CNBC

American Airlines cuts Boeing 737 Max from schedules
until June as more delays arise

Quote
CNBC
Key Points:
* American had 24 of the Boeing 737 Max planes at the time of the grounding last
year and 76 on order.
* Boeing recently about-faced on whether pilots should undergo simulator training
before flying the Max.
* It isn’t clear when regulators will allow the planes to fly again.

Don't know about anyone else, but I will never fly on a 737MAX.
imo, Boeing is no longer trustworthy.

---

39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

The search engine that doesn't track you.

[www.youtube.com]

There is no way that I will voluntarily get on a 737 MAX. I'm guessing a lot of people who fly feel the same.

---

My life goes smoothly and in regular intervals

I've always gone by the mantra that the only people who want to crash less than me is the crew. If they aren't concerned, then neither am I.

If they get off, then I'll be leading the way.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.”
-- François de La Rochefoucauld

Growing older is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

Once the FAA ungrounds them, I won’t have any issues.

Quote
Ombligo
I've always gone by the mantra that the only people who want to crash less than me is the crew. If they aren't concerned, then neither am I.

If they get off, then I'll be leading the way.

They might have to pay the mortgage or something... it's a job. They might be willing to risk a bit of safety if it means pushing the foreclosure back another month... who knows what goes on in the mind of strangers?

Quote
Carnos Jax
Once the FAA ungrounds them, I won’t have any issues.

That's the flip side of this whole fiasco. Once the FAA *properly* vets this plane, it might be the safest thing in the sky!

Quote
Gareth

Quote
Carnos Jax
Once the FAA ungrounds them, I won’t have any issues.

That's the flip side of this whole fiasco. Once the FAA *properly* vets this plane, it might be the safest thing in the sky!

If Boeing survives the vetting process.

---

It is what it is.

Frankly, regardless of how one feels about the overall situation, Boeing is not going down because of this. The 737 is in too much demand, and fundamentally speaking the airplane is safe. The problem that led to this grounding is a simple one to fix (in an engineering sense). Boeing will survive. Hopefully management will have learned a valuable lesson though....but unlikely.

Quote
Carnos Jax
The problem that led to this grounding is a simple one to fix (in an engineering sense).

Eh, I have a different understanding of things. There was a lot of pressure to get the planes out. A lot of corners were cut. Those in charge of QA we ignored if they didn't give a thumbs up when it was wanted. Something like this isn't just one mistake, but the result of a bad process. That bad process made the whole plane. Terrifying.

---

Quote
Ombligo
I've always gone by the mantra that the only people who want to crash less than me is the crew.

EgyptAir Flight 990

Germanwings Flight 9525



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 04:19PM by DeusxMac.

Quote
Ombligo
I've always gone by the mantra that the only people who want to crash less than me is the crew. If they aren't concerned, then neither am I.

If they get off, then I'll be leading the way.

Listen to this first: [www.wbur.org]

“Cynthia Cole, a test and systems engineer at Boeing for 32 years, until she retired in 2010. Former president of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA).” says she won’t fly the MAX until the whole plane is re-certified.

Good listen and an eye opener. Boeing ain’t the same as it used to be…

---

=wr=

Quote
hal

Quote
Ombligo
I've always gone by the mantra that the only people who want to crash less than me is the crew. If they aren't concerned, then neither am I.

If they get off, then I'll be leading the way.

They might have to pay the mortgage or something... it's a job. They might be willing to risk a bit of safety if it means pushing the foreclosure back another month... who knows what goes on in the mind of strangers?

Southwest pilots are suing Boeing for $100 million in lost pay, doubtful they'll succeed but is an indicator of the financial pressure they're under.

Quote
Gareth
Quote
Carnos Jax
Once the FAA ungrounds them, I won’t have any issues.


That's the flip side of this whole fiasco. Once the FAA *properly* vets this plane, it might be the safest thing in the sky!

That's not such a surety anymore. Not the way federal agencys are currently being budgeted, staffed and administered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 05:18PM by RgrF.

All good points. I’m still confident, but that may be due to my understanding of how things worked in the past. Time will tell....

If I were in charge of Boeing, I'd bite the bullet, kill the Maxes, and build a new plane—starting with the larger engines, which were the unfortunate add-on that unbalanced the plane.

Yes, I know it would put the company in a big hole, but public perception of a bad plane compounded by bad management will kill the company completely.

But I'm not in charge.

/Mr Lynn

---

"Hillbilly at Harvard"
Honky-tonk Country and Bluegrass
Founded in 1948 by Pappy Ben Minnich
Saturdays 9am - 1pm Eastern
WHRB-FM, Cambridge, MA
Streaming at [www.WHRB.org]
Be there!
The HAH weblog: [hillbillyatharvard.wordpress.com]

Topical weblog: [walkingcreekworld.wordpress.com]

On the river in Saxonville.

The thing is, the larger engines did not unbalance the plane. It reduced stability a tiny bit, but enough so that the 737 Max did not have quite the same handling characteristics as the previous generation. Consequently it would not have the requirements to maintain the same type certification as previous 737s and so the pilot training requirements would be greater. This is why the MCAS was added....to make it handle like previous 737s, not because it was unstable.

It seemed like a prudent business decision (to add bigger engines to the 737 versus a clean sheet design) as evidenced by the large number of orders for the Max. The execution of the design is what is at fault here, not the design itself.

But even with these larger engines, the Max wasn’t as efficient as the Airbus A320neo, as the latter could use even larger bypass ratio engines, thanks to its taller landing gear. Boeing would have to eventually come up with a new airplane, surely by the time airlines are needing to replace their fleets again. When that time comes, the storied history of the 737 will be over.

I'm jüst John Q Public, and I'm never getting on a 737 max

---

Picasso in his studio after the liberation of Paris, taken by my friend and mentor.

Quote
mrlynn
If I were in charge of Boeing, I'd bite the bullet, kill the Maxes, and build a new plane—starting with the larger engines, which were the unfortunate add-on that unbalanced the plane.

Yes, I know it would put the company in a big hole, but public perception of a bad plane compounded by bad management will kill the company completely...

Just said something like that to someone who responded that recalling the 737 Max and going back to square one to design a new jet would probably end the company.

Had to do some digging for numbers... tentatively, it looks like they're right.

The announcement of the production-freeze mentioned that they had a surplus of 400 737 Max jets that they had continued to build while the planes were grounded.

Assume a unit-cost of somewhere around $100 million and you've got a $40 billion loss. At the high-end, it could be $125 million each for a high-end of $50 billion.

Boeing's total assets run around $90+ billion with $50-60 billion in revenue and only a few hundred million in profit each year. That means they're spending some $50 billion or more each year. With $50 billion in operating costs and a $40 billion deficit, there's nothing left of the company.

Toss on penalties for failing to deliver on contracts and loss of business to Airbus.

They HAVE to make this work somehow.

My guess is that the government has glommed on and will help them out on the "too big to fail" principle.

...And this means that we can't trust the FAA to properly certify these planes.

...

...Feel free to correct me on this. My numbers were primarily cribbed hurriedly from Wikipedia.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 07:30PM by Sarcany.

"Once the FAA ungrounds them, I won’t have any issues."

FAA: The Tombstone Agency

D & C

Quote
mrlynn
If I were in charge of Boeing, I'd bite the bullet, kill the Maxes, and build a new plane—starting with the larger engines, which were the unfortunate add-on that unbalanced the plane.

Yes, I know it would put the company in a big hole, but public perception of a bad plane compounded by bad management will kill the company completely.

But I'm not in charge.

/Mr Lynn

I’m flying a Boeing 737 MAX 8 with MCAS issues. I will respond if I manage to land. @#$%& you Boeing, that is not funny. Get your @#$%& together and scrap this plane. And @#$%& you FAA too for allowing Boeing to murder innocent people. @#$%& you!

(I’m not receiving notifications. If this is urgent, reply “urgent” to send a notification through with your original message.)

Sent from my iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 07:53PM by space-time.

I'm waiting for the EASA to approve the plane. I'm not willing to trust the FAA at this point.

If Boeing pulls the plug and appears headed to the scrapheap, the government will step in using the explanation that the US cannot afford to lose it's aircraft mfg capacity. If nowhere else defense funds can be found.

It'll be another case of privatized profits and socialized losses.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 08:37PM by RgrF.

When the 737 Max flies again, we will all get on one if you are a serious traveler or need to do business.

Boeing will be betting their company on this plane's safety.

I say this as a Platinum FF.

...there's nothing left of the company...

We're talking one variant of one very established aircraft platform.
There's still business for the other 737 models along with 747, 767, 777, & 787 models.
Then there's the military rotary & fixed wing aircraft, vehicles, weapons systems,
and the 'space program' products.
Killing the MAX wouldn't be the end of Boeing.

Reminds me of folks declaring the UH-1/AH-1 helicopters were obsolete when
the Blackhawk & Apache birds entered service. Still lots of the old choppers still
on active duty.
The Boeing CH-47 Chinook is sixty-years old; still in production & on active duty.

---

39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

The search engine that doesn't track you.

Quote
MrNoBody
...there's nothing left of the company...

We're talking one variant of one very established aircraft platform.
There's still business for the other 737 models along with 747, 767, 777, & 787 models.
Then there's the military rotary & fixed wing aircraft, vehicles, weapons systems,
and the 'space program' products.
Killing the MAX wouldn't be the end of Boeing.

That's my guess, too. DOD buys a lot of stuff from Boeing.

Also, I'd be surprised if they couldn't retrofit the 737 Max planes with the previous engines, and make them as stable as the previous models. Maybe they'd have to sell them at a discount, but they wouldn't be a total loss.

/Mr Lynn

If you’re into short term plays or day trading, Boeing stock may be a good buy.

I'd guess that the FAA will be under pressure to recert these planes when the time comes.

That would worry me if I were a passenger.

I don't know that the FAA doesn't deserve our trust, yet I'm still concerned they might get considerable push to look for 'good enough'.

Does somebody have a link to a timeline similar to that of the Sox cheating timeline?

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
sekker
When the 737 Max flies again, we will all get on one if you are a serious traveler or need to do business.

Boeing will be betting their company on this plane's safety.

I say this as a Platinum FF.

As a top-tier FF for more than a decade, I always look at the plane before choosing a ticket. I definitely have my preferences, which usually skew towards Airbus vs Boeing for general comfort (seat width, bathrooms, with some exceptions for long-haul flights) and I will never, ever, sit on a CRJ. So the options are there and it is not essential to fly a certain plane unless you are somehow locked in with a carrier that flies only that model.

Quote
dk62
As a top-tier FF for more than a decade, I always look at the plane before choosing a ticket. I definitely have my preferences, which usually skew towards Airbus vs Boeing for general comfort (seat width, bathrooms, with some exceptions for long-haul flights) and I will never, ever, sit on a CRJ. So the options are there and it is not essential to fly a certain plane unless you are somehow locked in with a carrier that flies only that model.

As a general consumer I can tell you that I have little to no choice in what the plane is for my travels. If I want convenience and cheap prices, I'm at the mercy of whatever the airline is flying. If I want less convenience (i.e. a layover, or going to a farther away airport), then I would have more options.

Quote
Gareth
As a general consumer I can tell you that I have little to no choice in what the plane is for my travels. If I want convenience and cheap prices, I'm at the mercy of whatever the airline is flying. If I want less convenience (i.e. a layover, or going to a farther away airport), then I would have more options.

Nevertheless, you do have choices.

When I check flights with Kayak, I usually see at least two airlines that have non-stop trips between the airports I want to use. Selecting a flight almost always shows the airplane that's used on that route. (And if I do the search from the airline's site, it will *always* show me the airplane they use.)

If my choice is, for example, between an airline running an Embraer E175 and a Boeing 737 Max, I'm inclined to choose the airline with the Embraer, even if it's smaller and likely to be more crowded, because I can deal with that rather than upping my odds of dying in a plane crash. I might even suck up and pay a checked-bag fee just to avoid the 737. (Embraers have teeny tiny overhead bins and often have no under-seat storage.)

And if I'm at that point, my expectation is that there are several hundred thousand other people who will be doing much the same.

The Max is going to be unmarketable for much of the Western world. Airlines are not going to take that hit.

So, Boeing's probably going to change the name.

---

In all fairness, I leave between United and American hubs, with FF status for both, so I probably have many more choices than an average traveler in less well-served area...

Quote
dk62
As a top-tier FF for more than a decade, I always look at the plane before choosing a ticket. I definitely have my preferences...

As a “FF” I would assume you must have had instances where your plane was swapped out on the day of the already-ticketed flight; no?

Did you refuse to board if the substitute plane was undesirable?

Quote
DeusxMac
Did you refuse to board if the substitute plane was undesirable?

I've done that. And gotten the airline to cover a flight on another airline.

...Although they mentioned in the plane-swap announcement that the substitute plane was available because it was in for service that morning and they couldn't promise me the same seat-assignment even though I paid for preferred seating (emergency row).

---

Americans vote with their wallet. If the MAX flight is cheaper than the other one by $10 they will take the MAX.

I fly out in a few weeks on a $75 RT flight from snowy and cold Minnesota to wonderful Orlando. I couldn't care less what plane I get stuffed in for 3 hours. Then off to AZ after a quick pit stop back in Minnesota.

Statistically speaking, aren't you still far more likely to get in a crash with a regional jet than a MAX?

---

C(-)ris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwback Thursday Signature:




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 09:56PM by C(-)ris.

Quote
C(-)ris
Statistically speaking, aren't you still far more likely to get in a crash with a regional jet than a MAX?

Did some Googling on that. While private planes are responsible for almost as many fatalities as cars, the big carriers look to be way more dangerous than smaller/regional carriers.
[airsafe.com]

---

Flying's Very Dangerous!


[www.youtube.com]

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
dk62
As a top-tier FF for more than a decade, I always look at the plane before choosing a ticket. I definitely have my preferences...

As a “FF” I would assume you must have had instances where your plane was swapped out on the day of the already-ticketed flight; no?

Did you refuse to board if the substitute plane was undesirable?

No, the only completely undesirable plane is CRJ and they would generally not substitute it for anything else. But most of my travel is international and the only time I had seat change because of aircraft change I ended up in first instead of business, so no complaint.

I'm not fond of flying (much prefer trains), but wife wants to go visit our son who lives in Peru. I suggested a tramp freighter, but that's probably not practical. So I'll not only fly, but international at that (long, tedious, cramped). Oh well. Will have to get advice from all you FFs about airlines and airplanes. Any way to get a ride on a B1?

/Mr Lynn

I love flying.

It's long been my favorite way to travel.

I haven't had any reason to, for years, and I don't see that changing.

And if I don't upgrade my driver's license, I won't be able to as of October.

It's a coin toss as to whether that happens.

I've always wanted to take a cross-country train trip.

I'd like to think it's more comfortable than being on what are now mainly flying cattle cars.

---

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

Everybody matters or nobody matters.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

-An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

Mister, that's a ten-gallon hat on a twenty-gallon head.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
mrlynn
I'm not fond of flying (much prefer trains), but wife wants to go visit our son who lives in Peru. I suggested a tramp freighter, but that's probably not practical. So I'll not only fly, but international at that (long, tedious, cramped). Oh well. Will have to get advice from all you FFs about airlines and airplanes. Any way to get a ride on a B1?

/Mr Lynn

I would absolutely love a long trip in a BOne. I also wish I had enough money to own and fly a FB-111 Aardvark.

Quote
RAMd®d
I love flying.

I've always wanted to take a cross-country train trip.

I'd like to think it's more comfortable than being on what are now mainly flying cattle cars.

For me, flying has always been drudgery, and I felt this way even before the TSA nightmare.

The only "real" train I train I use anymore is Amtrak's Capitol Corridor train, and it's light years more comfortable than any airplane. Big comfy seats with tons of legroom...