Max

I had a hell of a time with steep turns (45 degree bank angle). Probably spent ten hours trying to get that down and was killing me. I was flying with several instructors and I called the guy I thought was best at teaching and told him the problem. We went flying, turned off the PFD and MFD and he flew steep turns while I watched outside. Probably two in each direction. Then I did the same with eyes outside the plane. Never had trouble with them again. And while you can legally get PPL in 40 hours or something, I had about 120 when I got mine. The DPE told me my flying was among the best he had seen for a PPL check ride; similar feedback from instrument rating check ride. If not economically unrealistic, you might consider flying one or two more hours in a different plane with a different instructor to see if you enjoy flying or not. If you do, and if you can afford it, so what if you take a hundred hours to become a safe pilot. I had instruction in steam gauge Cherokee, steam gauge 172 and then glass SR20 (thru instrument rating) and then glass SR22. I never (ever) felt safe in the 172 but always did in the Cirrus (and in the Cherokee - so wasn't the parachute). In retrospect, I think my fear of heights was the cause of my discomfort in the 172 and had I never flown in a low-wing plane, probably wouldn't have finished my training. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss further or have questions.

How many hours in a plane did you have total? Were you in steam gauge or glass cockpit?

Unfortunately, yes, this is a common insurance hurdle. Trimix should not be terribly expensive though?

I think we are in agreement. The label is not important however - in the long term. My point (primarily in response to @Oaktown) is that there is a difference between a remediable design flaw (whether battery construction or software engineering) and a fatal flaw in an airframe. And the difference is critical when your investment horizon is a decade but irrelevant with regard to each news item in the short term. The 787 and A380 are excellent examples. Early on, 787 was a PR nightmare, BA stock took a big hit, etc. But the airframe (and concept of point to point travel being preferred over large hubs) has been very successful over the decade and the stock total return reflects that. OTOH, the A380 design was fatally flawed based on the assumption that hub to hub traffic would support it.

Gonna go out on a limb here and predict (again) that in a decade, the 737 will still be one of the most widely operated aircraft in the history of commercial flight. No idea to what "axe" you refer. But for the upcoming election, I'd be a buyer again at $325 to average down cost. I'm still quite comfortable with the ten year outlook.

Boeing took a $5B charge last quarter to account for some of these costs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/18/boeing-takes-billion-revenue-hit-compensate-max-customers/ The grounding has had a paradoxic effect for many airlines. By limiting new ASK, ticket prices (and profits) have been higher. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/grounding-the-737-max-eases-turbulence-for-airlines/2019/09/07/c90e9060-d1d4-11e9-a620-0a91656d7db6_story.html Predicting the future is hard, no way to know what the impact on share price will ultimately be. Certainly impossible to know in the short term.

Paraphrase the first post in this thread and see what comments follow... "The Boeing 787 737 has become a PR nightmare for Boeing, I also think a financial catastrophe at the end of the day. Having just announced another delay yesterday after saying it was going to" be back in the air by the end of the year. The aviation engineering experts on the massage blog forum must have known that Boeing Execs were bullshitting them... It's a free country. I've purchased BA shares (details of prices in prior posts) and I'd encourage anyone who disagrees to take short positions on the stock. Place your bets! Haters are gonna' hate and I'm certainly not trying to prop up the share price. I'd like to buy more at a discount.

Did I piss in your corn flakes at some point without knowing it? You are counting my posts (seriously?). 'tha fuck dude? I'm not going to waste my time counting the shit you've posted and I'll not be replying again to your posts in this thread. I have no idea what you are trying to prove and don't care. But, good luck with all that.

Yes and DFW-SYD doesn't work with 744. I think the 788, 789 and 77W have the range but apparently the passenger/cargo mix works for the A380.

Looking forward to first (and maybe last) A380 flight LHR-IAD this fall.

Not sure how your name-calling advances the engineering science either...and as far as I can tell, you've posted precisely zero facts about the aircraft. There have been very few posts here with facts (mine or otherwise)...almost all are opinion. Either the opinion of the person who writes the post, or the opinion described in a linked article like the above one from Seeking Alpha. I think that's kind of the point of a thread like that. Absent a Boeing engineer contributing, it's all opinion. Not so much...look at my early posts. This is not a short term investment for me. I've even posted the prices at which I have purchased BA shares. I get it - we fundamentally disagree about whether the aircraft is inherently unstable. As a pilot and frequent commercial passenger, I'll be happy to fly the 737 when they are back in the sky. Just as I was happy to board a 787 last week...again, the original subject of this thread which started a decade ago. My point is that in ten years, the 737 will still be flying I'm confident that my investment will be just fine. Because the subject of this thread is something I find interesting. Max is my name, entirely unrelated to the airplane. Pretty funny...someone above asked why I hadn't posted in this thread in a few days. Now you've taken time to look and see when my account was created and how many times I've posted here.

Except that I have said several times, I’m playing an investment for a decade at least. Look at the title of this thread. Then explain how the 787 is a failure ten years later.

Would be a great argument were it not entirely contrary to fact and unencumbered by evidence. Boeing routinely invests billions of dollars in development of an aircraft to be commercially viable a decade later. They do not have short term focus on anything. A decade or so ago, some of the C level folks discussed trying to take the company private so they wouldn't have to report quarterly earnings and keep short term investors happy. Elephant was just too big do eat though. Still here, but not much to add at this point. Closed minds will remain so.

Instant Pot works great, shells often come off the eggs in two pieces; never get the crumble fight.

Where do you find this bullshit? And more importantly, why? Seriously, "working frantically to re-certify the MAX?" Frantic: "conducted in a hurried, excited, and chaotic way, typically because of the need to act quickly" No, of course neither Boeing nor the FAA are working frantically. That's just nonsense. And if they were rushed and excited, they'd have been done by now. And a government bailout? More absolute nonsense. But hey, let us know how that short position is going. When did you say those puts expire? I'm still very happy with my purchases at about $370.

With a US trained flight crew, particularly given all the press coverage and the simplicity of recovery when you know what to expect, I'd fly on one today. And I agree with others that the FAA is going to be more thorough this time around.

By definition. They produced a system that malfunctioned. They are not the sole bearer of fault however. There were at least three proximate causes of each accident; the MCAS software design, erroneous input from the attitude indicator, and inappropriate pilot response to MCAS activation.

Agree with both thoughts above entirely. No one boarded a Concorde (after the Le Bourget crash) unaware of its history. The relocation of the engines created a circumstance where Boeing thought it appropriate to modify the flight control laws. The circumstance for which MCAS was designed should not happen, the system was added as a safeguard against a very rare occurrence. Had the MCAS not malfunctioned - twice at least - the engine move itself would have been essentially transparent. I think he meant "may" as well. No way to know until it happens.

The larger engine nacelle required a more forward and upward mount below the wing. This lead to the development of MCAS. It's not a fundamental flaw that renders the aircraft unsafe. The flawed design of the MCAS (primarily that it relied on only one input source) is the issue.

How are they different? Both flawed design to be corrected and returned to flight. I'll go find the missed question too...didn't ignore intentionally.

Judging by the return to flight of the Concorde, not likely to be a factor.

I keep my cards close to the vest Oakie.

Sure. LA Times. About as authoritative in aviation as is your "hold my cards close" investment advice. My planned 10 year hold investment is up about 2%. When do your put options expire @Oaktown? Cheers!

Well, in your defense, it was almost six weeks ago after all...and many thought the planes would be back in the air by now.

You are incorrect. All airplanes should fly without pilot input in level, unaccelerated flight when trim settings are appropriate. And the 737 (all versions) will do that. If you define the use of trim as "deployment of control surfaces" then essentially all aircraft have that same requirement. The MCAS has nothing to do with straight, level, unaccelerated flight. And lots of paperwork. And while they were re-working the MCAS, they identified other issues to address. Once the software is done, they have to decide how much and what type of training pilots will need. Then they have to document all that, get it reviewed by the FAA and others. Wouldn't surprise me if it's early 2020. I have seen no such discussion in professional aviation publications.