Ethiopian Airlines Crash/ B737MAX grounding

Indeed. I read they’re cannibilizing parts from airframes to keep others running. As Captain Crash says, reliability and sourcing spares is a major issue.

JohnC. wrote: »

They've got FAA permission for certification test flights.

Only stage 1 really, no guarantee the FAA won't come back with a list of things they want looked at before issuing the cert to fly again.

Then EASA and others will be lining up to do there own thorough testing as the FAA have little credibility.

Could be end of year or early 21 before we see the likes of a Ryanair Max...

Fritzbox wrote: »

that's true, but that's a danger that all new aircraft have to face when they are being certified. The impression I get is that FAA have already being closely examining the MAX design since it was grounded 16 months ago and have being pointing out issues and defects with the aircraft to Boeing since then. The problems with the wiring being a case in point.

Absolutely, the Max is the most heavily scrutinized aircraft in history..

Though I reckon there's a political face saving element from the FAA, they don't want to be seen to kowtow in any way to Boeing.
And EASA don't want to do the same with the FAA..


The certification flight results will be interesting...

Bebop wrote: »

IMHO the 737 Max will eventually return to Passenger service,
If it is such a death trap, how come it operated safely for two years before the Lion Air/Ethiopian crashes, were there any reported incidents involving MCAS with any of the US or European operators?

True! I remember seeing those 2 Max aircraft that are grounded in Dublin currently doing 2 flights per day to New York.

Plus Southwest Airlines Max aircraft did 41,000 flights prior to the groundings.

If the aerodynamics were fine then MCAS wouldn't exist.

Boeing shares up 12%.

Dow Rides Boeing Surge as 737 Test Flight Takes Off

Apparently certification is just a formality now. :rolleyes:

Tenzor07 wrote: »

The presence of MCAS doesn't mean there's a flaw in the Max, many aircraft have similar systems, i.e. auto-trim on Airbus and Boeing, all designed to deal with "flaws" in the aircraft design..

Not the same thing. The MAX was not certifiable without MCAS.

XsApollo wrote: »

I’m not anyway an expert on this or aircraft.
But Was is it that it wasn’t certifiable under the same type as previous 737’s without MCAS.
Not that the plane wasn’t certifiable?

The plane is not certifiable at all; except as a modification to the previous 737 cert. It does not even vaguely meet modern standards and has to be considered a mod to a 1960s aircraft.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Wow looks like Norwegian really are retreating into being a small carrier with a few NG's:

Bad news for Boeing:


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/norwegian-air-shuttle-cancels-deal-for-remaining-boeing-jets-2020-06-30

That means Boeing is now at almost minus 400 orders in 2020 for the MAX, and we're only halfway through the year. I wonder how many more cancellations they'll get.

L1011 wrote: »

The plane is not certifiable at all; except as a modification to the previous 737 cert. It does not even vaguely meet modern standards and has to be considered a mod to a 1960s aircraft.

Also not certifiable at all without MCAS.

Decreasing stick force with increasing AoA is not certifiable.

Graham wrote: »

This would typically be shopping time for Ryanair.

Wouldn’t be surprised to see an Airbus order.

The question is will EASA accept the MAX or not?

Every Airbus has 3 angle of attack vanes, since they are essential to the FBW, but you have ZERO override on the FBW on a Airbus the aircraft knows better unless you start to pull circuit breakers to force reversion.

737 only has 2 (in fact it seems to be Boeing standard), MCAS is flight envelope protection which overrides the pilot, so basically is FBW airbus style. Manual reversion isn't practical with the trim wheel.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Anything could happen with this covid crisis but RA going with Airbus? Slim to no chance..

Ah but Ryanair Group already operates Airbus...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah but Ryanair Group already operates Airbus...

Doesn't mean anything.

Ryanair are a Boeing shop, all their engineers/mechanics and supporting dept's are trained in 737 repair and maintenance.
Just like Southwest in the U.S.

They won't change.

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Doesn't mean anything.

Ryanair are a Boeing shop, all their engineers/mechanics and supporting dept's are trained in 737 repair and maintenance.
Just like Southwest in the U.S.

They won't change.

No but Ryanair group could order A321neo and then Lauda, Malta air or buzz could use them. Yes, they would need dedicated maintenance etc but as a business why should the group place its future in the hands of an aircraft that may never fly again (unlikely) and miss out on Airbus slots?

At some point Ryanair will have to break out of the 737-only scenario. It seems to me that Ryanair (and other airlines like SouthWest) have painted themselves into a corner with the one-type-of-aircraft only plan. Sure, it greatly simplifies maintenance, operations, planning, training etc… but the downside is that you are now committed to this one specific aircraft type and its future upgrades/generations for decades to come. And if the next generation of that type encounters a sudden big glitch, the airline has a problem.

Given all that has happened with the 737 max, I would suggest that the Max will almost certainly be the final generation of the 737 (Boeing would be mad to try and get another generation out of the 737 platform, right?).

So 10 years from now, Boeing and Airbus should have their new replacements for the A320 series and 737 ready (https://simpleflying.com/france-airbus-a320-successor/ - not sure how reliable this article is but gives an idea of a possible timeframe). This will mean Ryanair will have to start buying a completely new aircraft type with retraining for engineers, pilots and such. Perhaps they might go for a 50/50 split between Airbus and Boeing in 10 years to hedge against future problems, or would such an approach be deemed too expensive in a cost-conscious low frills carrier?

HTCOne wrote: »

Ryanair majorly messed Airbus around a few years ago, John Leahy basically said they’ll never waste their time on a Ryanair bid again. O’Leary was in the papers just prior to COVID giving out yards that Airbus don’t even tender for Ryanair contracts anymore. Like everyone, they want the 321Neo, but Airbus won’t even let him in the door, they have wasted so much time and resources on his bids previously, their attitude is he can pay list price (which nobody does) or foxtrot oscar.

Boeing will have nothing to do with Iberia for similar reasons allegedly. Iberia dicked them around with a potential NG and 777 order, went really really far with it, intimated they’d buy the aircraft, then ordered A320s & A340s.

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.

All true but as Lauda operates a320 now I wonder would that get them in the door

Van.Bosch wrote: »

All true but as Lauda operates a320 now I wonder would that get them in the door

Who knows, but it was Airbus’ lack of engagement with a proposed 321NEO order for Lauda specifically that O’Leary was giving out about earlier this year. Airbus really wanted nothing to do with him.

In a post COVID world where they’re more desperate to sell, things might change, but the 320NEO family is the most in demand airframe in the world with an enormous backlog.

dogmatix wrote: »

So 10 years from now, Boeing and Airbus should have their new replacements for the A320 series and 737 ready (https://simpleflying.com/france-airbus-a320-successor/ - not sure how reliable this article is but gives an idea of a possible timeframe).

Interesting that it mentions hydrogen. Lockheed (and probably others) looked seriously into liquid hydrogen in the 70s when oil prices were high. Needs HUGE insulated tanks though as its energy density is very low, and of course it needs to be kept very cold, so the empty weight of the airliner has to go way up.

Tenger wrote: »

This statement is true. However FR are actually so large at this point that they could conceivably switch fleets over a 5-10 year period or even operate 2 separate (massive) fleets of 200 each. Essentially they could start to add A320s into the smaller 3-4 aircraft bases, over time consolidating the B737 into the larger bases.

It would definitely add extra cost and some complexity but it isnt as drastic as it might be as, for example Aer Lingus (with essentially 1 main base) switching its 36 A320 family to B737s.

To be fair Aer Lingus is a definition of how not to run a successful airline so not sure those two can are comparable in any way.

Still laugh at the fact they were running the Donegal flights during lockdown with 1-5 passengers on board.

Ryan Air would drive them to Donegal from Dublin, hired 5 mini buses or something.

They did just one flight per day instead of 2, but it was still a joke. My brother enjoyed the private flight, though. There were 2 pax on that day.

Not sure what the cost was and who covered it, but the ticket was under 100 return.

wonski wrote: »

To be fair Aer Lingus is a definition of how not to run a successful airline so not sure those two can are comparable in any way.

Still laugh at the fact they were running the Donegal flights during lockdown with 1-5 passengers on board.

Ryan Air would drive them to Donegal from Dublin, hired 5 mini buses or something.

They did just one flight per day instead of 2, but it was still a joke. My brother enjoyed the private flight, though. There were 2 pax on that day.

Not sure what the cost was and who covered it, but the ticket was under 100 return.

The danger of having a little knowledge summed up in 1 post.

Aer Lingus, prior to Covid, were the most profitable part of IAG, which itself makes billions every year.

Aer Lingus do not operate the Donegal route, Stobart do.

Stobart are paid by the government under the PSO contract to fly the route. It doesn’t matter if the plane is empty, they get paid by the government to fly the route.

So, in essence, everything in that rant is sadly incorrect......and Ryanair would have just given them a refund and told them where to go....if there was no PSO.

HTCOne wrote: »

The danger of having a little knowledge summed up in 1 post.

Aer Lingus, prior to Covid, were the most profitable part of IAG, which itself makes billions every year.

Aer Lingus do not operate the Donegal route, Stobart do.

Stobart are paid by the government under the PSO contract to fly the route. It doesn’t matter if the plane is empty, they get paid by the government to fly the route.

So, in essence, everything in that rant is sadly incorrect......and Ryanair would have just given them a refund and told them where to go....if there was no PSO.

I have a bit of limited knowledge and interest, but I guess that one is lost on me.

It's not rant, though. More of a shock of how I can't get a bus to work 10-20 minutes away from Naas, yet the Donegal flights get funding for that joke of a connection.

Rant over.