4 ms·

I'm shocked they keep publicly working on this plane. I get that planes cost more money than I can fathom, and that making a whole fleet of impossible amounts

I'm shocked they keep publicly working on this plane. I get that planes cost more money than I can fathom, and that making a whole fleet of impossible amounts of money costs a gazillion dollars. Still, this one seems spent. Nobody is going to knowingly fly on a 737 Max. They ought to have retired the plane last year. They can design a new plane (that because of economics, will probably be very similar to this plane), release it when it's been properly vetted, swap out Maxes for it, retrofit those Maxes, etc. I realize this is naive armchair quarterbacking from someone who has never worked in aviation, but there's a reason that Philip Morris is called Altria now and that Weinstein Co was merged into Spyglass. If the public doesn't trust your brand, no amount of "but we fixed it with this patch we rushed out the door" is going to change that.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> They ought to have retired the plane last year This would bankrupt the company. (Not necessarily uncalled for. But not something it will do on its own.) > If the public doesn't trust your brand The public has shown one preference, above all else, when it comes to flying: pricing. The 737 MAX will be renamed, re-certified and nobody but an obsessive minority will avoid flying on it. (This is why, btw, we need strong airline regulators. Market pressure is ceteris paribus insufficient.)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > This would bankrupt the company. Is that even possible? From what I understand, it's a strategic company for the United States, so they have to keep it alive no matter what (I recall reading that it's actually a law) - or at least its military branch.
  - rsynnott 7y ago
    It can certainly be kept alive through bankruptcy. Boeing isn't going anywhere. The board's share value might, tho.
  - nokcha 7y ago
    It is that possible that it can be bankrupted in the sense that stockholders get wiped out even if the US government bails it out in the sense of keeping it alive operationally.
- TylerE 7y ago
  Do you really want to re-regulate the airlines? Fares will at least double.
  - brianwawok 7y ago
    Depends how many people die at current levels?
    - TylerE 7y ago
      Very very few. Air travel in the US averages 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles. Driving is 150 deaths per 10B P-M. Driving across a small town is more likely to kill you than flying across the country.
      - brianwawok 7y ago
        That is current. I suspect the longer that an industry has heavy self regulation, the higher the cost is. I also do not agree with the premise that imposing stricter regulation would "double" the cost of tickets. Airline tickets have come down in price for MANY reasons, not just less regulation.
        TylerE 7y ago
        Incorrect. Deregulation happened in 1978. Deaths have been trending down ever since.
        brianwawok 7y ago
        Do you know that correlation does not imply causation? I would suggest the site https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
  - eloff 7y ago
    Yes. Regulations are worth the downsides when it's a matter of life and death. Plus it's already highly regulated, so being a little stricter is not going to mean noticeably higher fares. The problem here is the regulatory body basically punted and let the company regulate themselves. Like that was going to work...
yellow_lead 7y ago
> Nobody is going to knowingly fly on a 737 Max. I will respectfully disagree with you. Most airlines won't tell you your aircraft when you book a ticket and even if they do, they seem allowed to change it at the last minute. If you have spent $500,$1000, $XXXX on a ticket, will you not board if you discover the plane has been switched? Will you avoid airlines that don't guarantee you a certain plane? There are not many great options to travel long distances quickly. If this plane becomes commonplace, I'm afraid consumers will be forced to use it. If there are other ideas on how this could play out, I'm happy to consider them, but I fear this is nearly a given.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  I wouldn’t be surprised if ticket booking sites didn’t throw up a “this could potentially be a 737 Max plane” indicator the moment these planes are ungrounded. Because the first ticketing site that did that would gain a definite edge. And even if the airline doesn’t tell you what plane is flying, we know what routes and airlines are flying 737 Max’s, which is enough to raise an indicator. If that happens, flying a 737 Max may potentially cause airlines to lose money even if the particular flight isn’t a 737 Max, because it might be one.
- kayfox 7y ago
  My experience is most airlines in the US will tell you on booking, its just not put out in the open.
  - nemetroid 7y ago
    And it will often say "38M" rather than "Boeing 737 MAX 8".
    - kayfox 7y ago
      Should be B38M. Its standard ICAO terminology. I haven't seen that sorta thing on booking sites, but its common on sites like FlightAware.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
alkonaut 7y ago
I’ll probably fly it. As in, I wouldn’t pay an unlimited amount of time or money to avoid it, and it will be expensive (e.g a 10 hour drive instead of a one hour flight). I assure you that outside of people interested in tech, few I know have any idea what the MAX8 is, how to tell one from the NG or an A320. Once the plane flies it’s going to be business as usual.
rootusrootus 7y ago
I am willing to bet that most people do not care enough to fight it. They want cheap, everything else is secondary. They will rationalize that all of this testing has made the MAX arguably the safest airliner they can fly in, and step aboard they will. Most people are not well represented by the fine folks on HN.
masswerk 7y ago
Mind that the 737 Max is all about avoiding recertification (or grandfathering) and avoiding pilot retraining. Its raison d'être is to allow airlines with an existing fleet of 737s to operate with existing crews without further training and/or certification. Meaning, designing a new plane allowed operators to switch to Airbus, as well, which might be the more attractive option at the moment. This is all about operator logistics and lock-in by costs of retraining and infrastructure. (I guess, this may be the real point to be addressed, since, as this is such a crucial factor, procedures are prone to be repeated in other configurations in the future. Failures are highly likely to be repeated, regardless of the actor.) Edit: To emphasize the last thought, the 737 Max may be more of a systemic failure of the entire business, its regulations and how they are conducted, than a failure by a single actor on a single instance.
mobjack 7y ago
If it flies for a few months without incident, most people will stop noticing. After a few years, no one will care anymore.
catalogia 7y ago
It wouldn't shock me to learn that the majority of people stepping off a commercial airliner, if interviewed, couldn't tell you whether they'd just been on a 737 or a Tu-204. It would be like asking me what model of bus my city uses, I haven't the foggiest clue.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> They ought to have retired the plane last year This would bankrupt the company. (Not necessarily uncalled for. But not something it will do on its own.) > If the public doesn't trust your brand The public has shown one preference, above all else, when it comes to flying: pricing. The 737 MAX will be renamed, re-certified and nobody but an obsessive minority will avoid flying on it. (This is why, btw, we need strong airline regulators. Market pressure is ceteris paribus insufficient.)

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> This would bankrupt the company. Is that even possible? From what I understand, it's a strategic company for the United States, so they have to keep it alive no matter what (I recall reading that it's actually a law) - or at least its military branch.
- rsynnott 7y ago
  It can certainly be kept alive through bankruptcy. Boeing isn't going anywhere. The board's share value might, tho.
- nokcha 7y ago
  It is that possible that it can be bankrupted in the sense that stockholders get wiped out even if the US government bails it out in the sense of keeping it alive operationally.
TylerE 7y ago
Do you really want to re-regulate the airlines? Fares will at least double.
- brianwawok 7y ago
  Depends how many people die at current levels?
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Very very few. Air travel in the US averages 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles. Driving is 150 deaths per 10B P-M. Driving across a small town is more likely to kill you than flying across the country.
    - brianwawok 7y ago
      That is current. I suspect the longer that an industry has heavy self regulation, the higher the cost is. I also do not agree with the premise that imposing stricter regulation would "double" the cost of tickets. Airline tickets have come down in price for MANY reasons, not just less regulation.
      - TylerE 7y ago
        Incorrect. Deregulation happened in 1978. Deaths have been trending down ever since.
        brianwawok 7y ago
        Do you know that correlation does not imply causation? I would suggest the site https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- eloff 7y ago
  Yes. Regulations are worth the downsides when it's a matter of life and death. Plus it's already highly regulated, so being a little stricter is not going to mean noticeably higher fares. The problem here is the regulatory body basically punted and let the company regulate themselves. Like that was going to work...

yellow_lead 7y ago

> Nobody is going to knowingly fly on a 737 Max. I will respectfully disagree with you. Most airlines won't tell you your aircraft when you book a ticket and even if they do, they seem allowed to change it at the last minute. If you have spent $500,$1000, $XXXX on a ticket, will you not board if you discover the plane has been switched? Will you avoid airlines that don't guarantee you a certain plane? There are not many great options to travel long distances quickly. If this plane becomes commonplace, I'm afraid consumers will be forced to use it. If there are other ideas on how this could play out, I'm happy to consider them, but I fear this is nearly a given.

thawaway1837 7y ago
I wouldn’t be surprised if ticket booking sites didn’t throw up a “this could potentially be a 737 Max plane” indicator the moment these planes are ungrounded. Because the first ticketing site that did that would gain a definite edge. And even if the airline doesn’t tell you what plane is flying, we know what routes and airlines are flying 737 Max’s, which is enough to raise an indicator. If that happens, flying a 737 Max may potentially cause airlines to lose money even if the particular flight isn’t a 737 Max, because it might be one.
kayfox 7y ago
My experience is most airlines in the US will tell you on booking, its just not put out in the open.
- nemetroid 7y ago
  And it will often say "38M" rather than "Boeing 737 MAX 8".
  - kayfox 7y ago
    Should be B38M. Its standard ICAO terminology. I haven't seen that sorta thing on booking sites, but its common on sites like FlightAware.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago

alkonaut 7y ago

I’ll probably fly it. As in, I wouldn’t pay an unlimited amount of time or money to avoid it, and it will be expensive (e.g a 10 hour drive instead of a one hour flight). I assure you that outside of people interested in tech, few I know have any idea what the MAX8 is, how to tell one from the NG or an A320. Once the plane flies it’s going to be business as usual.

rootusrootus 7y ago

I am willing to bet that most people do not care enough to fight it. They want cheap, everything else is secondary. They will rationalize that all of this testing has made the MAX arguably the safest airliner they can fly in, and step aboard they will. Most people are not well represented by the fine folks on HN.

masswerk 7y ago

Mind that the 737 Max is all about avoiding recertification (or grandfathering) and avoiding pilot retraining. Its raison d'être is to allow airlines with an existing fleet of 737s to operate with existing crews without further training and/or certification. Meaning, designing a new plane allowed operators to switch to Airbus, as well, which might be the more attractive option at the moment. This is all about operator logistics and lock-in by costs of retraining and infrastructure. (I guess, this may be the real point to be addressed, since, as this is such a crucial factor, procedures are prone to be repeated in other configurations in the future. Failures are highly likely to be repeated, regardless of the actor.) Edit: To emphasize the last thought, the 737 Max may be more of a systemic failure of the entire business, its regulations and how they are conducted, than a failure by a single actor on a single instance.

mobjack 7y ago

If it flies for a few months without incident, most people will stop noticing. After a few years, no one will care anymore.

catalogia 7y ago

It wouldn't shock me to learn that the majority of people stepping off a commercial airliner, if interviewed, couldn't tell you whether they'd just been on a 737 or a Tu-204. It would be like asking me what model of bus my city uses, I haven't the foggiest clue.