[ggm]

as far as the general public is concerned, "if its boeing I'm not going" is a viable message. There is almost no downside to them dropping the max, given they had to save money.

(I know that the 737NG are boeing. the point is, given a choice of which craft to drop, the one with tainted PR was the obvious choice)

[duxup]

Considering their supportive statements about Boeing ....I doubt any PR like you describe is at play here.

[_-___________-_]

That is the angle the linked article chose to take, but Norwegian themselves have never taken that position, and they're cancelling Airbus orders too.

[markdown]

The MAX is a nice new aircraft that is more comfortable than the ageing NG series. More importantly, it's more fuel-efficient.

I don't think it's an obvious choice at all.

[ggm]

Unless they can sell on the craft they own, or can offload lease structures they are locked into, There is sunk cost. They'd have to wipe out a huge amount of (possibly paper) money to walk off the 737NG fleet. I believe the Max purchase was fed from growth, as well as replacement, but in shrinkage, It would be untenable to acquire a paper loss, and have to spend real money. Yes, the operating cost is lower, and its a nicer plane. But, it also has certification issues, and will now demand (probably) flight crew training and re-certification when previously had not existed. So its TCO cost has risen.

It's been pointed out they've cancelled Airbus purchases too. This also strongly suggests what I thought about PR value is irrelevant: its not about marketing, its about real money. They may well want the Max. they can't afford it.