11 ms·

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more fle

by arnon 7y ago

Mostly, this proves that the 737 MAX isn't a valid alternative to the 757. This goes against Boeing's official stance. The A321 (and the 757) is a lot more flexible, can carry more cargo, and has better performance.

kitteh 7y ago
Pilots have been saying this for a long time. But it started with anger towards the constant expansion of the 737 (the 900 has some additional limits that hit hard when icing conditions in some places like Denver). The 757 was the sports car of airliners but with a high price tag (and it never really displaced the 727). As for the A321...it had a rocky start.
cdibona 7y ago
The Max wasn't supposed to replace the 757 except in a few niche cases. As mentioned in the article, the nma launch delay being put off to 2020 lost Boeing this contract.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Boeing doesn't really have anything to replace the 757 with except the -MAX at this point.
MichaelApproved 7y ago
Well, the 737 MAX isn’t a valid alternative to anything while it’s grounded. Maybe the concept of the MAX being a replacement was valid but, based on Boeing’s blundering development of the plane, can you really fault anyone for avoiding it? Will the MAX fly again? Will it crash again? Will passengers trust it again? Too many unknown questions make it hard to plan ahead.
- nolok 7y ago
  Actually, it's really not. United has already bought MAXes to replace other planes, but to replace their 757 they waited Boeing new annoncement that was supposed to be this year (except Boeing delayed it to next year a few months ago).
- FabHK 7y ago
  It just occurred to me that Boeing has been quite successful with branding ("Dreamliner", "MAX"), but maybe wishes it hadn't been... Everyone now knows that MAX is bad, but how many people can tell the difference between a 737-8 and a 737-800?
  - mrpippy 7y ago
    Boeing still may rebrand the plane and stop calling it the MAX, as you say it was only ever a marketing name. The plane is certified as the “737-8”, “737-9”, etc.
rburhum 7y ago
It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.
- tw04 7y ago
  I flew about the same, fortunately never on a MAX. That being said I'm in the same boat, you couldn't pay me enough money to take a ride on a plane that the pilot literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly. Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant to how bad all the planes in the air are... but I feel like pilots would be screaming bloody murder if they were all as bad as the MAX.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    If the MCAS completely disengages, the plane is perfectly flyable under most conditions. It will just pitch up more than other planes in turns, which could be manually fixed by adjusting the trim. The MCAS system is set to automatically adjust the trim, and the crashes were caused by it doing so when there was no need.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly. This is not the problem. The aircraft's performance is within the bounds of "perfectly acceptable for what it is" but it is too different from the existing 737s in a particular area. If the portion of the MCAS that handles this particular area were just turned off the MAX would fly fine but it wouldn't be close enough to a 737 for anyone to say with a straight face that pilots can fly without retraining. This need for pilot compatibility lead to a faulty implementation of MCAS of which flies the plane into the ground in certain conditions.
- xxpor 7y ago
  Do you refuse to take a car to the airport?
gniv 7y ago
Wouldn't the 787 also be a valid alternative (the smaller variants)?
- sithadmin 7y ago
  757-300 and 787-8 have similar seat counts, but the latter is overkill in terms of range and somewhere in the ballpark of double the cost of an a321. Not to mention that pilots that are type certified for larger twin-aisle aircraft tend to be more senior and expensive than those that are certified for midrange single aisle aircraft.

by arnon 7y ago

kitteh 7y ago

Pilots have been saying this for a long time. But it started with anger towards the constant expansion of the 737 (the 900 has some additional limits that hit hard when icing conditions in some places like Denver). The 757 was the sports car of airliners but with a high price tag (and it never really displaced the 727). As for the A321...it had a rocky start.

cdibona 7y ago

The Max wasn't supposed to replace the 757 except in a few niche cases. As mentioned in the article, the nma launch delay being put off to 2020 lost Boeing this contract.

jandrese 7y ago
Boeing doesn't really have anything to replace the 757 with except the -MAX at this point.

MichaelApproved 7y ago

Well, the 737 MAX isn’t a valid alternative to anything while it’s grounded. Maybe the concept of the MAX being a replacement was valid but, based on Boeing’s blundering development of the plane, can you really fault anyone for avoiding it? Will the MAX fly again? Will it crash again? Will passengers trust it again? Too many unknown questions make it hard to plan ahead.

nolok 7y ago
Actually, it's really not. United has already bought MAXes to replace other planes, but to replace their 757 they waited Boeing new annoncement that was supposed to be this year (except Boeing delayed it to next year a few months ago).
FabHK 7y ago
It just occurred to me that Boeing has been quite successful with branding ("Dreamliner", "MAX"), but maybe wishes it hadn't been... Everyone now knows that MAX is bad, but how many people can tell the difference between a 737-8 and a 737-800?
- mrpippy 7y ago
  Boeing still may rebrand the plane and stop calling it the MAX, as you say it was only ever a marketing name. The plane is certified as the “737-8”, “737-9”, etc.

rburhum 7y ago

It is not that. It is that regardless if the plane is "fixed" or not, many frequent travelers will refuse to fly on a 737 MAX from now on. Last year I took 73 flights. At least three of those were on a MAX. I profusely refuse to get on one of those, regardless if they are fixed or not.

tw04 7y ago
I flew about the same, fortunately never on a MAX. That being said I'm in the same boat, you couldn't pay me enough money to take a ride on a plane that the pilot literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly. Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant to how bad all the planes in the air are... but I feel like pilots would be screaming bloody murder if they were all as bad as the MAX.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  If the MCAS completely disengages, the plane is perfectly flyable under most conditions. It will just pitch up more than other planes in turns, which could be manually fixed by adjusting the trim. The MCAS system is set to automatically adjust the trim, and the crashes were caused by it doing so when there was no need.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >literally cannot fly without the MCAS system functioning perfectly. This is not the problem. The aircraft's performance is within the bounds of "perfectly acceptable for what it is" but it is too different from the existing 737s in a particular area. If the portion of the MCAS that handles this particular area were just turned off the MAX would fly fine but it wouldn't be close enough to a 737 for anyone to say with a straight face that pilots can fly without retraining. This need for pilot compatibility lead to a faulty implementation of MCAS of which flies the plane into the ground in certain conditions.
xxpor 7y ago
Do you refuse to take a car to the airport?

gniv 7y ago

Wouldn't the 787 also be a valid alternative (the smaller variants)?

sithadmin 7y ago
757-300 and 787-8 have similar seat counts, but the latter is overkill in terms of range and somewhere in the ballpark of double the cost of an a321. Not to mention that pilots that are type certified for larger twin-aisle aircraft tend to be more senior and expensive than those that are certified for midrange single aisle aircraft.