5 ms·

First, recertification will not be cheap. Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old

First, recertification will not be cheap. Second, it will hurt sales. No airline wants to buy a plane they can’t fly, but they also don’t want to buy more old planes that use more fuel. My bet is that companies like Southwest will half all orders and see what happens. Finally, it’ll drive companies that straddle the Boeing airbus decide deeper into Airbus’ arms.

magduf 7y ago
The problem with Southwest is that their entire fleet is 737s. So the 737MAX was a big thing for them: they could stick with that same crappy old airframe, but get better fuel economy, and not have to retrain pilots. They don't want to switch to Airbus because that means they can't standardize on a single model and manufacturer, and they'd have to retrain so many pilots too.
- village-idiot 7y ago
  They’re probably stuck retraining their pilots one way or the other at this point, but I agree they’re in quite the pickle now.
- snarf21 7y ago
  I agree but isn't there enough evidence now for Southwest to sue Boeing to make them pay for all the training (after there is a real fix)?
  - vkou 7y ago
    Generally speaking: 1. These kinds of contracts don't come with provisions for compensation for every foreseeable contingency. 2. You can sue anyone for anything in America. But it's going to cost you. 3. You can also make future purchases conditional on how these contingencies were handled in the past. So, it's likely that a lot of negotiation between Southwest and Boeing will happen. Possibly even some arbitration. If the two firms ever end up in court over this, that would indicate a colossal failure in all the processes that lead up to that moment. (As litigation is incredibly expensive.)
    - magduf 7y ago
      Well I'm hoping it'll go to massive litigation between many different parties and Boeing, and Boeing goes bankrupt. They can't be trusted ever again.
- oreo83 7y ago
  Southwest only has 34 737MAX planes in their fleet of 750 737s. "crappy old airframe" It's actually an incredible good design with a proven history. What exactly makes you think its such a "crappy" design?
  - kalleboo 7y ago
    It's a crappy old airframe because it's designed specifically to be low down to accommodate airstairs, meaning it won't fit modern large engines. It's anachronistic design and has to make tradeoffs in order to stay relevant (even before the MAX, the NG had those weird squished engine nacelles).
    - oreo83 7y ago
      Doesn't mean it a bad airframe...
      - magduf 7y ago
        If you have to do crazy workarounds to make a design stay relevant and usable in modern times, then it is by definition a bad design.
        oreo83 7y ago
        The crazy workarounds are maybe bad designs, but an airframe design that's still in demand after 50 years and been built 10,000+ times isn't a crappy design. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with aviation agree that the 737 is a poorly designed airframe...
        magduf 7y ago
        It's only in demand because of inertia. This is like claiming that Windows is great for no other reason than because so many people use it, or that the US government is a great idea just because it hasn't collapsed yet. If you think it's so great, then why don't you explain why you can't put today's large high-bypass turbofan engines on it in the normal position without them hitting the runway? How exactly is that a "great design"? It may have been a great design in 1967, but it isn't now, just like a 1967 Mustang chassis may have been OK then, but is totally inadequate now.
Animats 7y ago
It's worse than that for Boeing. The Comac C919 is now flying. This is China's answer to the 737 Max. Three prototypes are flying now. Volume production in 2021. 800 orders already. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/boeing-737-max-8-troubles-could-help-china-s-comac-c919 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/boeing-73...

magduf 7y ago

The problem with Southwest is that their entire fleet is 737s. So the 737MAX was a big thing for them: they could stick with that same crappy old airframe, but get better fuel economy, and not have to retrain pilots. They don't want to switch to Airbus because that means they can't standardize on a single model and manufacturer, and they'd have to retrain so many pilots too.

village-idiot 7y ago
They’re probably stuck retraining their pilots one way or the other at this point, but I agree they’re in quite the pickle now.
snarf21 7y ago
I agree but isn't there enough evidence now for Southwest to sue Boeing to make them pay for all the training (after there is a real fix)?
- vkou 7y ago
  Generally speaking: 1. These kinds of contracts don't come with provisions for compensation for every foreseeable contingency. 2. You can sue anyone for anything in America. But it's going to cost you. 3. You can also make future purchases conditional on how these contingencies were handled in the past. So, it's likely that a lot of negotiation between Southwest and Boeing will happen. Possibly even some arbitration. If the two firms ever end up in court over this, that would indicate a colossal failure in all the processes that lead up to that moment. (As litigation is incredibly expensive.)
  - magduf 7y ago
    Well I'm hoping it'll go to massive litigation between many different parties and Boeing, and Boeing goes bankrupt. They can't be trusted ever again.
oreo83 7y ago
Southwest only has 34 737MAX planes in their fleet of 750 737s. "crappy old airframe" It's actually an incredible good design with a proven history. What exactly makes you think its such a "crappy" design?
- kalleboo 7y ago
  It's a crappy old airframe because it's designed specifically to be low down to accommodate airstairs, meaning it won't fit modern large engines. It's anachronistic design and has to make tradeoffs in order to stay relevant (even before the MAX, the NG had those weird squished engine nacelles).
  - oreo83 7y ago
    Doesn't mean it a bad airframe...
    - magduf 7y ago
      If you have to do crazy workarounds to make a design stay relevant and usable in modern times, then it is by definition a bad design.
      - oreo83 7y ago
        The crazy workarounds are maybe bad designs, but an airframe design that's still in demand after 50 years and been built 10,000+ times isn't a crappy design. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone familiar with aviation agree that the 737 is a poorly designed airframe...
        magduf 7y ago
        It's only in demand because of inertia. This is like claiming that Windows is great for no other reason than because so many people use it, or that the US government is a great idea just because it hasn't collapsed yet. If you think it's so great, then why don't you explain why you can't put today's large high-bypass turbofan engines on it in the normal position without them hitting the runway? How exactly is that a "great design"? It may have been a great design in 1967, but it isn't now, just like a 1967 Mustang chassis may have been OK then, but is totally inadequate now.

Animats 7y ago

It's worse than that for Boeing. The Comac C919 is now flying. This is China's answer to the 737 Max. Three prototypes are flying now. Volume production in 2021. 800 orders already. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/boeing-737-max-8-troubles-could-help-china-s-comac-c919 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-14/boeing-73...