Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Rawr

cnocbui wrote: »

Trump - the joke that keeps on giving...



Boeing 848 Profit

Boeing 737 Fixed

Boeing 321..

Boeing 737 Trump Edition

Airbusing A320b

Boeing Daydreamliner

(I get a feeling that most folk still call the 787 the "Dreamliner". Maybe the Max can get something like that?)

smurfjed

Has anyone mentioned the GPS Rollover software issue with the 787 that Boeing/Honeywell said wasn't gonna happen?

Thirdfox

Here's the video version of the Vox article I posted - about engine changes and regulatory fudges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

Jeff2

Thirdfox wrote: »

Here's the video version of the Vox article I posted - about engine changes and regulatory fudges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2tuKiiznsY

That's an informative video explanation for anyone who hasn't been following the whole mess.
Thanks.

This video is not put together very well but explains the fix.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM0V7zEKEQ

Junkyard Tom

Is the 737 Max a newer version of the original 737 or essentially a new aircraft that shares the name with the original?

Damien360

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Is the 737 Max a newer version of the original 737 or essentially a new aircraft that shares the name with the original?

That's the debate. My understanding. It may look like a 737 but due to engine position, it doesn't fly like one. By trying to engineer it as a 737 next gen, they rushed design of key components and handed it a flaw which was again engineered out using electronics not in control of the pilot. And this will be fixed with likely more redundant backups and fly again. But under what guise.

Reason for all this.....cost to airlines to recertify a new aircraft type and thereby a very hard sell to those same airlines.

Junkyard Tom

I suppose if it was a new aircraft they'd have designed out that issue with the engines being mounted in front of the wings?

Yeah, I think it's more of a question of debate than something that can be definitively answered.

troyzer

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I suppose if it was a new aircraft they'd have designed out that issue with the engines being mounted in front of the wings?

Yeah, I think it's more of a question of debate than something that can be definitively answered.

The reason why the engine has to be in front of the wings is because the 737 sits very low on the ground.

The reason for that is because it was designed in the 1960s when many airports were underdeveloped and they thought it was important for the 737 luggage hold to be accessible for manual handling.

Needless to say, that wouldn't be a design consideration going forward. The 737 is just way past its lifespan and Boeing are trying to milk it via cutting corners. Replacing the 737 is expensive both for them and any customers and will require years of design, certification and training all while Airbus have the perfectly serviceable A320neo on the shelf.

GM228

Long before first 737 MAX crash, Boeing knew a key sensor warning light wasn’t working, but told no one

Boeing admitted Sunday that it  knew well over a year before the first crash of a 737 MAX in Indonesia last October that a warning light linked to a key sensor on the 737 MAX wasn’t working on most of the airplanes, but it informed neither the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) nor the airlines operating the jet about the problem until after that crash.

And an interesting comment by Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano here:-

But the real problem, and I'm sorry to use this phrase, is criminally negligent homicide. There is a potential for prosecutors to make that claim,” he said. “The failure to comply with a legal obligation to inform the carrier, the airline, of a defect in the software when that failure arguably resulted in death is the definition of criminally negligent homicide.

And whilst not 737MAX related (though I'm sure it probably equally applies to all frames), self inspection of the Dreamliners has raised some issues:-

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-mechanics-self-inspect-work-problems-787-dreamliner-2019-5?r=US&IR=T

Mod Note Link is ad blocked, so may not be accessible to many

Reminds me of the self certification process and highlights the issues that can arise without independent verification.

Tenzor07

troyzer wrote: »

Boeing are trying to milk it via cutting corners. Replacing the 737 is expensive both for them and any customers and will require years of design, certification and training all while Airbus have the perfectly serviceable A320neo on the shelf.

That's the whole deal with the 737, it had reached the end of it's suitability as a modern designed aircraft, Airbus had the 320 redesigned as the Neo, all certified and ready to go, it was American Airlines if I recall correctly who placed an order with Airbus for 100 of the 320Neo, Boeing called them and said if they made changes to the 737 with bigger engines etc. would AL order 50, so the Max was born and the old design was again given a further 20+ years over what it should have done.

smurfjed

Why didnt we get the 757 NEO? or OLE or any shortened version?

troyzer

smurfjed wrote: »

Why didnt we get the 757 NEO? or OLE or any shortened version?

It still doesn't get around the issue that there are loads of airlines which only operate the 737 who need the range but can't afford to retrain or get new pilots. They want their existing fleet composition, which they're certified to fly, to go further.

That's exactly what the 320neo gives them right now off the shelf. Assuming they already operate 320s.

Or they don't operate 757s anyway, they're very niché. They haven't made any in 15 years.

Tenger

smurfjed wrote: »

Why didnt we get the 757 NEO? or OLE or any shortened version?

As noted about the B757 isn’t/wasn’t the massive workhorse that the B737 is.
In addition the B757 received a boost in popularity AFTER production actually ended. (i think it ended on 2003 with only 5-6 orders in the last year)

sunnysoutheast

Often wondered why Boeing didn't do a wholesale redesign of the 737 main gear somewhere along the line. Low clearance has been a constraint since the -300.

troyzer

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Often wondered why Boeing didn't do a wholesale redesign of the 737 main gear somewhere along the line. Low clearance has been a constraint since the -300.

Because it would be too significant a change for it to keep the current certification.

They might as well design a new plane if they're going to have to recertify and retrain all the pilots.

Irish Steve

The game changer for the 757 was the advent of the winglets, they both improved the range, and there were performance improvements as well. It wasn't a Boeing enhancement, it came from an external supplier, several years after Boeing closed the production line, and then when people realised the advantages, to coin a phrase, they went viral. The 757 has been very successful in recent years on longer routes that could not justify the use of a wide body aircraft, and they have continued in use in this role, the big problem for the airlines is that there are fewer airframes available, as a significant number of 757's have been converted for use as freighters, and a significant number have been scrapped, 1050 were built, and the active fleet is now 664, with somewhere over 200 of them being operated as freighters, the largest operator being Fedex, with over 100 in use.

Nijmegen

The whole certification of pilots things seems like a regulatory construct driving poor behavior. Perhaps regulators should stipulate that you get x# of variations of your plane or years in service before new type certification is mandatory. That would create its own incentives for certain behavior and you could also argue regulators would then be setting the pace of new model development. Difficult one.

troyzer

Nijmegen wrote: »

The whole certification of pilots things seems like a regulatory construct driving poor behavior. Perhaps regulators should stipulate that you get x# of variations of your plane or years in service before new type certification is mandatory. That would create its own incentives for certain behavior and you could also argue regulators would then be setting the pace of new model development. Difficult one.

Totally agree. It does seem like a very artificial and outsized influence on the aviation industry.

Sort of like how everyone in Ireland with an extension has it built to 39 square metres instead of 40 to get away with not needing planning permission.

MoeJay

sunnysoutheast wrote: »

Often wondered why Boeing didn't do a wholesale redesign of the 737 main gear somewhere along the line. Low clearance has been a constraint since the -300.

It all boils down to the airline customers, all about keeping costs down...

banie01

MoeJay wrote: »

It all boils down to the airline customers, all about keeping costs down...

Similar argument could be made that it all boils down to Manufacturers keeping margins artificially high.

If the detail regarding Boeing having pre existing knowledge of the warning indicator fault is correct.
I would have serious concern for Boeing surviving this in its existing corporate structure.

MoeJay

banie01 wrote: »

Similar argument could be made that it all boils down to Manufacturers keeping margins artificially high.

I agree, the commercial imperative overrides everything. If the airline customer won’t pay X for a totally shiny new airplane, then the manufacturer will have to do something to reduce X and make their margin.

Unless and until of course this commercial argument is overridden by a higher authority, or some event that forces the higher authority to act.

Shedite27

MoeJay wrote: »

I agree, the commercial imperative overrides everything. If the airline customer won’t pay X for a totally shiny new airplane, then the manufacturer will have to do something to reduce X and make their margin.

99% of travelers don't know if they're on Airbus or Boeing

MoeJay

Shedite27 wrote: »

99% of travelers don't know if they're on Airbus or Boeing

When I say airline customers, I mean the airline itself buying the aircraft, not the passenger paying for the seat. Apologies for any confusion.

Bob24

Shedite27 wrote: »

99% of travelers don't know if they're on Airbus or Boeing

Don’t agree with this as a general statement. Many passengers won’t know alright, but 99% is stretching it a lot.

Not saying a lot of passengers will book a specific flight to get a Boeing or and Airbus of course, but once they are on the plane I am sure much more than 1% know what the maker is. At the very least because they will be a cabin announcement mentioning it or a safety card in front of them with that information.

Also while it is not necessarily as relevant for the 737/320, for long haul flights I think passengers will on average be more savvy about what plane they are flying on including at time of booking: airlines will sometimes display the airplane type when you book - especially if it’s a new model, confort differences will be more pronounced on long flights depending on which plane you are flying, and I think you’ll get a higher proportion of “knowledgeable” travellers who might know which planes they prefer or consult specialised websites for planes/seats recommandation.

Man Vs ManUre

Bob24 wrote: »

Don’t agree with this as a general statement. Many passengers won’t know alright, but 99% is stretching it a lot.

Not saying a lot of passengers will book a specific flight to get a Boeing or and Airbus of course, but once they are on the plane I am sure much more than 1% know what the maker is. At the very least because they will be a cabin announcement mentioning it or a safety card in front of them with that information.

Also while it is not necessarily as relevant for the 737/320, for long haul flights I think passengers will on average be more savvy about what plane they are flying on including at time of booking: airlines will sometimes display the airplane type when you book - especially if it’s a new model, confort differences will be more pronounced on long flights depending on which plane you are flying, and I think you’ll get a higher proportion of “knowledgeable” travellers who might know which planes they prefer or consult specialised websites for planes/seats recommandation.

I flew Dubai-Beijing with Emirates once and when I bought the tkt it was mentioned it was on the A380.
It was the only A380 on the round trip Dublin-Dubai-Beijing, Hong-Kong-Dubai-Dublin. All others were Boeing 777.
Before boarding I could see the plane was a 777. I was a bit disappointed and have still not flown on the A380. I even mentioned it to the cabin crew as I got on (in a friendly way).

Man Vs ManUre

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

I flew Dubai-Beijing with Emirates once and when I bought the tkt it was mentioned it was on the A380.
It was the only A380 on the round trip Dublin-Dubai-Beijing, Hong-Kong-Dubai-Dublin. All others were Boeing 777.
Before boarding I could see the plane was a 777. I was a bit disappointed and have still not flown on the A380. I even mentioned it to the cabin crew as I got on (in a friendly way).

Oh correction, think they were airbus 330 or whichever is the long single level plane, not Boeing.

mikel97

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Oh correction, think they were airbus 330 or whichever is the long single level plane, not Boeing.

Probably T7. 330 is medium length only got 6 more rows than Ryanair not long at all.

Brennus335

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Oh correction, think they were airbus 330 or whichever is the long single level plane, not Boeing.

I think that proves the previous posters point that most travellers haven't got a clue what kind of plane they're on.

Man Vs ManUre

Brennus335 wrote: »

I think that proves the previous posters point that most travellers haven't got a clue what kind of plane they're on.

Lol it was a Boeing 777 so.
I just got mixed up when writing the post as thought it strange that they had the A380 planned for 1 trip and Boeing for the others. I shouldn’t have replied to my own post!! The only purpose of my post was to put on record here my disappointment with missing out on the A380 when other poster mentioned the type of plane was referenced when booking.

Thirdfox

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Lol it was a Boeing 777 so.
I just got mixed up when writing the post as thought it strange that they had the A380 planned for 1 trip and Boeing for the others. I shouldn’t have replied to my own post!! The only purpose of my post was to put on record here my disappointment with missing out on the A380 when other poster mentioned the type of plane was referenced when booking.

Lufthansa use the a380 on dublin to beijing flights (the frankfurt leg of course).

They also have a wonderful secret that you can sit on the upper level in economy (the last row is economy on upper level and similar to business class roominess though of course not the same seats/service). My wife and I flew with them and I managed to book myself into the rear seats and it was most enjoyable (it's also 2-3(?)-2 rather than 3-4-3 downstairs economy).

Sorry for the off topic-ness but hope that's of some use to you.