Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

murphaph

STB. wrote: »

Just not that specific one.

Norwegian, Ryanair and TUI were the Europeans interested in that model. IAG (Aer Lingus/Iberia/BA) ordered 200 last month probably at a bargain price.

Ryanair already used Boeing and their strategy seems to be to sell their 737-800 range young to avoid large maintenance costs.

It'll be interesting to see the effect on FR if the Max remains grounded for a protracted period. FR may simply not be able to sell their ageing aircraft before they begin becoming a real maintenance burden and the competition will be taking delivery of neo aircraft with better fuel efficiency. FR may have to take a gamble either way. I don't see the MAX flying in the next 12 months at least.

Bob24

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see the MAX flying in the next 12 months at least.

It *might* start flying again in the US within that timeframe, but it seems very unlikely in Europe indeed.

STB.

GM228 wrote: »

IAG have not "ordered" anything just yet, there is just a LOI with Boeing, not quite the same and it does not necessarily mean 200 will actually be the number ordered in the end.

It doesn't matter.

They were the only ones to do it and its likely that they got a heck of a deal based on that LOI. They can walk away or take up what most likely is giveaway prices. The whole point of it all is that Boeing announced it at the Paris airshow at a time when its all doom and gloom for them and probably made Airbus check their superiority position.

The net question is whether Willie Walsh goes ahead. The ability to complete that bargains deal vs the public's perception and distrust.

goingnowhere

Art of the deal by Willie Walsh https://youtu.be/JDzYSio11iA?t=147

Willie is a hard nosed operator, but games are not his thing based on his history to date

Bob24

Comhra wrote: »

Key Points

United Airlines on Friday said it will extend its Boeing 737 Max groundings through Nov. 3, amounting to 2,100 cancellations in September and 2,900 in October.
United, which has 14 Max jets in its fleet, had previously removed the planes from its schedule through Aug. 3.
The 737 Max has been grounded worldwide since mid-March, after its anti-stall software was implicated in two deadly crashes in October and March.


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/12/united-airlines-extends-boeing-737-max-cancellations-to-early-november.html

And now American doing the exact same thing: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/14/20693730/american-airlines-cancels-boeing-737-max-flights-november

I guess they simultaneously got a discret message from Boeing saying there is absolutely 0 chance of the Max being ready before then.

Graham

Boeing are going to need a bigger car park.

Car99

Bob24 wrote: »

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

According to Wikipedia:
Early A320s used the Intel 80186 and Motorola 68010.[97] In 1988, the flight management computer contained six Intel 80286 CPUs, running in three logical pairs, with 2.5 megabytes of memory.[98]

Would be interesting to know if the 320neo still uses those, but I couldn’t find the answer.

Since the A30 family and B737 use old school ARINC 429 data transfer I don't think they would require a powerful CPU.

The 320 NEO is 99% the same as an A320 CEO with new engines , the engines obviously come with their own new EEC's , 2 on each engine on the NEO, but the wiring and processing on the aircraft side is the same spec as the CEO.

Captain_Crash

So it looks like FR have dropped the MAX designation. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing follow suit in an official change of name for the aircraft.

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/status/1150513859096002560

Bob24

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So it looks like FR have dropped the MAX designation. I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing follow suit in an official change of name for the aircraft.

If Boeing was to go with the same designation as Ryanair for all aircrafts I’m not sure it would help. Might spread the negativity to the whole 737 brand and get some people to think that all “737 something” planes are now problematic (whereas currently public opinion is rather clear about issues being restricted to the max).

GM228

STB. wrote: »

It doesn't matter.

They were the only ones to do it and its likely that they got a heck of a deal based on that LOI. They can walk away or take up what most likely is giveaway prices. The whole point of it all is that Boeing announced it at the Paris airshow at a time when its all doom and gloom for them and probably made Airbus check their superiority position.

The net question is whether Willie Walsh goes ahead. The ability to complete that bargains deal vs the public's perception and distrust.

I know Airbus publicly stated they wanted to at least bid for the order, but I'm not sure the part in bold would be true, Airbus dominated the show and unlike Boeing had 87 firm orders, Boeing had a grand total of 0.

Taking into account firm orders, LOIs, options and MoUs as a whole Airbus did very well compared to Boeing with a 3:1 difference.

zom

Ryanair look to be replacing the 737 MAX branding on their new fleet to "737-8200"

https://twitter.com/AeroimagesChris/...13859096002560

I've already forgotten the "737 Max" controversy. See? It worked.

Thirdfox

Seems like Ryanair's version of the Max is being rebranded as the 737-8200:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

kmart6

Thirdfox wrote: »

Seems like Ryanair's version of the Max is being rebranded as the 737-8200:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

Posted by a user three posts ago. The article is based purely off that tweet!

Thirdfox

kmart6 wrote: »

Posted by a user three posts ago. The article is based purely off that tweet!

Apologies - the way I've had the thread view set up meant I just saw the preceding post and didn't think to check on the previous page

Interesting point that a name change could confuse people about which 737 is the "problematic" one.

ChikiChiki

The design of the aircraft is fundamentally flawed and aerodynamically way out of kilter. A software fix will not solve this.

I'm not getting on one, absolute death trap.

InTheShadows

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The design of the aircraft is fundamentally flawed and aerodynamically way out of kilter. A software fix will not solve this.

I'm not getting on one, absolute death trap.

Rubbish. If Boeing hadn't fixed the issue and another one crashes that would be the end of Boeing as a company. I'd hazard a guess this is now the safest aircraft the world has ever seen.

InTheShadows

InTheShadows wrote: »

Rubbish. If Boeing hadn't fixed the issue and another one crashes that would be the end of Boeing as a company. I'd hazard a guess this is now the safest aircraft the world has ever seen.

What if the plane really is flawed in its design?

It would also be the end of Boeing if that were true.

I'm scared:eek:

(disclaimer: haven't even googled this, I'm sure it is just a software issue)

satguy

It will be Okay for a while,, then another one will go down.

Just try not to be on the one that does,, Maybe MOL might fly on one. (not)

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I wouldn't feel too safe on one. Maybe if it went 5 years without another crash.

ED E

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

(disclaimer: haven't even googled this, I'm sure it is just a software issue)

The software is the bandaid.


The problem is they took a Model T, put a modern ICE in it and stuck a sticker on the bonnet saying Fiesta 2018. The biggest safety change to be made is to actually train pilots on how to fly it not pretend its the same a/c when its not.

ChikiChiki

InTheShadows wrote: »

ChikiChiki wrote: »

The design of the aircraft is fundamentally flawed and aerodynamically way out of kilter. A software fix will not solve this.

I'm not getting on one, absolute death trap.

Rubbish. If Boeing hadn't fixed the issue and another one crashes that would be the end of Boeing as a company. I'd hazard a guess this is now the safest aircraft the world has ever seen.

It's not fixed, needs recertification in the US and EU and there is a new issue with autopilot.

Boeing have been steller and reliable up until now. Your right, this could be the end of them if they continue to proceed with the 737-max programme. All the actions that they seem to be taking are to appease the shareholders and paper over the cracks. That is why the aircraft cut corners to get certified in the first place. To appease shareholders as Airbus had produced the A321 neo and they needed to compete.

It's a classic case of profit before safety.

cml387

But renaming things does work.

Windscale was renamed Sellafield, and they haven't had an accident since.

bnt

The 737 Max - no, I'm not buying a name change - became inherently unstable due to the way the larger engines had to be moved forward and raised slightly, and so it needs active computer control to keep it stable in flight.

So it joins a long list of aircraft for which this is true, starting with the Concorde and the F-16 fighter in the 1970s. It includes the Lockheed F-117 Stealth Fighter and the McDonnell Douglas MD-11 (the successor to the DC-10) in the 1980s.

The problem is not that it needs computer control, it's that the computer software was botched.

silverharp

im done with Ryanair if they have these planes

mad muffin

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Should have a public poll to rename the aircraft.

Crashy McDeathy Trap gets my vote.

What about teeny weeny not so good flying machiny?

Fann Linn

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Should have a public poll to rename the aircraft.

Crashy McDeathy Trap gets my vote.

My missis went with 'Drop Air'.

Car99

All of you will fly on one eventually.

Fann Linn

Car99 wrote: »

All of you will fly on one eventually.

The way they're falling they mightn't be able to keep up with demand!

AMKC

Car99 wrote: »

All of you will fly on one eventually.

Not me. You know a com pany is too big when it starts doing silly things like this and lacks confidence in the product it is supposed to be selling or using.