may as well be replaced by a computer.
Highflyer1950 4
I thimk you all have missed my point here? When flying a new variant pilots scour the manuals, QRH’s and generally pass information bwtween them. When reading the operating manual on this “new” aircraft and I came across MCAS in the definitions/abbreviations index I sure as hell woild be asking a lot of questions abou! especially if there was no other reference to it? The car manual comparison is a reference to drivers who never open the book but think they know everything about the vehicle......until they don’t?
sbirch 2
I understand your point, my response was to Kerem's post.
Highflyer1950 2
sbirch 2
No issues dude. I just had a problem with Kerem implying that a "proper manufacturer" would thoroughly test their product and advise the public as demonstrated by years of coverups from engineers alerting car manufacturers of issues. The car industry was a bad example for this analogy, not to mention it not being factual with the situation at hand - as you pointed out with inexperienced pilots beleiveing all 73s are created equal.
spmtrap96 1
no car manual says this *yet* - but car automation is going strong and it's only a matter of time before thy might..
john kilcher 3
How the Max 8 ever got certified with the newer and more powerful engines causing such a nose up attitude, I'll never know. Both the FAA and Boeing are responsible for the deaths of 350 people.
Gary Bain 5
You could say that about a lot of aircraft...DC-10 cargo door and uncontained engine failure resulting in loss of flight controls, A380 uncontained engine failure disabled too many critical systems, Airbus side sticks that don't move on both sides, several A320's crashing because the pilots didn't understand the automation, etc. etc. etc.

ANY airplane with under wing mounted engines will pitch up under high power conditions. Any pilot worth his salt knows that, anticipates it and FLYS THE AIRPLANE. A go around in the 737, 757, 767 especially in a simulator requires the pilot to immediately trim the nose down to counteract pitch up even with the old JT8D engines.

Any 737 pilot worth his salt also knows how to handle Uncommanded / Runaway Trim situations. The procedure is the same for ALL 737's and all Boeing aircraft. Since Boeing and the FAA (plus the European aviation certification agencies I might add) considered the old, established procedures adequate. Which they are. Did a jump seat pilot not correctly diagnose the issue and turn off the Stab Trim switches on the same Lion Air airplane, that crashed the next day, resulting in a safe landing?

Hard for me to blame Boeing, the FAA, EASA, etc. for the deaths of all of these people as horrific as that is. The fix Boeing has implemented will solve the problem and the reputation of this fine aircraft will be restored.

I am happy to see that the MCAS system now will have duplicate inputs from the AOA system and that an AOA Disagree warning and trim limit has been added. Now all we will have to worry about is if the pilots will understand what it means and act accordingly. Old retired military, corporate and airline pilot (737-100, 200, 300, 700NG, A320, 757, 767).
TedG1 1
No, we are responsible. We hired the legislators that underfunded the regulators. After all, regulation is bad, right?
bentwing60 1
Might have been long winded, but it was accurate in its entirety. The next question will be whose side of the story do we believe in the final accident report from the governing body in each case? The NTSB is not a party to either investigation, and as such, can issue no report, as they are not privy to all of the information. THEY DO NOT SPECULATE! The fact that the the Ethiopian version of the FAA submitted the "black boxes" (orange) to euro. authorities of JAA for decoding signaled the oncoming causal battle between the "airplane did it" and "the flight crew didn't know how to undo it but should have". This battle is not without precedent and could be influenced by legal precedent set by Egypt Air 990.

Summary:Cause disputed • Deliberate crash – probable pilot suicide (NTSB) • Mechanical fault in elevator control system (ECAA)

The NTSB issued a report on this accident because it originated at a US departure point.

While I will readily concede that Boeing screwed the pooch on this one, with a little help from their FAA friends, neither Boeing or the MAX are doomed and the comments from all the folks that turn right when they enter the airplane will not influence the final reports. But big money and politics will.
bentwing60 1
A correction to my above post, the NTSB was involved with the EgyptAir 990 accident because Egypts ECAA requested their presence to head the investigation because of their higher level of resources and expertise. The departure point had no bearing on the matter.
I will also readily add that my comments will have no influence on the final reports either and with no ability to edit comments my rough draft and send yields my mea culpa of that part of the post was inappropriate and can't be undone, only apologized for to the rest of the participants on this thread.
alex hidveghy 2
All things aside. You have to KNOW first what’s going on and when to switch it off. With little to no guidance given plus keeping in mind, both aircraft were during takeoff and climb phase, there was little time to do anything. Some sources, say the Lion Air crew has barely 40 SECONDS before disaster struck. For a new system it is unconscionable for so little information.
No one has mentioned why this is not trained in the sim and why there is no proper procedure in the QRH.
Now, Boeing graciously will provide two AOA vanes at no e tea cost to all airlines who buy this plane as well as the “software” fix.
Closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Lots of unanswered questions and finger pointing. This is not how it’s supposed to be. The DOT is calling for a FULL audit of the certification program if the 737MAX. Cozy relationship between FAA & Boeing? I’ve read several former and retired Boring engineers say it’s not how it used to be. Corruption, anyone?? Money talks? It’s all coming out in the wash......
m jga -4
will not fly via Lufthansa anymore....
It's your choice.
Kobe Hunte 1
that's your loss I guess..

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Chris B 6
The Max is a "facelift" to an old and trusted friend in an attempt to keep it competitive. But in so doing so drastically changed its flying character that software fixes are needed to keep it flying. Those fixes failed.

Lufthansa always looks long term and the fixes for the software will be proven, the training improved.

Boeing has focused its development $$ on the NMA product and 777x. The 737 needs a full redo.
Ben Bosley 3
The 737 is the most produced and has the longest production run of any commercial aircraft, and has operated safely for decades. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because of MCAS issue on the MAX
Chris B 6
Respectfully, you missed my point.
There comes a time in every device, aircraft, car's life cycle when it can no longer keep up with technological developments. These new engines due to their size triggered an entirely new wing design because the 737 landing gear isn't tall enough to accommodate them under the wing.

I do wonder what drove Boeing to generate a new wing design without taking advantage of the opportunity to include taller landing gear. Had they been able to place the engines under the wing, the weight and balance equation would have been very different.
sbirch 3
I believe a more reasonable option would have been to resurrect the 757 airframe that already had a great safety record and higher landing gear already. It was a narrowbody and would have probably been a better solution.
paul gilpin -1
here's another point you will not understand.
using your logic, there should be a great demand for the 727. bring back the DC-10 into commercial air traffic.
but the reason you will not understand Chris B's point is not because of economics or design. it is about the dividend checks.
each iteration, and that is what the series numbers are, has simply added a window section in front of the wing and either one or two window sections aft of the wing. oh yeah, let's put a bigger engine on it. oh wait, it's dragging on the ground. that looks like a hamster cage.
yeah, but think of the money we will save. the shareholders will love us for it.
boring should call it what is has become, the 737 von Frankenstein.
all in the name of using the same certificate.
Highflyer1950 2
I actually like the idea of redoing the 757! It can accomodate larger, fuel efficient engines, can be stretched etc. The 727 is restricted by c of g and size of the no. 2 engine and flat windscreens are too noisy and too prone to precipitation static. The DC10/MD11 has a problem with mounting a larger tail engine without significant beefing up of the tail and problem flight I’ve been told?


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.