Boeing 737 max

[Spartacus]

There's a news story on eve BBC today that claims they hope to be flying the 737 Max again in the new year after the two fatal crashes including the air lion one last year.

I have to admit that regardless of the fixes they have made I would be very reluctant to fly in one.

How do other people feel?

[JohnL]

I don't like flying at the best of times. They won't call them 737-MAX though. A Ryan Air one was called 737-8200 earlier this year, they also maybe called 737-8 or 737-10

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

[KidKruger]

Yeah they?ll be rebranded and muddied with the other 737 versions, one of which I flew on a few weeks ago (safe in the knowledge - then - that Maxes weren?t flying).

[TheArtfulDogger]

I guess it's a bit like the sad fate that the beautiful Concord suffered after the Paris crash, despite huge improvements in safety, passenger numbers fell as people didn't feel safe flying in her after.

I miss seeing her flying over Dulwich

[mrwb]

I wouldn't go near one till they've done 1000s of cycles to confirm problem fixed. Stall or MCAS plunge risk too high, all caused by position of new more fuel efficient engines...

737 NG and A320/1 (Neo) both tried and tested alternatives.

I'll be dodging any airlines using the max for a couple of years at least...

[peckman]

Dont fly then . If you want to and have the luxury to choose your type your aircraft you have too much money or time

[JohnL]

Some Airlines (these seem to be US ones) are considering allowing passengers to avoid it although not seen by all as a good idea

"Rupert Younger, the director of Oxford University's Centre for Corporate Reputation, told Business Insider that airlines' plan to let passengers rebook their flights was a bad idea, as it leaves customers to make their own decision about the safety of the plane."

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-airlines-consider-telling-passengers-about-plane-2019-9?r=US&IR=T

[DovertheRoad]

peckman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dont fly then . If you want to and have the luxury

> to choose your type your aircraft you have too

> much money or time

Nah. As a consumer in a conpetitive market we can choose.

[Cardelia]

peckman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dont fly then . If you want to and have the luxury

> to choose your type your aircraft you have too

> much money or time

Really? For most people it would just mean picking Easyjet (or BA) rather than Ryanair, assuming both fly to the required destination.

[edcam]

I would imagine after what happened they'll now the be the safest planes to fly in. Why would they take any chances?

[JohnL]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would imagine after what happened they'll now

> the be the safest planes to fly in. Why would

> they take any chances?

I still get nervous at the name DC10 - and that was way way back.

[Lemming]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would imagine after what happened they'll now

> the be the safest planes to fly in. Why would

> they take any chances?

If another Max goes down after this - it could be the ruin of Boeing. As a consequence I expect the re-tested Max to be one of the safest flying.

As for choosing the type or aircraft or airline being some sort of luxury decision, that's just nonsense. If you going to fly to, say, Russia, what's it going to be? Aeroflot or Finnair? I know which one I'm going to be on..

[NewWave]

>

>

> I still get nervous at the name DC10 - and that

> was way way back.

Back in the 90's I had to travel to and from New York pretty regularly for work, and my client always booked me on American Airlines which then used all DC10's on that route.

I remember 1st time I sat on the place and saw the safety card in the seat pocket in front I went 'oh heck!' especially as I think a fair few european airlines had stopped using it.

Over time though I grew to like the DC10, it was small and quick to board and disembark also I seem to remember it actually was marginally quicker taking a slightly different route to other planes (the steward once explained to me something about FAA law at that time decreeing that DC10's flew closer to land on transatlantic flights-something to do with fuel reserves if my memory serves...

In fact when once no seats were available on an AA flight and I got put put on another carrier using a jumbo I actually missed the intimacy of the compact (by comparison) DC10 and being able to see land for a fair bit of the journey.

[DovertheRoad]

Good plane chat kidz. My fave for short haul is the Embraer 190. Much better leg room plus you can get a standard sized trolley handbaggage under the seat in front.

[mrwb]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would imagine after what happened they'll now

> the be the safest planes to fly in. Why would

> they take any chances?

Obviously they didn't mean to take a chance in the first place. My view is they should have written the entire line off.

Sticking modern much bigger engines on a 40 odd year old airframe design was a massive mistake. Done purely for $$ as they didn't want Airbus eating their lunch. Would have taken years to certify a new type.

Ultimately there is a design flaw with the Max. It'll always pitch up and potentially stall due to new engines. Remains to be seen if the problem is fixable at all. Or if there will always be an unacceptably high stall or MCAS plunge risk.

When you look at af447, some new pilots don't understand the basics of stalls. Getting the computer automation and human pilots working together properly is not easy.

Which is why I'll be waiting until the fixed Maxes gave done 1000s of cycles to check it's actually fixed properly.

[exdulwicher]

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> peckman Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Dont fly then . If you want to and have the

> luxury

> > to choose your type your aircraft you have too

> > much money or time

>

> Nah. As a consumer in a conpetitive market we can

> choose.

Unlikely - you can never really guarantee what aircraft you'll be on and on some routes you simply don't have the choice. There's the other factor that about 95% of passengers won't have the slightest clue what plane they're on, most just don't care.

mrwb Wrote:

> Which is why I'll be waiting until the fixed Maxes

> gave done 1000s of cycles to check it's actually

> fixed properly.

Imagine if you'd have tried that approach with the old Comet... ;-)

[Michael Palaeologus]

The DC10 comparison is a good one. I think that the MAX brand is even more polluted than the DC10 brand was and so they will change the name.

Most punters will not know the difference between a MAX 737 and an earlier version. As it is airlines are buying up second-hand 737s to fill gaps or moving to other types.

How Boeing continues with its 737 problems and its military 767 issues is beyond me. At some point, they will run out of cash and credit and the US Government will have to step in. As the USA's last big commercial airline producer, Boeing it too big to fail.