Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Limpy

The max needs Ryanair a lot more then Ryanair needs them.

Even without geopolitical leverage the max won't fly passengers for a long time. Its one more accident away from becoming junk stock.

Interesting to see how the new the Norwegian CEO handles the Max issue.

Captain_Crash

Bob24 wrote: »

To be honest I doubt Ryanair themselves are going do to much to be "10000000% certain its safe". They will just follow the directions of the the manufacturer and European regulators, if those say the plane is approved to fly in Europe Ryanair will fly it no question asked, and as long as it is grounded by the manufacturer and not approved to fly in Europe Ryanair obviously won't use it.

Not that it is a bad thing to follow the manufacturer and regulators direction, but your post makes it sound like there is something specific Ryanair would do to be certain it is safe.

What I mean is they'll want reassurances and probably details of what due diligence was undertaken by EASA in certifying the fixes, they'll want absolute assurance that everything has been signed off correctly! If they have a single question (other airlines included) they'll want clarification from EASA.



Not that they didn't do this before, but as we have since found our, it was previously a case of the FAA say yes, then EASA will say yes and it trickles down. That wont be the case going forward with the MA... cough cough.... 8200.

Inquitus

The key issue is that Airbus cannot meet demand if people wanted to switch to the A320neo, so the Max is here to stay unless a couple more drop out of the sky.

vargoo

Is that rebadge fraud/deceptive?

Ryanair to benefit financially by rebadgeing a known faulty product.

Ryanair will end up having to change its name.

You'd want to be a dumb SOAB to get in one of these planes after everything that has come out now? They are not and will never be safe.

Safety is not a priority at Boeing.

I was reading they've even done nothing about maintenance reports from airlines worldwide complaining about screwdrivers/rags/allsorts bouncing around in new planes.

Now people have to search badge numbers to avoid it.

How can staff get on that plane after this?

Boeing tried to blame pilots, 2 planes in the ground. A software patch was all they were gonna do in the end!

How did they fool the families to not sue?

FAA - wtf now aswell? 2 planes in the ground and nothing, Boeing certified their own fundamentally flawed plane to meet a price point.

That whole management...(was anyone kneecapped yet) needs to be jailed, do not pass go, no big bonus.

Shedite27

Was the word "Max" a strange one to use to begin with? All the other Boeing names are numbers are they? Would be far easier to hide a number

Inquitus

vargoo wrote: »

SNIP

The EASA used the 737-8200 designation since June 2016, and Boeing and the US FAA since early 2017.[106] In mid-July 2019 a Ryanair MAX 200 was photographed branded only as a 737-8200, leading to speculation of the 'MAX' name drop.

It's a legit name for the 737-MAX8, though one would think Ryanair have done it in an effort to dupe the less well informed passenger!

Although anyone should be able to recognise it from the wingtips

L1011

Inquitus wrote: »

It's a legit name for the 737-MAX8, though one would think Ryanair have done it in an effort to dupe the less well informed passenger!

That they changed to it after their first frames were painted with MAX8 really does indicate that they have.

Inquitus

Shedite27 wrote: »

Was the word "Max" a strange one to use to begin with? All the other Boeing names are numbers are they? Would be far easier to hide a number

They wanted something cooler sounding than neo (New Engine Option) used by Airbus

Cookiemunster

Rebranding a product that has had bad publicity is a pretty standard marketing practice. I very much doubt that FR will be the only airline omitting the word MAX from it's branding and I wouldn't be surprised to see Boeing quietly drop the word either.

john boye

Inquitus wrote: »

The EASA used the 737-8200 designation since June 2016, and Boeing and the US FAA since early 2017.[106] In mid-July 2019 a Ryanair MAX 200 was photographed branded only as a 737-8200, leading to speculation of the 'MAX' name drop.

It's a legit name for the 737-MAX8, though one would think Ryanair have done it in an effort to dupe the less well informed passenger!

Although anyone should be able to recognise it from the wingtips

I'm fairly sure it was known in correspondence with Boeing as the max 200 and the 200 was quietly dropped about a year ago.

skallywag

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Rebranding a product that has had bad publicity is a pretty standard marketing practice.

Very much so, and it does not even have to be because of a real issue, it can also be a perceived one.

Diverging a little, a very good example is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) which a lot of us would be familiar with concerning medical scans, when it was first introduced it was named NRM (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) as this is the exact name of the technology which is used to produce the image. The public flipped out though at the mention of the word 'Nuclear' so it had to be dropped.

Though of course the 737 Max does indeed have known issues, and it is not helping that the use of 'Max' is going to stand out as opposed to a -200 or -300 etc. I would see no surprise in Boeing making a move to rebrand it.

errlloyd

OSI wrote: »

Airlines pay for aircraft at delivery, they're not gonna pay for planes they can't fly so why take delivery.

Yeah myself and another poster clarified in another post that we meant re-positioning flights if not delivery. Either way, I don't think actual space on the ground is going to be a reason for Boeing to stop building planes.

ninebeanrows

Why are they still making these planes? 42 a month!! To sit on the tarmac

There will be a mass avoidance of using these aircraft

I wont be getting on one until there in operation for 2yrs clean and i cant imagine anyone half in the know will.

It will cause chaos when they come on stream

markpb

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Why are they still making these planes? 42 a month!! To sit on the tarmac

There will be a mass avoidance of using these aircraft

I wont be getting on one until there in operation for 2yrs clean and i cant imagine anyone half in the know will.

It will cause chaos when they come on stream

People have super short memories and a not much ability to sway these things. If Ryanair (for example) decide they're safe and start flying them, how will you know which type you're booking onto? Even when you're getting on, will you know? Will the average passenger know? Would you avoid Ryanair completely if you know they have a MAX somewhere in the fleet? What happens when Aer Lingus are fully booked next summer and your only choice is Ryanair? Or if there is a choice but one is several hundred euro more expensive.

There's a possibility that the plan will never take off again but it's a very small one.

Quin_Dub

kmart6 wrote: »

Ryanair to cut services this winter over Boeing 737 MAX aircraft delays

Graham wrote: »

That's an annual thing kmart6.

Ryanair cut loss making routes over the winter, find 3rd party to blame. If I remember correctly previous years have see the blame directed at DAA, pilots, airport charges, APD.......

I was wondering this myself..

I saw an article the other day about United cutting 5000 flights from the schedule over a 2 month period , "because of the MAX grounding"

They currently only have 14 MAX aircraft with another 25/30 originally due later in the year.

5000 flights in 8 weeks sounds like more than their MAX fleet could fly..

Cookiemunster

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I was wondering this myself..

I saw an article the other day about United cutting 5000 flights from the schedule over a 2 month period , "because of the MAX grounding"

They currently only have 14 MAX aircraft with another 25/30 originally due later in the year.

5000 flights in 8 weeks sounds like more than their MAX fleet could fly..

If they had a fleet of 40 MAX by October, each flying only twice a day for 60 days, that would be 4800 flights. And as we know they'll do more than 2 flights a day. The 5000 flights isn't actually that high a number.

Just the 14 they already had only flying twice a day for 60 days would be 1680 flights.

Quin_Dub

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If they had a fleet of 40 MAX by October, each flying only twice a day for 60 days, that would be 4800 flights. And as we know they'll do more than 2 flights a day. The 5000 flights isn't actually that high a number.

Just the 14 they already had only flying twice a day for 60 days would be 1680 flights.

I guess I was looking at the new planes being mostly replacements for existing aircraft and not necessarily incremental additions to the fleet.

Surely when they buy new aircraft a good chunk of them are to renew/upgrade the fleet and not expand?

So if the MAX is delayed are there not older aircraft that they just keep flying for an extra few months or whatever?

Cookiemunster

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I guess I was looking at the new planes being mostly replacements for existing aircraft and not necessarily incremental additions to the fleet.

Surely when they buy new aircraft a good chunk of them are to renew/upgrade the fleet and not expand?

So if the MAX is delayed are there not older aircraft that they just keep flying for an extra few months or whatever?

Not necessarily. I don't know Uniteds intentions, but Ryanair for example are intending to expand the fleet with the arrival of the MAX.

murphaph

markpb wrote: »

People have super short memories and a not much ability to sway these things. If Ryanair (for example) decide they're safe and start flying them, how will you know which type you're booking onto? Even when you're getting on, will you know? Will the average passenger know? Would you avoid Ryanair completely if you know they have a MAX somewhere in the fleet? What happens when Aer Lingus are fully booked next summer and your only choice is Ryanair? Or if there is a choice but one is several hundred euro more expensive.

There's a possibility that the plan will never take off again but it's a very small one.

I can only answer for me and my family. If FR have these aircraft in the fleet we will book on an alternative that does not. I don't trust Boeing right now, nor the FAA. It's a big ask of EASA to ensure they catch all the issues as they are not the primary certifying body.

I will be wanting to see at least 2 years accident free flying also.

markpb

murphaph wrote: »

I can only answer for me and my family. If FR have these aircraft in the fleet we will book on an alternative that does not. I don't trust Boeing right now, nor the FAA. It's a big ask of EASA to ensure they catch all the issues as they are not the primary certifying body.

I will be wanting to see at least 2 years accident free flying also.

What happens if you book Aer Lingus and they wet lease a MAX at the last minute to cover a problem with the originally scheduled plane?

L1011

markpb wrote: »

What happens if you book Aer Lingus and they wet lease a MAX at the last minute to cover a problem with the originally scheduled plane?

There aren't any on order with ACMI operators that I'm aware of. Its not a particularly plausible situation; it'll be a Titan A320 or an ASL 737 Classic/NG most likely.

XsApollo

What’s in the news now about some screens on some 777 and 737 NG going blank under certain circumstances? Something to do with interference.
The problem has been known but still there?
I know it’s not max related but I am checking updates on Boeing and more stuff keeps popping up.
Also the falsifying maintenance documents too?

AlekSmart

skallywag wrote: »

Very much so, and it does not even have to be because of a real issue, it can also be a perceived one.

Diverging a little, a very good example is MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) which a lot of us would be familiar with concerning medical scans, when it was first introduced it was named NRM (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) as this is the exact name of the technology which is used to produce the image. The public flipped out though at the mention of the word 'Nuclear' so it had to be dropped.

Though of course the 737 Max does indeed have known issues, and it is not helping that the use of 'Max' is going to stand out as opposed to a -200 or -300 etc. I would see no surprise in Boeing making a move to rebrand it.

It may come to pass that other Aviation entities might yet have to do a bit of brand clouding too...?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a321neo-operators-alerted-over-excessive-pitch-ano-459718/

It might be necessary for some posters to extend their 2 year trial period ?

Van.Bosch

AlekSmart wrote: »

It may come to pass that other Aviation entities might yet have to do a bit of brand clouding too...?

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a321neo-operators-alerted-over-excessive-pitch-ano-459718/

It might be necessary for some posters to extend their 2 year trial period ?

Big difference is that

a) a321neo hasn’t crashed
a second a321neo hasnt crashed
C) every regulator globally hasn’t grounded the A321neo
D) the a321neo was built as a FBW, so fixing it much easier. Fixing the Max isn’t as easy.

murphaph

markpb wrote: »

What happens if you book Aer Lingus and they wet lease a MAX at the last minute to cover a problem with the originally scheduled plane?

We don't board it. I'm serious. I don't trust the aircraft anywhere near enough to put my kids on it.

goingnowhere

murphaph wrote: »

We don't board it. I'm serious. I don't trust the aircraft anywhere near enough to put my kids on it.

Plus if you were sold as flown by EI and they change to another carrier you have a right to a full refund or rebooking.

Bob24

goingnowhere wrote: »

Plus if you were sold as flown by EI and they change to another carrier you have a right to a full refund or rebooking.

If it is a wet lease with the flight provided at the exact same time and for the exact same route, why would you have a right for refund/rebooking? As long as you get the service you paid for, it doesn’t seem overly relevant who the airplane belongs or whose payroll the crew is on.

ZX7R

murphaph wrote: »

We don't board it. I'm serious. I don't trust the aircraft anywhere near enough to put my kids on it.

I have family also, but I find that sentiment very funny, you and your family are more likely to be killed in a car accident on you way to the airport,than been killed in the aircraft

Roger_007

murphaph wrote: »

We don't board it. I'm serious. I don't trust the aircraft anywhere near enough to put my kids on it.

There is no doubt that in many people's minds that the MAX designation has become synonymous with 'unsafe aircraft'. Whether this reputation is deserved or not, it is believed by many of the travelling public. When it comes to aviation safety, perception is everything.
The longer the MAX stays grounded the more the perception will grow in the public mind that the problems must be really serious and fundamental to the design. If the type is not recertified soon it could end any hope of the MAX ever returning to service in its current design and branding.
This has happened before in the case of the DC10, (which still flies but only as a cargo plane).
Boeing could decide to reengineer and rebuild or modify the planes already built or bite the bullet and scrap the MAX altogether and go back to the drawing board. Either way it's going to be very costly for the company.
At this stage, I think it looks like the MAX brand is toast.

lfc200

Found it interesting on Thursday was boarding an Aer Lingus flight with a couple probably in their 70's in front of me. Queuing on the steps to get on and the man saw the Airbus A320 name on the side turned to his wife and said "thank God it's not one of those Boeing planes that had been crashing"
What they would have done if they had seen Boeing 737 Max written on the side who knows but I found it interesting..