Will it ever fly?

[mike carey]

How are they different? Both flawed design to be corrected and returned to flight.

The biggest difference I can see is that the Concorde was a niche market and the 737MAX is a mass market aircraft. Passenger reactions to the two will be different. One thing potentially in favour of the MAX is that the passenger base may be less likely to be paying attention to what sort of aircraft they are flying in.

 

As to when it will return to service, the FAA and other regulators will be aware of the perception, right or wrong, that they were lax in their original approvals of the operating certificates and will be careful to ensure that they don't leave themselves open to such impressions about the return of the type to service.

[MikeBiDude]

The larger engine nacelle required a more forward and upward mount below the wing.

Or, it’s this? The changes created a flaw that requires a fix....

[Guest]

The biggest difference I can see is that the Concorde was a niche market and the 737MAX is a mass market aircraft. Passenger reactions to the two will be different...

Did you mean to say may be different? You're usually so precise with your use of language, MC...

[Max]

The biggest difference I can see is that the Concorde was a niche market and the 737MAX is a mass market aircraft. Passenger reactions to the two will be different. One thing potentially in favour of the MAX is that the passenger base may be less likely to be paying attention to what sort of aircraft they are flying in.

 

As to when it will return to service, the FAA and other regulators will be aware of the perception, right or wrong, that they were lax in their original approvals of the operating certificates and will be careful to ensure that they don't leave themselves open to such impressions about the return of the type to service.

 

Agree with both thoughts above entirely. No one boarded a Concorde (after the Le Bourget crash) unaware of its history.

 

Or, it’s this? The changes created a flaw that requires a fix....

 

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.

 

Did you mean to say may be different? You're usually so precise with your use of language, MC...

 

I think he meant "may" as well. No way to know until it happens.

[mike carey]

Did you mean to say may be different? You're usually so precise with your use of language, MC...

Well, yes, I suppose I did, but I was happy to go out on a limb and say it 'will' be different. As you say, I may end up being wrong, it could become so notorious that everyone will be scared of that aeroplane.

[Guest]

Well, yes, I suppose I did, but I was happy to go out on a limb and say it 'will' be different. As you say, I may end up being wrong, it could become so notorious that everyone will be scared of that aeroplane.

Well, I'm fairly risk-averse (to real risks), and I'm not unduly frightened. I think everyone knows what the problems are: (1) the MCAS software, and (2) appropriate pilot training. Once those are addressed, I don't see a serious concern. I don't think the airplane will be put into flight without a great deal of scrutiny. As Duran Duran said, "That's why I'll do it again!"

[MikeBiDude]

The relocation of the engines created a circumstance where Boeing thought it appropriate to modify the flight control laws.

??‍♂️ So, they are at fault...

[mike carey]

Well, I'm fairly risk-averse (to real risks), and I'm not unduly frightened. I think everyone knows what the problems are: (1) the MCAS software, and (2) appropriate pilot training. Once those are addressed, I don't see a serious concern. I don't think the airplane will be put into flight without a great deal of scrutiny.

Yes to all of that, but I'll reserve judgment on whether I'll fly in them, at least in the initial period after they return to service (if they do). Which regulators approve them will be one factor. I have flown on one once (AA from LAX to DCA last January, so after the Lion crash) so I know they can operate safely. I may chose my flights in the US more carefully (say, QF metal to JFK rather than AA to other east coast destinations). All this is in the future.

[Max]

??‍♂️ So, they are at fault...

 

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.

[Max]

Yes to all of that, but I'll reserve judgment on whether I'll fly in them, at least in the initial period after they return to service (if they do). Which regulators approve them will be one factor. I have flown on one once (AA from LAX to DCA last January, so after the Lion crash) so I know they can operate safely. I may chose my flights in the US more carefully (say, QF metal to JFK rather than AA to other east coast destinations). All this is in the future.

 

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.

[Guest]

Yes to all of that, but I'll reserve judgment on whether I'll fly in them, at least in the initial period after they return to service (if they do). Which regulators approve them will be one factor. I have flown on one once (AA from LAX to DCA last January, so after the Lion crash) so I know they can operate safely. I may chose my flights in the US more carefully (say, QF metal to JFK rather than AA to other east coast destinations). All this is in the future.

Well, there were two crashes, BOTH due to the combination of bad software and inadequate pilot training. Assuming that BOTH of these two inadequacies are addressed, you would choose flying to JFK when you were going to DC? I'd think you'd be in the minority of the people who would be that cautious. I'd even venture to predict a very small minority. Hell, I wouldn't even choose IAD or BWI instead of DCA in order to avoid the 737MAX.

[Guest]

If Boeing isn't answering F.A.A. and the global aviation agencies questions, why in the world would the Max be given approval to fly anytime soon?

 

In August, Boeing met with officials from the F.A.A. and other global aviation agencies to brief them on its efforts to complete fixes on the Max. Regulators asked detailed questions about adjustments to the Max’s flight control computers, which the Boeing representatives there were not prepared to answer.

 

Instead, the company representatives began to display a PowerPoint presentation on their efforts, accordin g to people briefed on the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it was not public.

 

At that point, the regulators ended the meeting. Weeks later, Boeing has still not answered all their questions.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/business/boeing-safety-737-max.html

 

(And here comes Max... 3, 2, 1: ""Sure. NY Times. About as authoritative in aviation as is your "hold my cards close" investment advice."")

Edited September 16, 2019 by Oaktown

[+ oldNbusted]

If Boeing isn't answering F.A.A. and the global aviation agencies questions, why in the world would the Max be given approval to fly anytime soon?

 

In August, Boeing met with officials from the F.A.A. and other global aviation agencies to brief them on its efforts to complete fixes on the Max. Regulators asked detailed questions about adjustments to the Max’s flight control computers, which the Boeing representatives there were not prepared to answer.

 

Instead, the company representatives began to display a PowerPoint presentation on their efforts, accordin g to people briefed on the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity because it was not public.

 

At that point, the regulators ended the meeting. Weeks later, Boeing has still not answered all their questions.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/15/business/boeing-safety-737-max.html

 

Answers? They were supposed to have answers? They never had to have answers before....

 

[mike carey]

you would choose flying to JFK when you were going to DC? I'd think you'd be in the minority of the people who would be that cautious. I'd even venture to predict a very small minority. Hell, I wouldn't even choose IAD or BWI instead of DCA in order to avoid the 737MAX.

Indeed, and I did say 'may', and I too would pick DCA over the other two for DC, have done for 30 years. I wouldn't fly into NY if I was only going to DC (or Boston), but when I travel to the NE I usually go up and down the NE corridor. When I book, the QF web site tells me what aircraft will operate the connecting flight on AA. (Part of my decision process, MAX or no MAX is that I'd prefer the trans-continental flight on a QF 787 to whatever AA offers.)

[Guest]

Boeing in MAX-imum trouble

 

The FAA is working frantically to re-certify the MAX, but this is not proving to be easy. Further complications are reported to have arisen, delaying the process. It is imperative that this be done only after a comprehensive review, as any further problems could prove to be fatal to the type. In addition to this, the US regulator is seeking consensus from other national regulators in order to ensure that the public’s confidence in the MAX is assured. Recent reports suggest that the European regulator (EASA) will certify the MAX independently of the FAA’s licensing, an unprecedented move that could lead to further delays.

 

While re-certification needs to be thorough, it also must be expeditious. It is quite likely that if it is not completed as expected, Boeing will be facing a financial crisis. Talks of a US government bailout are already being floated, which is alarming to say the least.

 

http://www.ft.lk/columns/Boeing-in-MAX-imum-trouble/4-685753

[Max]

Boeing in MAX-imum trouble

 

The FAA is working frantically to re-certify the MAX, but this is not proving to be easy. Further complications are reported to have arisen, delaying the process. It is imperative that this be done only after a comprehensive review, as any further problems could prove to be fatal to the type. In addition to this, the US regulator is seeking consensus from other national regulators in order to ensure that the public’s confidence in the MAX is assured. Recent reports suggest that the European regulator (EASA) will certify the MAX independently of the FAA’s licensing, an unprecedented move that could lead to further delays.

 

While re-certification needs to be thorough, it also must be expeditious. It is quite likely that if it is not completed as expected, Boeing will be facing a financial crisis. Talks of a US government bailout are already being floated, which is alarming to say the least.

 

http://www.ft.lk/columns/Boeing-in-MAX-imum-trouble/4-685753

 

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.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Max

[Guest]

The 737 Max has been grounded since March, and Boeing still has not released a final fix. As it is, Southwest Airlines, the biggest operator of 737 Maxs in the US, is not scheduling flights with until next year. That sort of time span to fix a problem doesn't point to pilot errors, but to a basic aircraft flight deficiency resistant to an acceptable fix.

Boeing @ $370, bully for you Maxi.

[Guest]

"Whats worse than a 737 Max?

A 737 Max that been sat in an Aussie desert for a few years."

Why is SilkAir storing their Max fleet in the Australian Outback?

 

https://www.ft.com/content/d3ed576a-db4c-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17?sharetype=blocked

[mike carey]

Why is SilkAir storing their Max fleet in the Australian Outback?

The same reason that airlines store aircraft in the Arizona desert. The dry air minimises corrosion. In the case of Silk Air in particular, Singapore is a small country where ramp space is at a premium, storing them in Australia would be far cheaper and it's not far away. (Note, the article may have answered the questions but I'm not an FT subscriber.)

[MikeBiDude]

The same reason that airlines store aircraft in the Arizona desert. The dry air minimises corrosion. In the case of Silk Air in particular, Singapore is a small country where ramp space is at a premium, storing them in Australia would be far cheaper and it's not far away. (Note, the article may have answered the questions but I'm not an FT subscriber.)

In California Mojave and Victorville are desert locations where many, many airplanes are mothballed and/or abandoned. I believe many 737 Max are stored in Victorville location now.

 

https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/california-airplane-boneyards-storage.htm

[mike carey]

In California Mojave and Victorville are desert locations where many, many airplanes are mothballed and/or abandoned. I believe many 737 Max are stored in Victorville location now.

When I wrote that I was thinking of Davis-Monthan AFB but didn't intend to exclude other places, such as SoCal.

[Guest]

"Whats worse than a 737 Max?

A 737 Max that been sat in an Aussie desert for a few years."

 

Why is SilkAir storing their Max fleet in the Australian Outback?

 

My question was sarcasm. If this bird is just about to fly again, why in the world is Silk finding a place to store their aircraft now?

[mike carey]

My question was sarcasm. If this bird is just about to fly again, why in the world is Silk finding a place to store their aircraft now?

Fair point, sorry I missed the sarcasm. There was still a serious point to be made (not one I would necessarily have bothered to make if I'd picked up on your intent) that for Silk Air (unlike say South West) that even a few months' grounding is worth finding a cheaper storage location.

[Guest]

that even a few months' grounding is worth finding a cheaper storage location.

 

Cheaper, and drier! methinks these birds might be there for sometime.

[+ sync]

"Comforting" to know that Boeing will be rendering the next Air Force One.