Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/240069-boeing-737-max/
Share on other sites

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...

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

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 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..

>

>

> 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.

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.

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... ;-)

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...