Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Ryanair places a $40 billion order for up to 300 Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

Ryanair has announced a huge order for up to 300 Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft, in a deal which could be worth up to $40 billion at list price.

Not that Ryanair would ever agree to pay list price, of course ….

This is not a letter of intent or a series of options. 150 of the aircraft ($20 billion-worth at list price) will definitely be delivered. The remaining 150 will sit as an option at a price which is already agreed, albeit not published.

Ryanair places a huge $40 billion order for up to 300 Boeing 737 MAX 10 aircraft

To put the size of the order into context, Ryanair claims that it is the largest order ever placed by an Irish business for US manufactured goods.

Ryanair is currently halfway through receiving an order of 210 Boeing 737 MAX 200 aircraft. These will all be in service by 2025.

There will be a two year gap before the new 737 MAX 10 fleet starts to arrive in 2027, allowing the airline to build up its cash reserves before payment is required. Ryanair is a cash machine – despite covid and despite paying for regular aircraft deliveries from its current order, it had almost $5 billion of net cash in the bank at the end of 2022.

If all 300 aircraft are taken, Ryanair will continue to receive deliveries until 2033. The airline said that half of the new fleet would replace older Boeing 737 NG aircraft, with the MAX 10 having 21% more seats whilst also being more fuel efficient. The remaining aircraft will be for capacity expansion.

The MAX 10 has 30 more seats than the 737 MAX 200 aircraft currently being delivered, although Ryanair has publicly said that having more seats is not necessarily a benefit if the seats cannot be filled on every flight. Moving from 197 seats to 228 seats requires an extra cabin crew member under EU law, irrespective of how many of those seats are sold.

Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair, said:

“Ryanair is pleased to sign this record aircraft order for up to 300 MAX-10s with our aircraft partner Boeing.  These new, fuel efficient, greener technology aircraft offer 21% more seats, burn 20% less fuel and are 50% quieter than our B737-NGs. This order, coupled with our remaining Gamechanger deliveries, will create 10,000 new jobs for highly paid aviation professionals over the next decade, and these jobs will be located across all of Europe’s main economies where Ryanair is currently the No.1 or No.2 airline.

In addition to delivering significant revenue and traffic growth across Europe, we expect these new, larger, more efficient, greener, aircraft to drive further unit cost savings, which will be passed on to passengers in lower air fares. The extra seats, lower fuel burn and more competitive aircraft pricing supported by our strong balance sheet, will widen the cost gap between Ryanair and competitor EU airlines for many years to come, making the Boeing MAX-10 the ideal growth aircraft order for Ryanair, our passengers, our people and our shareholders.”

Ryanair is now planning to fly 300 million passengers per year by March 2034, up from the 168 million it flew in the year to March 2023. Where this growth comes from is a different question, although (having now sat though a couple of Michael O’Leary press conferences) I know that the company believes its exceptionally low cost base allows it to win any battles it chooses to fight.

Comments (90)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • @mkcol says:

    IIRC Ryanair like to get rid of their aircraft before they need a D check, to avoid that expense. That helps to keep their fleet young.

    • Nick says:

      They certainly used to, but in recent years have started putting some aircraft through them. They built a facility in Malta for it. They’re smart guys, who anticipated the crunch in newbuild aircraft well before it happened.

  • patrick C says:

    An airline that is basically living of pay dumping its crew.
    I avoid flying with them whenever i can due to the terrible service proposition, though for people with less money it allows them to get around.
    The traffic growth will be atrocious for the climate as well…

    • AndyC says:

      +1

      • Rob says:

        You’re having a laugh, surely. BA is paying £16,200 base for Euroflyer for people to work from Gatwick. Even if Ryanair pay the same as Euroflyer, the crew are almost certainly living somewhere far cheaper.

        • Londonsteve says:

          I’d have thought Ryanair will pay a basic considerably lower than Euroflyer at their bases in CEE. A decent monthly wage in many of these countries is still a £1k net and that’s inclusive of the hourly uplift for flown hours, bonuses and so on, so we’re looking at a basic of half that, or £500 a month, max £700 gross, or roughly £8k a year, which is half of what Euroflyer is paying. It’s another thing that you can’t survive at any of the bases on these kinds of wages, cabin crew have become a seriously low paid profession, driven by our unquenchable desire for ever cheaper fares.

    • Rui N. says:

      Not true at all. Pilot pay is very much on par or above legacy carriers throughout most of Europe. With the added benefit, for at least some people, that you always come home everyday. The drawback money wise is that you can never move to long haul and get paid much more (thus why they have to have competitive pay otherwise they wouldn’t have any pilots).
      For flight attendants, yes pay is s**t. But which airline isn’t?

      • Michael Jennings says:

        For pilots, Ryanair are well known for working them hard and paying them well. There’s nothing wrong with that. Young pilots can do a lot of hours and make captain quickly, which is then helpful for getting jobs elsewhere if they want to.

        • Lady London says:

          Plus don’t they have to pay Ryanair $$$ for their training?

  • Mikeact says:

    Should please the Greens….

    • Erico1875 says:

      It should.
      21% more passengers, but 20% less fuel

      • Rob says:

        Ryanair is almost certainly the greenest airline on the planet. It maximises the number of seats you can physically get on, it sells well over 90% of seats on every flight and it uses the most efficient new aircraft. This is the same reason they are untouchable from an operating cost perspective.

    • Erico1875 says:

      It should.
      21% more passengers for approx 20% less fuel

      • Gordon says:

        So that’s 42% more passengers and 40% less fuel….

        • Froggee says:

          I think it compounds so 46% more passengers and 36% less fuel.

  • lumma says:

    21% more middle seats to be “randomly” allocated

    • Michael Jennings says:

      Honestly, I never pay for a seat. I get aisle, middle, window about a third of the time each. I believe them when they say it is random. Vacant window / aisle seats or people who ask me to swap so they can sit next to their travelling companions means that I only sit in a middle seat about half the time I am allocated one.

      • lumma says:

        I agree with others but not with Ryanair. Just look at the average seat map after check in has been open for a while and the vast majority of middle seats will be allocated. The trick is to check late when they’ve already given the middle seats out.

        • Londonsteve says:

          +1. Same works on Wizz Air.

        • Chrisasaurus says:

          Exactly this – check in on mobile just before reaching security is the key

  • Matarredonda says:

    Max 10 not yet certified so deliveries cannot start and as Rob says must have 5 cabin crew instead of 4.
    Last year when Easyjet were short of staff they physically removed 6 seats from their 319’s so they only needed 3 cabin crew instead of 4.
    Ryanair’s job creation always includes support staff at airports, etc to maximise publicity.

    • Michael Jennings says:

      Support staff at airports are real jobs, so I can’s see why you wouldn’t include them.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      it will only need the 5th member of cabin crew if they actually install the extra seats.

      • Nick says:

        Which they will, otherwise they’d buy more 7M8 or even 7M9s surely? The only advantage of the 7M1 is the length and resulting capacity, akin to A321 vs A320.

      • Matarredondaaa says:

        Ryanair would otherwise but more 8200 which at 200 seats is the most 4 crew members can service.

        • Nick says:

          The 8200 is a Max8 that was rebranded for Ryanair because it kept killing people. No different otherwise.

          • Mark says:

            That’s not right. It’s a Max 8 with an extra pair of doors to enable more seats to be crammed in and still meet evacuation requirements for the number of seats.

            To really wanted rebrand it would have required removal of the ‘Max’ brand but just doing that would have brought more attention to it… And anyone really following the aftermath of what happened would have been aware of any name change and it still being the same aircraft anyway.

          • dougzz99 says:

            You seem very expert. How much more likely is the Max to kill me than an A32 ?

          • Rui N. says:

            It is different. Different emergency exits.

  • SteveCroydon says:

    Just another reason never to go near Ryanair.
    I actively avoid flights/routes using 737 MAX, in addition to the Ryanair/O’Leary attitude and the fact they are based out of Stansted. They call Beauvais airport Paris, Charleroi is called Brussels, etc. They might as well call Malta airport Southern Sicilly!

    • Rob says:

      You’re a bit out of date here. Where they could get slots they moved to mainstream airports. No more Lubeck for Hamburg, no more Treviso for Venice. It realised people would pay for the better airport (and overall it is cheaper for the customer because they save on ground transfers).

      • RussellH says:

        Lübeck and Treviso are also both well worth visiting in their own right. Not sure about Hamburg to be honest (if I still had relatives there it might be different, obviously, but I do not).

        • Novelty-Socks says:

          Hamburg is worth a look purely for Miniatur Wunderland and the spectacle of container ships coming in to the docks, IMO. (Also has cracking nightlife front what I’ve heard, although we were there with our six-year-old.)

          • Londonsteve says:

            What about the fact that it’s a handsome city with a great Hanseatic history? I thought the city centre was beautiful and charming and the areas around the Alster lakes beguiling.

    • RussellH says:

      Beauvais and the area around are well worth a visit. Charleroi itself probably not, but it is a great gateway to the Belgian Ardennes, great countryside and ideal for walking and cycling, whether on or off-road. And home to some really excellent restaurants.

  • Dan says:

    5 billion in the bank, yet still not paying their customers compensation from court judgments.

    Considering their customer base choose them to save money, I’m looking forward to the day they will be forced to pay.

    Regarding the job creation, before accepting Ryanair words, I believe two questions would be how many jobs would be created in a competitor airline AND how valuable/well paid are those jobs created in Ryanair vs their competitors.

    • Rob says:

      You miss a point. Because Ryanair’s costs are so low, they can fly routes that no other airline can make work. It does grow the market to that extent. It can also grow the market by offering lower fares more can afford.

      • Michael Jennings says:

        Back in the bad old days of Bermuda 2, British airways used to argue that it should be protected from competition because it also flew lots of loss making routes as a public service, and it needed to be protected on flights to the US (and other profitable routes) so that it could continue to fly these. This was always bullshit – if there are socially necessary routes, it is cheaper to fund them with a direct subsidy than an indirect one – but Ryanair managed to demonstrate that it was was complete and utter bullshit by being able to make money on routes that nobody had ever thought of, let alone felt the need to subsidise. This is a massively good thing.

        • bd95 says:

          Ryanair took on Dublin – Kerry as a commercial route, refusing to take the PSO subsidy.

  • Nick G says:

    Maybe they could open a base at DSA so it can reopen? They used to fly to Dublin from there years ago….

    I’ve just booked Ryanair to fly to Berlin in October. All in with 20kg baggage, seat selection, pre boarding (for what it’s worth) etc was £507 for the three of us.

    Checked BA in economy and it was £1200, on CE £2k…..so for me it’s always an option and happy to use them when there’s such a price difference to a major airline. Plus we fly from STN so cheaper parking , hotel etc. So we can fly to Berlin, stay at the WA in a suite for effectively £300 more than what BA want in Y seats alone…I like flying J when we can but prices at the moment are just stupidly high. Rather get a decent hotel.

    • Michael Jennings says:

      I don’t fly Ryanair very much any more, because the arrivals hall at Stansted is hideous during the evening peak and I have spent insane amounts of time waiting in queues there over the decades. (I don’t mind departing from Stansted, as security is generally fine). This isn’t Ryanair’s fault and from their statements you can tell that they hate this is much as I do, but it is so. Ryanair itself is fine, and I am perfectly happy to fly with them.

      • Londonsteve says:

        This. It’s the single biggest disincentive to fly Ryanair for me, although reluctantly I’m doing so on the evening the upcoming BH. I fully expect the arrivals hall to feel like a zoo and the wait for passport control to be dreadful. The fact that I’m resigned to the fact that it will be like this will make me marginally less grumpy when I arrive. I probably won’t fly to or from STN again for the next 2 years.

    • Chrisasaurus says:

      Opening at DSA would stymie Peel group’s plan to build warehousing there which was not at all their plan when they took advantage of that taxpayer funded road upgrade project before mysteriously falling out with Wizz and declaring the airport unprofitable

      • Pablo says:

        Peel have offered lease of the airport to Doncaster city council. It looks like it will reopen.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.