Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

smurfjed

When the manufacturers bid, they put together data that will show the aircraft fuel burn, maintenance costs, ATC and airport charges, loadings etc for every conceivable route pairing in that airline’s network. This is not cheap or quick to do, so they just won’t bother with people who they regard as time wasters.

Having received bid’s from both Airbus and Boeing, they most certainly weren’t interested in providing data for every conceivable route, however Boeing loved to waste their time and efforts by providing us with Airbus data, and then complain about how much work was involved in producing the data

Belfast

JohnC.

Looks more like an additive issue (and improper use of it) than a Max issue. It's happened to other planes too and the additive withdrawn from the market.

https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/faa-bans-dupont-fuel-additive-from-use-in-737-max/139311.article

cnocbui

Belfast wrote: »

If I recall correctly, it was just this issue which caused a double engine failure on a Citation, which then had to try and glide to the nearest airfield.

Car99

Belfast wrote: »

Same issue on a TITAN A321 back in Feb , a very very close call by all accounts. It is miscalculsting the quantity of treatment fluid to add to the fuel that causes the problems.

Very lucky it was a positioning flight with no pax or bags on board otherwise it would have been a different story.


https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-special-bulletin-s1-2020-on-airbus-a321-211-g-pown

Belfast

FAA issues emergency notice about Boeing 737

This one seems to affect 737ng plus other 737s.

Tenzor07

Belfast wrote: »

FAA issues emergency notice about Boeing 737

This one seems to affect 737ng plus other 737s.

This is only for those in (long term) storage, a valve replacement I see.

jucylucy

Any B737 not flown in 7 days is affected......that covers quite a lot of aircraft!

Belfast

jucylucy wrote: »

Any B737 not flown in 7 days is affected......that covers quite a lot of aircraft!

indeed.

IngazZagni

jucylucy wrote: »

Any B737 not flown in 7 days is affected......that covers quite a lot of aircraft!

Quite a lot of operators have been rotating their aircraft so they they did fly once every week. This prevented extra storage and maintenance costs. During lockdown you may have noticed the likes of Ryanair simply doing a takeoff, circuit and landing at the same airport precisely for this reason and they'll be even more delighted with themselves for doing this after hearing this news.

Belfast

Belfast

FAA gives preliminary approval on fixes for 737 Max and opens public comment period of 45 days.

L1011

Can you provide some commentary or something rather than just link-dumping please

Shedite27

First order of the year for the Max in 2020 was announced today, Polish charter company Enter Air buying 2.

Bit of a way to go to amke up for the 800 cancellations they've had

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/boeing-scores-first-new-737-max-orders-since-november.html

Tenzor07

Shedite27 wrote: »

First order of the year for the Max in 2020 was announced today, Polish charter company Enter Air buying 2.
Bit of a way to go to amke up for the 800 cancellations they've had

Exactly, in a normal time an order for a handful of aircraft wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but now it's a tiny green shoot for Boeing..

I would say that this airline are getting the 737-8 for next to nothing!

Henry Ford III

Sounds like a big step forwards for the 737 Max.

p.s. I won't be one of the first to fly in one.

Tenzor07

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sounds like a big step forwards for the 737 Max.

p.s. I won't be one of the first to fly in one.

Once Ryanair get the dash 10 and offer €9.99 flights to Greece or Italy there won't be an empty seat!

john boye

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Once Ryanair get the dash 10 and offer €9.99 flights to Greece or Italy there won't be an empty seat!

Haven't they only ordered the max 200?

Captain_Crash

john boye wrote: »

Haven't they only ordered the max 200?

The MAX10-200. Its just a high density version of the 10.

L1011

Captain_Crash wrote: »

The MAX10-200. Its just a high density version of the 10.

They have ordered 8-200s, a high density version of the 8.

A high density 10 would be pushing 250.

Captain_Crash

L1011 wrote: »

They have ordered 8-200s, a high density version of the 8.

A high density 10 would be pushing 250.

Ah yeah, your right.... getting myself confused obvs

HTCOne

I’ve read the -10 was never planned to have MCAS due the longer fuselage, but nobody wants that version because it’s crap! (Compared to 321neo).

Hotblack Desiato

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sounds like a big step forwards for the 737 Max.

What is? A little context would be nice.

You're hardly referring to the order of TWO aircraft are you?

smurfjed

EASA sent this out this morning.

COLOGNE, August 27, 2020 - The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has been working steadily, in close cooperation with the FAA and Boeing, to return the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft to service as soon as possible, but only once it is convinced it is safe.

While Boeing still has some final actions to close off, EASA judges the overall maturity of the re-design process is now sufficient to proceed to flight tests. These are a prerequisite for the European agency to approve the aircraft’s new design.

EASA has been working with the FAA and Boeing to schedule its flight tests, a process which has been hindered by COVID-19 travel restrictions between Europe and the United States.

The parties have now reached agreement that EASA’s flight tests will take place in Vancouver, Canada in the week commencing September 7, 2020.

Simulator tests will take place in the previous week (from Sept 1, 2020) in London Gatwick in the United Kingdom. The Joint Operations Evaluation Board (JOEB), will also take place in Gatwick, in the week beginning September 14, 2020.

banie01

Boeing may have been paying a bit too much attention to the MAX over the last few months.
Seems like they've dropped the ball on the 787 production line again!

In addition to the fuselage jointing issue on 8 airframes last month, a horizontal stabilizer issue has come to light in recent production airframes.
This new issue isn't a safety issue, but once again brings the issues apparent with Boeing's QC and production quality to the forefront.

Of particular note is the possibility that all current in service Dreamliners may require additional inspections.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/08/business/boeing-787-flaw-orders-deliveries/index.html

Boeing announced Tuesday a second problem with the 787, this one affecting its horizontal stabilizer on planes that have yet to be delivered. Last month the company grounded eight planes over a problem with the joining of parts of the 787's fuselage...

The horizontal stabilizer problem is not believed to pose a safety issue, according to Boeing, but it will affect future deliveries.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the FAA is looking at whether 900 of the Dreamliners that have already been delivered and are in service will need to be inspected due to manufacturing problems.

Hotblack Desiato

CNN wrote:

By contrast, the 787 Dreamliner until recently had been a problem-free aircraft.

:pac:

banie01

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

:pac:

I know, I know :pac:
I didn't quote that bit, because a few folk in here would see it as confirmation of my anti-Boeing bias

I've being banging the drum on their QC issues since I started posting on this thread.
There really is a serious culture flaw at Boeing around seeing quality control as a non-value add activity.
Which is fine "If" they could get it right 1st time.

It's quite clear they can't, even when they are under extreme pressure.
Shambles.

ForestFire

If I may ask a hypothetical question.......

What happens in a situation where Boeing (Or Airbus) go bust and the company is closed....

Who look after the huge fleets in operation around the world?
Who issue safety recommendations or implements fixes/upgrades/spare parts that need to be applied to current aircraft?
Would this be the operators in a high risk situation, as there is no company to fall back on?

Tenger

I'm guessing of one of the 2 went "bust" the constituent parts would be broken up and sold off.
So Lufthansa Technique (for example) could become the support for Airbus aircraft.
Embraer buys up the A320 production line and order sheet.
Some new consortium buys the A330/350 production.

Tenzor07

ForestFire wrote: »

If I may ask a hypothetical question.......
What happens in a situation where Boeing (Or Airbus) go bust and the company is closed....Who look after the huge fleets in operation around the world?
Who issue safety recommendations or implements fixes/upgrades/spare parts that need to be applied to current aircraft?
Would this be the operators in a high risk situation, as there is no company to fall back on?

Boeing won't go bust... ever. It's a matter of national security that they don't.

At worst the commercial section of the business would come under state ownership. They would sell of any of the international subsidiaries.

Airbus is far more exposed to the commercial sector, but again, the French government may try to prop up the company to stop them from going bankrupt in exchange for a large section of the business, though not sure how that aligns with EU law on state aid for private companies..