4 ms·

I expect it makes switching to an Airbus model more compelling - if you're going to have to retrain your crew, you might as well get the plane you want, not jus

by adwww 8y ago

I expect it makes switching to an Airbus model more compelling - if you're going to have to retrain your crew, you might as well get the plane you want, not just the one you think will be easiest to train for. I have no idea if the equivalent Airbus (a320neo maybe?) is any better or worse than the 737Max, but losing the common type rating would be one less vote for the 737 max.

dogra 8y ago
The wings of the A320 have more ground clearing than the 737 NG. Airbus could easily fit the larger and more efficient engines. Boeing had to move the engines slightly before the wings (or face an expensive complete redesign). The resulting different flight behavior would have required a new type rating (which is expensive). Instead software (cheap!) was used to correct for the different behavior. This is not an indication on other aspects of the A320 vs. the 737 MAX.
- gsnedders 8y ago
  And remember that on the Boeing 737 Classic and NG that the engine nacelle has been non-circular and been running with smaller fans than other aircraft with similar engines: engine size isn't a new problem with the MAX, it's been a problem since the move to high-bypass engines.
- ReptileMan 8y ago
  The problem was not that the redisign was expensive - we are talking about trillion dollar market here but that it was slow - clean sheet = 10 years. Making an octopus by nailing four more legs to the old 737 5-6 years. I am fairly certain that if boing could have solved the timing issue by throwing money at it they woyld have done so.
ams6110 8y ago
I would suspect that training a 737 pilot on differences in the new MAX would still be far less involved than training them to understand an Airbus, which is a totally different philosophy in control systems and piloting.
kelnos 8y ago
I guess for an airline that already has a mixed Boeing/Airbus fleet, or one that is only 737 and wants to completely switch to 737 MAX (where A320neo might be a decent consideration instead), this might make sense. But surely pilot and crew training is only one part of the equation. You also need new maintenance training, and you probably already have a logistics pipeline for sourcing Boeing-compatible parts that would need to be significantly changed, etc.

by adwww 8y ago

dogra 8y ago

The wings of the A320 have more ground clearing than the 737 NG. Airbus could easily fit the larger and more efficient engines. Boeing had to move the engines slightly before the wings (or face an expensive complete redesign). The resulting different flight behavior would have required a new type rating (which is expensive). Instead software (cheap!) was used to correct for the different behavior. This is not an indication on other aspects of the A320 vs. the 737 MAX.

gsnedders 8y ago
And remember that on the Boeing 737 Classic and NG that the engine nacelle has been non-circular and been running with smaller fans than other aircraft with similar engines: engine size isn't a new problem with the MAX, it's been a problem since the move to high-bypass engines.
ReptileMan 8y ago
The problem was not that the redisign was expensive - we are talking about trillion dollar market here but that it was slow - clean sheet = 10 years. Making an octopus by nailing four more legs to the old 737 5-6 years. I am fairly certain that if boing could have solved the timing issue by throwing money at it they woyld have done so.

ams6110 8y ago

I would suspect that training a 737 pilot on differences in the new MAX would still be far less involved than training them to understand an Airbus, which is a totally different philosophy in control systems and piloting.

kelnos 8y ago

I guess for an airline that already has a mixed Boeing/Airbus fleet, or one that is only 737 and wants to completely switch to 737 MAX (where A320neo might be a decent consideration instead), this might make sense. But surely pilot and crew training is only one part of the equation. You also need new maintenance training, and you probably already have a logistics pipeline for sourcing Boeing-compatible parts that would need to be significantly changed, etc.