7 ms·
Boeing 737 Max ordered by Ryanair undergoes name change
- alkonaut 7y agoWas “NG” originally printed on the previous gen aircraft, but later shifted to just 737-800/737-8? I always thought the MAX name was kind of like ”New” - ie something that would disappear.
- thomasedwards 7y agoThe ‘classic’ ones were -300/-400/-500, and the NG were -600/-700/-800/-900. The MAX 8 is a replacement for the -800, and it has been called a 737-8 for a while – their FAA type certificates are 737-7, -8, and -9.
- piadodjanho 7y agoThis is not the first time an airline rebrands an airplane due fearmongering after an accident. The Fokker-100 was rebranded as MK-28 in Brazil after an accident (trust reverse deployed after take-off). The news reported every incident with the plane afterward. I remember my parents avoiding flights with Fokker-100. The MK-28, on the other hand, had a very good safety record.
- Voloskaya 7y agoIs it appropriate to call this fearmongering when the issues are real (for the 737)?
- piadodjanho 7y agoYes. I think it is appropriate to call this fearmongering. The planes with the faulty software are grounded and won't be flying until they new software is proven to be safe. The re-certification process will likely be stricter than usually is. Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified.
- Voloskaya 7y ago> Thus, any fear about flying in those planes are unjustified No they aren't. Not until the new software is indeed proven to be safe, and a review of the Max program completed to ensure corners weren't cut elsewhere as well. It will be fearmongering if all the above is done, and media are still trying to push fear. This is not the case today, so it's not fearmongering.
- piadodjanho 7y agoI see your point. I think I might have failed to express my point of view clearly. I was talking about reason Boeing chose to rebrand the 787-MAX.
- michaelt 7y agoAfter Boeing made a dangerously faulty plane, Boeing wrongly tried to blame pilots for the first crash, and Boeing wrongly tried to blame pilots for the second crash, the fixed plane will surely be the safest plane in the sky. You know what they say, lightning often strikes the same place three times, but never a fourth time. :)
- baq 7y agoThis Cell Tower in the Swiss Alps Is Struck by Lightning More Than 100 Times a Year https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/environment/an-oftstruck-mountaintop-tower-gets-a-new-lightning-sensor https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/environment/an-of...
- boudin 7y agoI wouldn't called this unjustified. The issue with the plane isn't just the software but the processes around its inception and certification. "hey we released a new version of the software" is clearly not enough to gain back my trust. The only way this plane can be consider safe is for the whole plane to go through an external and independent audit to address all the other potential design flaws. The FTA certification processes should go through an external audit as well, any of the flaws should be addressed and retrospectively applied to this plane (and any other plane concerned).
- mannykannot 7y agoOn the one hand, I personally feel that trying to avoid the Maxes specifically, once they are allowed back in service, would be an excess of caution that overemphasizes the legacy of one issue. On the other hand, could they have found a better way of sending the message that they think the problem is passenger perceptions, rather than in systems engineering and adequate pilot training?
- cm2187 7y agoTo be honest even without the fix, the risk for a passenger taking a single trip on this plane it still negligible. It is not really rational to worry as a passenger. It is when you work all year long on one of these planes that the risk becomes unacceptable.
- salawat 7y agoI despise these types of arguments. Look I get the statistical argument; but take a moment and consider the enormity of what Boeing has done here. Their best selling plane in history is also that which carries the most blatant stain of corruption and negligence. If Boeing gets away with this type of behavior, we really do essentially break the system by acknowledging that as long as you get big enough, it's totally fine to cheat; even in a life/safety critical industrial vertical. Sure, the PR will suck, but the network effects will ensure you keep rolling unharmed because you're too big to be allowed to fail. This is way more than any one person's convenience at stake. This is any hint of actual systemic integrity that is at jeopardy. This is the danger of excessive centralization and consolidation. Yes, synergy happens, and money gets unlocked, but the consequences of failure also get amplified, becoming of such a scale the entire infrastructure starts getting jeopardized. More seperate, redundant pieces at least ensures there is buffer to keep some semblance of stability in case of catastrophic failure of one particular agent in the system. When the system is essentially one agent, you're flying on a prayer nothing goes wrong. When you only have two realistic options, it isn't much better.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoThe effective solution isn't flying this one particular plane, the solution is to get involved in politics and work at getting people elected who will provide the resources necessary to the government agencies responsible for certifying safety. Of course, in the US, we do the exact opposite by going for the candidates that harp on about waste and cutting down government in favor of free market solutions even when they aren't tenable. Unless of course, it's a terrorist attack, then we can unleash the floodgates of taxpayer funds to agencies tasked with violating our civil liberties.
- CodeSheikh 7y agoBoeing is not going to disappoint you when it comes to shady stuff. I think now I am going to avoid any 737 models from now on-wards.
- tyingq 7y agoPerhaps not the best strategy. Excluding the MAX, the 737 has been around long enough, with enough incremental improvements, that the safety record is quite good.
- saiya-jin 7y agoSometimes, when voting with your wallet, you don't only go for the best choice, but express lack of support for some amoral piece of sh*t behavior of competition. That's how all the boycotts of various brands/businesses happens, even if their products are fine otherwise.
- magduf 7y agoUnfortunately, it's pretty hard to avoid the 737 for a lot of routes because it's so ubiquitous. Also, most of them were engineered and built before the current management, and have proven themselves with a good safety record so far, so they really should be OK. It's the new MAX model you really want to avoid, and it's probably a good idea to avoid the 787 as well.
- 52-6F-62 7y agoWhy the 787? It's been my favourite ride so far—comfort-wise.
- magduf 7y ago1. It was created during the current management era. 2. It was built in South Carolina at a new plant that had huge production issues, such as leaving metal shavings inside the airplanes where they would get into wiring harnesses.
- _bxg1 7y agoSo now we have to keep track of a whole constellation of aliases. Great.
- diggan 7y agoI've found an easier way, chose an airline that uses Airbus instead of Boing. I only have to keep track of two identifiers and filtering becomes very easy.
- snek 7y agowhich airbus planes do you avoid?
- oarsinsync 7y agoI suspect the filtering is Airbus vs Boeing
- diggan 7y agooarsinsync got it right. I just avoid anything Boeing (which means Airbus most of the time).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gourou 7y ago> Photos have emerged of a repainted 737 Max in Ryanair colours outside Boeing’s manufacturing hub, with the name 737 Max replaced by 737-8200 on the nose. Now I'm worried about boarding any 737
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jdright 7y agoThis. And I'm starting to be afraid of ANY Boeing. This company is dead.
- dehrmann 7y agoReally? I was in a 777 yesterday and felt like I was flying in a well-tested, mostly modern plane built with well-understood technologies. That, and I realized 737s (not Max, obviously) have loud interiors.
- ken 7y ago> felt like I was flying in a well-tested, mostly modern plane built with well-understood technologies Given how much of its functionality is embedded in electronics and software, how can you know? Would a passenger be able to recognize if it suffered from the same flaws as the 737 MAX?
- NullPrefix 7y ago> Given how much of its functionality is embedded in electronics and software, how can you know? Marketing, mostly.
- PaulHoule 7y agoThe 777 has a great long-term record. The 737 MAX started falling out of the sky right away.
- snek 7y agothat feel when isitmax8.com is already taken
- neilv 7y agoWill this prompt some fliers to avoid 737-anything or Boeing-anything?
- StavrosK 7y agoIt prompted this flyer to.
- mathieubordere 7y agoI'll be avoiding the 737 Max / 737 Max rebranding
- _Codemonkeyism 7y agoWill now avoid all 737 - the 737 MAX is clearly not a good design with the forward engines.
- rileyteige 7y ago737 Max? Yes. Others? No. The safety record of the 737-non-maxes has been stellar for the combined flight-hours of the fleet. I'm happy to stake my life on it. Despite the rubber-stamping of the 737-MAX, I view these as separate.
- magduf 7y agoThere is one reason to avoid the older 737s if you have a choice and all other factors are equal: they're kinda shitty airplanes to fly on, because they're crappy old designs. Sure, they're very safe, but they're just not very nice to fly on; the more modern Airbus designs are more comfortable for passengers.
- appleiigs 7y agoDefinitely not. Time and time again, it’s been proven people only care about the cheapest ticket price. You can nickel and dime them, treat them like cattle, and physically beat your customers and they will continue to use your airline and airplanes.
- 7y ago
- LordFast 7y agoOut of all the possible solutions, let's go ahead and choose the one that further destroys people's trust in our abilities to make sound decisions! /s Ridiculous.
- romanovcode 7y agoNot ridicilous at all. Same tactics have worked for many multi-national companies after huge screwups and it worked. Just a few examples: https://www.businessinsider.com/7-companies-that-changed-names-2013-2?IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/7-companies-that-changed-nam...
- tonyjstark 7y agoUnited Fruits comes to mind, what a lovely company...
- djsumdog 7y agoThe mercenary cough I mean security company Blackwater rebranded as well. The School of the Americas (which is a US State Sponsored terrorist training organization for South and Central America) was rebranded to "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation"
- ageofwant 7y agoNot surprising that you are being down-voted for stating the obvious. Boeing exhibits all the schizophrenic behaviour we come to expect from business as it stands in this age. And they will continue to do so as long as it maximises shareholder value, which is the only reason they exist. Sure, corp-cucks will blab on about social license and the like, but look at how the market judged them: A $100 drop from $450 to $350, and that's it. Two planes drop from the sky, killing ~350 people, subsequent investigations reveals Boeing fired their skilled engineers and to this day have not fixed their software. The share price barely moves. Why the fuck should they change anything ?
- sametmax 7y agoImmoral yes. Ridiculous no. People have a short memory and a strong affect toward symbolism. Marketing just pulls the desired psychological tricks to reach their objective. It works. Just like lying in politics works. Just like making corporate PR statements work. Just like in your face ads work. Just like showing boobs work. It will work as long as people are cruising in their life instead of trying to build it. It will keep working because it goes with the flow of our internal mechanisms, and it takes conscious efforts to not be influenced by it. And it will keep being used because the value of doing so it far superior than the cost.
- julienfr112 7y agoWhat about naming it A-351 ?
- matwood 7y agoRegardless of the name change they are still grounded. Given all the scrutiny, when they finally do fly again they will likely be one of safest planes in the sky.
- vikramkr 7y agoOn what basis? They're trying to fix a fundamental aerodynamic design failure with a software patch. The entire physical design if the airplane is flawed, and they arent rebuilding the entire fleet, just pushing another software patch.
- guilhermetk 7y agoNo OP so I can't comment on his source, but I heard the exact same statement from a maintenance engineer who works on Boeing aircrafts for over 30 years (https://www.linkedin.com/in/joselitosousa https://www.linkedin.com/in/joselitosousa). He also owns a youtube channel on which he discuss mainly aviation (pt/br) (https://www.youtube.com/avioesemusicas https://www.youtube.com/avioesemusicas)
- gbersac 7y agoits youtube is in spanish. Sad.
- MaxBarraclough 7y agoA downside of there being so many threads on this fiasco is that many of the same points get made each time. I'll post the usual counterpoint: this isn't a new. The F-16 for instance is also famously unstable, and cannot be flown without computer assistance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Negative_stability_and_fly-by-wire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting...
- brokenmachine 7y agoGeneral Dynamics never claimed the F-16 was just a slightly modified Cessna in order to avoid having to retrain pilots and have it safety tested, however.
- hodder 7y agoThis is disgusting misdirection and frankly feels fraudulent to me. The definition of fraud is as follows: Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. What Boeing is doing meets that definition of fraud if you ask me.
- Panino 7y agoIf there is fraud here then I think it would be committed by Ryanair. There are essentially 2 transactions to consider here: 1. Boeing-Ryanair: both parties know this plane has been rebadged and have agreed to it. There is no deception. 2. Ryanair-customer: one party has rebadged a known faulty product, claiming it to be something else. There is deception on the part of Ryanair, the entity financially benefiting from the transaction. Maybe consider that everything the 737 MAX 8 touches dies. Airlines, flyers, shareholders. Boeing made this dumpster fire and now they should sleep in it. I'm with other posters here who will now avoid any 737. Lots of fish in the sea, lots of planes in the sky.
- hodder 7y agoTrue enough. Both parties seem to know that they are trying to deceive passengers though. Both are at fault if you ask me.
- notahacker 7y agoIt's not fraud to drop a toxic brand name. It's been designated the 737-8200 internally and in regulator documents for years.
- hnarn 7y agoSurely the context within which alleged fraud happens is exactly what makes it so?
- imglorp 7y agoThe mattress and consumer electronics industries do the same thing with model names, specifically so consumers can't comparison shop. Very shady.
- JustSomeNobody 7y agoThis should somehow be illegal. Any time where a product is under scrutiny, it should be illegal to change the name the public has been given previously. This is just disgusting, corporate greed. People don't trust Boeing and this isn't going to help.
- Merrill 7y agoWill they change the scalloped trailing edge of the engine nacelle?
- reneherse 7y agoJust yesterday I wondered when Boeing would do this and what the name would be. The new name is about as humdrum and forgettable as you can get, which is exactly what Boeing hopes will become of the memory of all that has transpired with the MAX. Fortunately the plane has some distinctive and memorable exterior features: A sawtoothed trailing edge on the engine nacelles and bidirectional winglets.
- bronson 7y agoThe split scimitar winglets on 700s and 800s can be hard to tell apart from the MAX8's AT winglets (the AT is more raked). You're right about the giant sawtoothed LEAP engines being distinctive. Also MAX8s have a sharp rear tailcone that protrudes past the base of the tail.
- smarx007 7y ago50/50 The name is not new but still the motive is unclear... https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-name-for-ryanair-737-max-is-not-actually-new-459666/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-name-for-ryan...
- salawat 7y agoDid you mean "the motive is clear", but got autocowrekted?
- chvid 7y agoMaybe Boeing and Ryanair should change their names as well ...
- kozak 7y agoRyanair never flew 737 MAX commercially yet.
- _pmf_ 7y agoWhat a very Ryanair thing to do.
- anticensor 7y agoInterestingly enough, the pilot who made a simulator experience video about 737 MAX runaway MCAS crash event (Mentour) is a Ryanair pilot too.
- salex89 7y agoCan't blame Ryanair by themselves too much. Their whole company and business depends on the 737, and their foreseeable future on the Max. Not a pleasant situation to be in. Even Ryanair is not that big to handle the dumpster fire Boeing started. I'm more irritated with IAG who is ordering a bunch of Maxes while they are still grounded and who knows when will fly again, and what the hell is wrong with them. Even giving up a part of their Airbus fleet maintenance to Boeing. Truth be told, the Max will probably fly again and it will be a very scrutinized aircraft so this is a wise business decision. Just don't mind me considering it joining the dark side.
- gabrielblack 7y agoA question: they still have to ground the "whatever re-branded 737 max" until the conclusion of the investigation, right ? This can't be a loophole to avoid the interdiction to fly, isn't it ?
- edoceo 7y agoYes, MAX is a tradename, -8200 is like the model-number and FAA uses that. Still grounded.
- mrtksn 7y agoI wonder what happens if 737 max becomes the first Ryanair plane to crash(even with no fault on Boeing's part)? Would that bring down the trust for low-cost airlines too? Maybe cheap tickets can get associated with low security? "Yeah, don't buy that ticket they are probably using the crashy plane"
- optimusrex 7y agoReminder at how simple it can be for an organization to rebrand itself, even with social media I feel many individuals will still be unaware of this change that will be occurring.
- Iolaum 7y agoDoes that help them to get around regulatory scrutiny (ie get the planes on the air faster)? Or is it just to fool consumers?
- zarmin 7y agoDo passengers have a right to refuse to fly on the 737 "max"?
- baq 7y agoyeah, don't buy that ticket. in ryan's case, its fleet is 100% 737, so you need to switch airlines to be sure you're not on a MAX unless they tell you somewhere.
- salawat 7y ago...Yes? Though I think what you may be actually intending to ask is is the airline bound to provide with a flight to your ticketed destination on another plane if they have to sub-in a MAX because of reasons. That is a question with a far less straightforward answer; the last time I read terms they reserved the right to swap in hardware as circumstances warrant. You'll want to take it up with the carrier. Which I recommend everyone does; as they only pay attention when sizable customer groups start making a fuss.
- __m 7y agoWell if I were concerned about safety I wouldn’t fly Ryanair in the first place, I don’t think the repaint was necessary
- Someone1234 7y agoYou wouldn't fly on an airline that has had zero fatalities in its 34 year operating history? Ryanair definitely has had issues (particularly in the early 2000s with pilot fatigue) but there's a lack of basis to suggest they're unsafe. I won't fly on Ryanair myself, but it has nothing to do with their safety record (which is fair to good), it has to do with the way they treat customers and employees.
- VBprogrammer 7y agoWait, what? Ryanair have barely had an accident in 33 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair#Accidents_and_incident...
- drcross 7y agoRyanair have a stellar safety reputation.
- lostmymind66 7y agoI knew this was the next step for these companies. They don't want to lose millions and the easiest thing to do is change the name. At some point, the public will forget.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago>Airlines fear some passengers will refuse to fly on the Max. Well this sure solves that problem in an anti-customer way. Your partner doesn't want want duck for dinner? Order it anyways and tell them it isn't duck. If you make up a new word for duck, it's not lying and you're a good partner. /s
- tsjq 7y ago"I can't believe it's not duck" !
- matonias 7y agoIn Amsterdam there is a steakhouse that has been serving horse steaks as just ‘steaks’ for over 40 years. People thought they were great and prefered them over beef, untill they found out it was horse. Its all in the mind! (Steak doesn’t kill you though, airplanes do) Edit: resto is called Piet de Leeuw
- apexalpha 7y agoTo be fair you can make a steak from horse meat, or any beefy animal for that matter.
- benj111 7y agoWell considering Ryanair's predilection for renaming random airports after a large city it's not really anywhere near, this seems like a logical step.
- S_A_P 7y agoquestion- if you are a pilot, and you fly 737s do you think that you are now unaware of the differences? Do you think that given that awareness you may be apt to want to learn about those differences, even if not for curiosities sake, but so that you don't wind up fighting a plane and losing? Now dont mistake this as sympathy or support for the management of Boeing. I think they need to pay fines/spend time in jail/have their ability to lead a corporation revoked. This was gross mismanagement, and they deserve civil and criminal charges for it. However, it sounds to me like if you know about how the new 737 behaves, and you are aware of/trained on the procedure to fix an incident similar to what happened in the 2 crashes then you are likely to recover without any issue. On the flipside, I used to love to fly SWA because they had only 737s and all their planes were more or less the same and maintenance would be standard across all planes and therefore something that is repeatable and more likely to be mastered by the technicians. Parts would be easily available for their fleet. The pilots know the flight envelope. Sounds to me like one of southwest's biggest selling points is about to go out the window for me, even if this is a laymans perception that is completely wrong. It still seems like they have fragmented their fleet.
- ohazi 7y agoThis. I'm surprised by the number of HN readers going bananas about never flying in this plane again. Every pilot on the planet knows about this issue now, and commercial pilots are already used to broad differences in airplane handling characteristics and how to avoid a stall in different configurations, as long as they're not forced to fight against 120 lbs of pitch trim. If the only thing Boeing does is add an "MCAS off" button, pilots will be able to get the thing back on the ground in an emergency, even without new type rating, and even if pitch is a little bit squirley for ten minutes. This is the same mistake we accuse the public of making when they freak out over terrorism and demand more TSA theater. We have steel cockpit doors and a new cultural understanding of what a hijacker can do. This is what prevents a 9/11 style hijacking from happening again, not the TSA.
- meche123 7y agoJust curious: are there any calls for the resignation of the entire management board?