5 ms·

Agreed, the MAX was only designed to beat the competition to market with the least amount of re-certification and re-training. That gamble (with Boeing's reputa

Agreed, the MAX was only designed to beat the competition to market with the least amount of re-certification and re-training. That gamble (with Boeing's reputation, the FAA reputation and most importantly, people's lives) did not pay off. They won't get away with rushing though certification of a complete rewrite of their flight software. The world is watching now. Time to cut losses and junk the MAX entirely.

anticensor 7y ago
Slightly redesigning the wings and fitting 4 engines which are sized similarly to ones in 737-400, instead of 2 large engines might solve the problem.
- raisedbyninjas 7y ago
  The entire point of the Max was to use these two new large higher-efficiency engines.
- xvf22 7y ago
  Four engines are generally way more inefficient than two big ones. That's why they're being phased out. A340,B747,A380, BA146, etc.
  - Xixi 7y ago
    Contrary to popular belief, quad engine planes are not inefficient [1], at least not in terms of fuel consumption (we are talking 1% to 2% difference). In terms of dispatch reliability however I think they are doing somewhat worse than twins, as they are more likely to have one engine out of service. And it not a small problem: a plane flying revenue passengers is an asset, but a plane not flying is a liability. At least two of the planes you list are not being phased out because they were quads. The A340-300 was doing very well against the 777, however the A340-600 did very poorly against the 777-300ER. This is because the frame was too long and narrow, requiring extra reinforcement not to bend, thus ending up much heavier than the frame of the 777. The frame itself was grossly overweight, the extra engines were a rounding error. The A380 was (and still is) extremely efficient (in terms of fuel burn per seat, at equivalent seating density), with a fuel consumption similar if not better than that of 787s or A350s, despite engines one generation older. It is, however, way way too big. In the end flying empty seats is very inefficient. But that has little to do with having 4 engines instead of 2. The re-engined 777-9 will certainly be the most efficient plane flying when it is launched in 2021. Yet sales are lacking. It may, like the A380, turned out to be too big. [1] https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-quads/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...
    - anticensor 7y ago
      One engine out situation is called for while planning the flight.
      - AceyMan 7y ago
        The need for all four engines being operable isn't changed by the viability of 3-engine flight. Once the plane lands its grounded for revenue service, and even three engine ferry flights are a huge affair to pull off. So, de facto, each engine is strictly required, and having twice as many as a twin, quad jets are half as reliable as a twin, all other things being equal. (me: licensed dispatcher who worked with the BAE-146 for a time. Incidentally, "BAe" stands for "Bring Another Engine" <grin>.)
    - bdavis__ 7y ago
      The transition from 4 engines to 2 was accompanied by a great increase in systems reliability. Look up ETOPS for details. The trade off between safety (loss of airframe) and reliability( plane has all engines functioning ) is complex. A 2 engine aircraft is more reliable than a 4 engine aircraft, but a 4 engine aircraft can still fly safely with less than 4 engines. ETOPS made the design margins increase such that 2 engines would have identical safety and reliability.
- foldr 7y ago
  >Slightly redesigning the wings >fitting 4 engines Changing the number of engines would most likely require a total redesign of the wing.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    It certainly would. Most of the rest of the airframe, too, I suspect. These things aren't modular.
ethbro 7y ago
I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated. Boeing certainly bears culpability for failing to execute, and whatever terrible lapses in certification were made to get there. But why were they doing a dumb thing in the first place? Because American Airlines asked-told them to. (Because they didn't want to have to pay to retrain pilots) Boeing deserves to have substantial portions of management jailed over this, but there's blood on the legacy 737 operators' hands as well, for asking them to do it in the first place.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  Boeing could've said no.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    I agree with you. This sounds like the ratings agencies during the last recession, where they knew they were handing out good rating for junk bonds because if they didn't do it they'd lose a customer to the competition. It's totally fucked.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    In which case American would have bought exclusively new A320neo's. Boeing was caught flat-footed and underinvested in a new product in 2011. So while Boeing management could have said "No" to their largest (?) customer, that would have been a hard decision to make. And probably would have led to the board chopping C* heads for breach of fiduciary duty.
    - bobthepanda 7y ago
      It's not as if the current situation, in which Boeing is currently causing all their customers lots of financial pain each day the MAX is grounded, and the CEO of the commercial division has been fired, is any better. The Airbus order backlog is almost a decade out as it is, so American just shoving it all into A320neos that would take longer to show up wouldn't exactly be realistic either. Boeing should've just gone with a clean-sheet design.

anticensor 7y ago

Slightly redesigning the wings and fitting 4 engines which are sized similarly to ones in 737-400, instead of 2 large engines might solve the problem.

raisedbyninjas 7y ago
The entire point of the Max was to use these two new large higher-efficiency engines.
xvf22 7y ago
Four engines are generally way more inefficient than two big ones. That's why they're being phased out. A340,B747,A380, BA146, etc.
- Xixi 7y ago
  Contrary to popular belief, quad engine planes are not inefficient [1], at least not in terms of fuel consumption (we are talking 1% to 2% difference). In terms of dispatch reliability however I think they are doing somewhat worse than twins, as they are more likely to have one engine out of service. And it not a small problem: a plane flying revenue passengers is an asset, but a plane not flying is a liability. At least two of the planes you list are not being phased out because they were quads. The A340-300 was doing very well against the 777, however the A340-600 did very poorly against the 777-300ER. This is because the frame was too long and narrow, requiring extra reinforcement not to bend, thus ending up much heavier than the frame of the 777. The frame itself was grossly overweight, the extra engines were a rounding error. The A380 was (and still is) extremely efficient (in terms of fuel burn per seat, at equivalent seating density), with a fuel consumption similar if not better than that of 787s or A350s, despite engines one generation older. It is, however, way way too big. In the end flying empty seats is very inefficient. But that has little to do with having 4 engines instead of 2. The re-engined 777-9 will certainly be the most efficient plane flying when it is launched in 2021. Yet sales are lacking. It may, like the A380, turned out to be too big. [1] https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-quads/ https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/11/bjorns-corner-twins-or-qua...
  - anticensor 7y ago
    One engine out situation is called for while planning the flight.
    - AceyMan 7y ago
      The need for all four engines being operable isn't changed by the viability of 3-engine flight. Once the plane lands its grounded for revenue service, and even three engine ferry flights are a huge affair to pull off. So, de facto, each engine is strictly required, and having twice as many as a twin, quad jets are half as reliable as a twin, all other things being equal. (me: licensed dispatcher who worked with the BAE-146 for a time. Incidentally, "BAe" stands for "Bring Another Engine" <grin>.)
  - bdavis__ 7y ago
    The transition from 4 engines to 2 was accompanied by a great increase in systems reliability. Look up ETOPS for details. The trade off between safety (loss of airframe) and reliability( plane has all engines functioning ) is complex. A 2 engine aircraft is more reliable than a 4 engine aircraft, but a 4 engine aircraft can still fly safely with less than 4 engines. ETOPS made the design margins increase such that 2 engines would have identical safety and reliability.
foldr 7y ago
>Slightly redesigning the wings >fitting 4 engines Changing the number of engines would most likely require a total redesign of the wing.
- throwanem 7y ago
  It certainly would. Most of the rest of the airframe, too, I suspect. These things aren't modular.

ethbro 7y ago

I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated. Boeing certainly bears culpability for failing to execute, and whatever terrible lapses in certification were made to get there. But why were they doing a dumb thing in the first place? Because American Airlines asked-told them to. (Because they didn't want to have to pay to retrain pilots) Boeing deserves to have substantial portions of management jailed over this, but there's blood on the legacy 737 operators' hands as well, for asking them to do it in the first place.

bobthepanda 7y ago
Boeing could've said no.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  I agree with you. This sounds like the ratings agencies during the last recession, where they knew they were handing out good rating for junk bonds because if they didn't do it they'd lose a customer to the competition. It's totally fucked.
- ethbro 7y ago
  In which case American would have bought exclusively new A320neo's. Boeing was caught flat-footed and underinvested in a new product in 2011. So while Boeing management could have said "No" to their largest (?) customer, that would have been a hard decision to make. And probably would have led to the board chopping C* heads for breach of fiduciary duty.
  - bobthepanda 7y ago
    It's not as if the current situation, in which Boeing is currently causing all their customers lots of financial pain each day the MAX is grounded, and the CEO of the commercial division has been fired, is any better. The Airbus order backlog is almost a decade out as it is, so American just shoving it all into A320neos that would take longer to show up wouldn't exactly be realistic either. Boeing should've just gone with a clean-sheet design.