MAX 8-200’s Fuel Burn Surprise, Backed by New Data

At the end of January, we put out a story about the 737 MAX 8-200 achieving a fuel burn per seat rate about equal to that of the A321neo. We are pleased to say that we now have more data on that issue to work with, thanks to the latest Skailark update. Whereas the earlier story focused on the US DOT data, with its limited coverage, Skailark's data is reported more quickly and has broader coverage. For example, the US DOT has only one MAX 8-200 operator with Allegiant. Skailark has several. Let's get to the data. The data is reported quarterly, and we broke out 2025 to show when the XLR tracking started. To set a baseline, the data comes from 131 airlines and covers over 25 million flights. Statistically, we're on safe ground. [caption id="attachment_189128" align="aligncenter" width="460"] Skailark; AirInsight[/caption] MAX 8-200: The largest operator is Ryanair, but new entrants such as Akasa and Air India are expanding the operator base. Note that the fuel burn per seat is appreciably better than that of the MAX 8 and MAX 9. But it is very interesting to see Skailark's fuel burn for the A320neo. LCCs operating that aircraft are achieving fuel efficiencies that match those of the MAX 8-200. We don't see that in the US DOT data. What we can say is that both data sources support the argument that the MAX 8-200 is significantly more fuel efficient than the other MAX models in service. It also beats the A321neo. Consequently, we expect this model to attract more attention. A321XLR: Placing the XLR in this group will be seen as unfair by many. Fair enough, the XLR is not aimed at the same types of deployment. Let's look at the evidence that supports treating the XLR as something different. [caption id="attachment_189129" align="aligncenter" width="580"] Skailark; AirInsight[/caption] The XLR is a long-range aircraft in a class of its own. Consequently, its fuel burn must be viewed in the context of its deployment. Let's dig even deeper and focus only on current-generation aircraft. [caption id="attachment_189130" align="aligncenter" width="580"] Skailark; AirInsight[/caption] The XLR is special. Yes, it's new, so the "ball" size, which signals the number of flights, is small. But the context is that we should expect it to be a niche model. Long flights on a single-aisle expose the XLR's Achilles' Heel - its cabin limits. Weare liklely to see the first XLR LOPA competition between Athens and Delhi. Aegean's more comfortable LOPA vs. Indigo's less comfortable LOPA. We're betting that Aegean will achieve a better revenue profile as a result. This isn't just our view. "But here’s what I struggle with — the difference in product between Aegean and IndiGo is massive, especially among more lucrative travelers. Most people who aren’t on a tight budget wouldn’t want to subject themselves to an eight hour flight on an IndiGo A321XLR if they could instead fly an Aegean A321XLR." The idea that the XLR will be a niche is likely to be unpopular for some. But Wizz, an early fan, has curbed some of its enthusiasm. Has Airbus created another A340-600? Perhaps not, but we expect to see more XLR customers discover that the LR meets their needs in terms of payload/range. The longer the range, the higher the expectations for service. The XLR has a space conflict at the back between the kitchen and the bathrooms. By the way, it's not just on long-hauls. Take a look at this awkward review. If business class customers don't like the XLR cabin on a five-hour flight, what might people say after eight hours at the back?

No results