Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

ED E · 15-07-2019 6:37pm

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 · 15-07-2019 6:39pm

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 · 15-07-2019 7:29pm

But renaming things does work.

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

bnt · 15-07-2019 8:12pm

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 · 15-07-2019 8:18pm

im done with Ryanair if they have these planes

mad muffin · 15-07-2019 8:18pm

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 · 15-07-2019 8:21pm

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 · 15-07-2019 8:25pm

All of you will fly on one eventually.

Fann Linn · 15-07-2019 8:26pm

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 · 15-07-2019 8:27pm

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.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 15-07-2019 9:39pm

Mod note: This looks like a thread that might get more traction in Avaition and Aircraft.

Please fasten your seat belts while I close this thread and take off for Aviation and Aircraft.

Please note the change of forum and forum rules.

Buford T. Justice.

And now it's here, I have merged it in to the considerable thread about the 737 Max that has been running since the crashes that were the start of the firestorm

Inquitus · 15-07-2019 11:19pm

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Mod note: This looks like a thread that might get more traction in Avaition and Aircraft.

Please fasten your seat belts while I close this thread and take off for Aviation and Aircraft.

Please note the change of forum and forum rules.

Buford T. Justice.

And now it's here, I have merged it in to the considerable thread about the 737 Max that has been running since the crashes that were the start of the firestorm

Not sure what you have merged in here meets the required quality standards, my good man.

Bob24 · 16-07-2019 12:33am

Inquitus wrote: »

Not sure what you have merged in here meets the required quality standards, my good man.

A bit of a surprise for original followers of the Aviation & Aircraft thread indeed, I was wondering what was going on when I read the first few new posts :-)

But I think it was merged by the Aviation & Aircraft mods after the other thread was moved from AH, so I assume the mods here are OK with the legacy posts knowing they come from elsewhere and as they said they will enforce the "local" rules for further posts.

lfc200 · 16-07-2019 7:02am

At what point do Boeing have to cut their losses and stop production on the Max for the foreseeable? I know I've read that they've slowed production but stopping it has to be on the cards

ZiabR · 16-07-2019 9:15am

It might take a few more airlines to drop their MAX orders altogether for Boeing to sit up and cut their losses on the MAX program. Back to the drawing board for Boeing. Classic case of shoehorning modifications onto an age old design in order to save money and time at a cost to safety. Clowns.

I personally wont be flying on one, with or without a supposed fix in place.

Graham · 16-07-2019 9:25am

I don't see any indications Boeing are going to stop production of the Max.

They still largely have the support of their airline customers and are pressing towards recertification. Outside of a few internet forums, most passengers wouldn't know a 737 Max from a Pepsi Max.

ZiabR · 16-07-2019 9:31am

Graham wrote: »

I don't see any indications Boeing are going to stop production of the Max.

They still largely have the support of their airline customers and are pressing towards recertification. Outside of a few internet forums, most passengers wouldn't know a 737 Max from a Pepsi Max.

That is very true but terrifying at the same time.

Bob24 · 16-07-2019 9:32am

Graham wrote: »

I don't see any indications Boeing are going to stop production of the Max.

They still largely have the support of their airline customers and are pressing towards recertification. Outside of a few internet forums, most passengers wouldn't know a 737 Max from a Pepsi Max.

Even temporarily? Storing them must be awfully expensive and impractical for them and it looks like the best case scenario in terms of resuming flights in the US is December (probably later for the rest of the world). I understand they have workers and a whole supply chain / industrial process which would be impacted, but depending on how much longer this lasts, there must be a point whereby they will have either to stop the assembly line or at least to bring it to near standstill.

L1011 · 16-07-2019 9:35am

Shutting down the supply chain and furloughing staff would make the costs of resuming higher; its a difficult decision to make as to which ends up costing them more.

Gradually slowing down might be the best idea - they already cut the production rate since the grounding, but it was due to engine supply issues from CFM.

Graham · 16-07-2019 9:44am

A more significant slowdown in production is much more likely.

If nothing else, finding parking spaces for so many aircraft might start to become a problem.

Captain_Crash · 16-07-2019 9:47am

Ryanair really cant win can they??

I'm half expecting to see #boycottryanair trending by the end of the day!

https://twitter.com/BoardingArea/status/1150767631047127040

https://twitter.com/godsavethepoint/status/1150768049055764480

josip · 16-07-2019 9:52am

Graham wrote: »

Outside of a few internet forums, most passengers wouldn't know a 737 Max from a Pepsi Max.

If that were the case, why would Ryanair bother to rename it?
I think the 'Max' brand, although not widely recognised, has broader recognition than just on internet fora.
My brother wouldn't know a Cessna from an A380 but my wife asked me to check she wasn't on a Max earlier this year.

john boye · 16-07-2019 9:55am

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Ryanair really cant win can they??

I'm half expecting to see #boycottryanair trending by the end of the day!

https://twitter.com/BoardingArea/status/1150767631047127040

https://twitter.com/godsavethepoint/status/1150768049055764480

The online reaction may be a bit ott.... but they clearly are trying to hide the max branding.

Captain_Crash · 16-07-2019 9:57am

josip wrote: »

I think the 'Max' brand, although not widely recognised, has broader recognition than just on internet fora.
My brother wouldn't know a Cessna from an A380 but my wife asked me to check she wasn't on a Max earlier this year.

I agree... I could ask someone in the office here which aircraft is it with the problems and they'd say "Jees' I don't know"

However, should I say "ya know that 737 MAX" and they'd day "Yeah, the one that keeps crashing"

People may not know it trough their day to day lives, but when the word MAX is said, they'll remember it!

Graham · 16-07-2019 9:58am

josip wrote: »

If that were the case, why would Ryanair bother to rename it?
I think the 'Max' brand, although not widely recognised, has broader recognition than just on internet fora.
My brother wouldn't know a Cessna from an A380 but my wife asked me to check she wasn't on a Max earlier this year.

a) it costs little to nothing to do it.
b) for people like those you mention that appear familiar enough to know almost none of the story.

Captain_Crash · 16-07-2019 10:01am

john boye wrote: »

The online reaction may be a bit ott.... but they clearly are trying to hide the max branding.

I read the reaction as this.... Ryanair feel the MAX branding is bad for business so have removed it, but you can be rest assured that the 737-8200 wont see a yard of runway until FR are 10000000% certain its safe.

However, the reaction they've copped is akin to people thinking they're flying them already and hiding it from passengers... i.e. disguising a dangerous plane from them!

zom · 16-07-2019 10:02am

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Ryanair really cant win can they??

They have lot of do$$h to pay even mods on boards.ie to move bad information form popular groups like After_Hours to smaller like this one.
You have do$$h - you create reality...

john boye · 16-07-2019 10:05am

Captain_Crash wrote: »

However, the reaction they've copped is akin to people thinking they're flying them already and hiding it from passengers... i.e. disguising a dangerous plane from them!

I know what you're saying but to the average Joe soap that's how it looks on the face of it!

Cookiemunster · 16-07-2019 10:07am

zom wrote: »

They have lot of do$$h to pay even mods on boards.ie to move bad information form popular groups like After_Hours to smaller like this one.
You have do$$h - you create reality...

I think you need to be posting this in the Conspiracy Theories forum. This is a forum of people who are actually clued into what's actually going on in the real world.

L1011 · 16-07-2019 10:09am

zom wrote: »

They have lot of do$$h to pay even mods on boards.ie to move bad information form popular groups like After_Hours to smaller like this one.
You have do$$h - you create reality...

To the Conspiracy Theories forum with you.

zom · 16-07-2019 10:21am

Cookiemunster wrote: »

I think you need to be posting this in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Where you see any "Conspiracy Theories" in my posts?

Ryanair fly over hundred of million passengers a year and they are about to buy new Boeing 737 MAX recently renamed 737 8200. These are all facts.

It is not 100% clear why two Boeing 737 MAX crashed and I am not even trying to speculate here, no "Conspiracy Theories" from me.

I just put information about Boeing recent change of name for their flagship 737 and as I presume most of boaders are Ryanair customers they it will be interesting news for them. No idea why it was removed.

Inquitus · 16-07-2019 10:50am

zom wrote: »

I just put information about Boeing recent change of name for their flagship 737 and as I presume most of boaders are Ryanair customers they it will be interesting news for them. No idea why it was removed.

That's probably as it was already posted at least twice in this thread.

Cookiemunster · 16-07-2019 11:00am

zom wrote: »

Where you see any "Conspiracy Theories" in my posts?

Ryanair fly over hundred of million passengers a year and they are about to buy new Boeing 737 MAX recently renamed 737 8200. These are all facts.

It is not 100% clear why two Boeing 737 MAX crashed and I am not even trying to speculate here, no "Conspiracy Theories" from me.

I just put information about Boeing recent change of name for their flagship 737 and as I presume most of boaders are Ryanair customers they it will be interesting news for them. No idea why it was removed.

Ryanair paying mods on boards = Conspiracy theory. Simples. And a mod agreed with me.

Bob24 · 16-07-2019 11:07am

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I read the reaction as this.... Ryanair feel the MAX branding is bad for business so have removed it, but you can be rest assured that the 737-8200 wont see a yard of runway until FR are 10000000% certain its safe.

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.

errlloyd · 16-07-2019 11:13am

Graham wrote: »

A more significant slowdown in production is much more likely.

If nothing else, finding parking spaces for so many aircraft might start to become a problem.

Someone else posted on here that Boeing are allowed to make delivery flights. So I am not sure why they're all stacking up at the factory.

Bob24 · 16-07-2019 11:17am

errlloyd wrote: »

Someone else posted on here that Boeing are allowed to make delivery flights. So I am not sure why they're all stacking up at the factory.

I don't know what the contract details are, but just from an outsider perspective I don't see why any airline would accept to take delivery of a plane which they can't fly and which will cost them money to store/maintain.

Also, beyond delivery if I was Boeing I would be very cautious even about any repositioning flight. The slightest incident with any such flight (even a minor one) and the Max is all over the media again as a flawed plane.

errlloyd · 16-07-2019 11:29am

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't know what the contract details are, but just from an outsider perspective I don't see why any airline would accept to take delivery of a plane which they can't fly and which will cost them money to store/maintain.

Also, beyond delivery if I was Boeing I would be very cautious even about any repositioning flight. The slightest incident with any such flight (even a minor one) and the Max is all over the media again as a flawed plane.

I am not all that sure of the Economics, but while an airline wouldn't take delivery, Boeing can certainly move the planes wherever they want and store them themselves. The cost for them of reducing production is huge - like huge. The late delivery penalties for these planes is massive, and any major halt to production would make every single order on the list late. ~10 years of late deliveries!

As for the risks? Maybe I am being reckless, but I reckon a Boeing trained pilot who knows exactly what to expect and is specifically trained on how to avoid it can fly them safely.

kmart6 · 16-07-2019 11:29am

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

Graham · 16-07-2019 11:32am

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.......

L1011 · 16-07-2019 11:32am

Graham wrote: »

A more significant slowdown in production is much more likely.

If nothing else, finding parking spaces for so many aircraft might start to become a problem.

They're allowed fly them to other storage, San Antonio is a common one

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-14/boeing-turns-to-texas-to-store-737-max-jets-as-grounding-lingers

That costs money (parking fees and the flight costs) whereas filling up the carpark was free. They may also need to come back for change integration depending how big the eventual changeset is and what engineering facilities are available at SAT.

Limpy · 16-07-2019 11:35am

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 · 16-07-2019 11:35am

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 · 16-07-2019 12:33pm

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 · 16-07-2019 12:44pm

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 · 16-07-2019 12:49pm

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 · 16-07-2019 12:50pm

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

Boeing_737-8_MAX_FIA16_Belyakov_%28cropped%29.jpg

Boeing_737-8_MAX_FIA16_Belyakov_%28cropped%29.jpg

L1011 · 16-07-2019 12:51pm

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 · 16-07-2019 12:52pm

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 · 16-07-2019 1:12pm

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 · 16-07-2019 1:19pm

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.

Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Comments