13 ms·

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and n

by Nacdor 6y ago

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you, nor are they required to use the aircraft listed at the time of booking (they can swap it at the last minute if they want).

armitron 6y ago
I wouldn't either and none of my friends & family would. In fact, I don't see how the they can even take the chance of flying this plane without a complete structural redesign. Another crash and they are finished for good. This spells doom for boeing. If some airlines tried to hide or change the type of aircraft you have booked, then you can be sure there will be others that won't (and make it a selling point).
- throwaway29102 6y ago
  Boeing owns enough of the US legislature through bribery or in-district employment to never, ever, ever have to worry about bankruptcy or any other adverse market impact. Will they be allowed to teeter on the edge of insolvency? Sure. Fall over? Not when taxpayer money is free and infinite.
  - manquer 6y ago
    It may not be straightforward bankruptcy. A new buyer could take them private as part of bankruptcy to reduce the liabilities because of current company, while retaining the employees keeping government happy, or they could be broken up into different companies, defence division could split / bought by another defence contractor perhaps, there are many options in these conditions which does not immediately impact politician concerns.
yellow_postit 6y ago
Given the amount of additional scrutiny these models are getting I wouldn’t be surprised if in the long run of their lifetime they have a better safety record.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  I've been wondering about that, too. By the time they're allowed to fly, these might be the most heavily vetted and tested airliners in history.
  - basicplus2 6y ago
    Or the only airliner properly vetted
- simion314 6y ago
  Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? The MAX has probably many differences because is larger so all the new stuff should be put under the microscope since you can't trust the previous tests, measurements or decisions, Boeing guys were proud on how they mind tricked the FAA guys so FAA should now re=review everything then you can be 100% this airplane was scrutinized. If this already happen and I missed it please link me to it.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? Yes. The FAA's proposal also involves physically re-routing some cables, which is (as far as I can tell) completely non-MCAS-related.
    - simion314 6y ago
      That seems to be related to a rule that FAA added after some other incident but the MAX was not forced to follow this new rule, it is not an issue that was discovered when scrutinizing the MAX.
BolexNOLA 6y ago
Didn’t an email link with Boeing employees basically saying the exact same thing? “I’d never let my family fly on one” or something?
- Nacdor 6y ago
  Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let-families-fly-on-737-max-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane
  - duck 6y ago
    I would imagine with a company of the size of Boeing you could find a larger group of folks that wouldn't allow their families to fly in any airplane.
    - hashmymustache 6y ago
      Sure but there’s a big difference between not wanting someone in your family to have surgery and not wanting them to go to a specific surgeon.
    - throwaway29102 6y ago
      What would you imagine the percentage is at companies whose primary business is producing airplanes?
      - jobigoud 6y ago
        I think he means we simply never heard about the employees that said the same thing about other planes because they didn't crash. These were highlighted after the fact.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    There is a funny anecdote, likely apocryphal, but still worth retelling because of the implied wisdom: When talking about the soon to be released Chinese passenger jet one of the principals of the company was overheard saying that he would never allow his family to board one of these aircraft, that's how bad they were. Some party bigwig overheard this and addressed the man: "I know 100% certain that this is going to be one of the best aircraft ever made in China. Because you and all your extended family will be on board the maiden flight."
shajznnckfke 6y ago
Even though this model has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record, the absolute level of risk is still pretty low. I knowingly expose myself to larger risks in my day-to-day life. So I won’t lose any sleep over booking a flight on this type of plane.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  This is not a good argument. You can control this level of risk. Taking on any unnecessary risk when you don't have to is not a wise choice.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    Obviously you'd choose the safer plane if it's equally convenient. But if the absolute risk is low and there's no other plane at the same time, or the alternatives cost 2x as much, it's reasonable to be willing to fly on a more dangerous plane.
    - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
      But the alternatives are of similar price range.
      - jonny_eh 6y ago
        Depends on the route
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > safer airplane Every airplane is slightly different in its risks. Sort of like every car is also slightly different. The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky.
      - esperent 6y ago
        > The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky. That's quite a jump of logic.
stevehawk 6y ago
I would. I get it that Boeing messed up the first time, but this was always a failure that was preventable with proper pilot instruction and awareness. Even if they didn't fix the software I couldn't imagine a 737MAX pilot not being aware of this. People still drive Tesla's using autopilot and they drive head on into barriers on the highway or under trailers and decapitate people.
- dharmab 6y ago
  You have more confidence in the plane than the people who designed and built it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messa...
  - tridentlead 6y ago
    While Boeing totally screwed the pooch on this one, and I won't be choosing to fly on one if I can, the public having more confidence in a system than its creators/domain experts isn't exactly uncommon. Would you trust your medical record privacy to Windows XP running AVG?
  - stevehawk 6y ago
    To my knowledge, we don't actually know that. None of the emails I've seen refer to anyone's title or name. For all I know it's a janitor who heard rumors around a water cooler.
    - dharmab 6y ago
      That's a ridiculous statement. The "Would you put your family on a MAX simulator trained aircraft?" quote comes from page 103 of this PDF [1] and is in the context of a technical discussion of the aircraft's design by people who clearly understand the internals. [1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing-communications/606e3fda752a935bc0df/optimized/full.pdf#page=84 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing...
- addicted 6y ago
jonathanliu 6y ago
Even the non-MAX 737s have had issues recently. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/07/24/faa-emergency-inspections-boeing-737-corrosion-engine-failures-coronavirus-storage/5501391002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/07/2...
- khuey 6y ago
  Planes don't typically sit on the ground for several months without being used so this is a little more forgivable.
  - jonathanliu 6y ago
    I agree, but I'm still going to avoid flying for awhile! (And I was up to 21 flights by March.)
  - dannyw 6y ago
    I disagree, plane being out of service for a while should be a tested risk factor and is entirely within the realm of possibility pre-COVID.
beamatronic 6y ago
Watch them rename it the Boeing American Patriot
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vkou 6y ago
> Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. You wouldn't, but the thing is - you don't get the option. Your airline won't tell you which plane you'll be flying until boarding time. You then have the option of cancelling your flight without a refund, or flying.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Most airlines only use one manufacturer for this size class; it’ll be 737-XXXs, or a32Xs, but rarely both. So just choose an appropriate airline. Not always an option, of course, but on the biggest routes it generally is.
  - joshcain 6y ago
    Many airlines use both Airbus and Boeing within the same size class. American, United, and Delta all operate both 737s and A320-class planes.
    - ummonk 6y ago
      JetBlue is only A320/321.
- philjohn 6y ago
  If flying long haul with a big carrier, Expert Flyer is pretty accurate, barring a late substitution if there's a fault with the original plane.
ErikVandeWater 6y ago
The DC10 had a phenomenal safety record after the initial crashes. There is a tremendous amount of incentive to ensure the MAX doesn't crash within the first 5 years after being recertified. I would definitely take a MAX when it becomes available again.
- cm2187 6y ago
  It will take a phenomenal safety record to call the MAX safe. But we are still on day 0 of that record.
briandear 6y ago
It would depend on the airline. Southwest Airlines, definitely. Some third world airline where their pilots come through pilot mills and take the controls at less than 500 hours? No way. But that is true with any airplane, not just the Max. Statistically Southwest Airlines should have had a crash, yet it was Ethiopian and Lion Air that did. Given the maintenance and pilots history of Lion Air, a crash wasn’t unexpected. Is it a coincidence that no European, American, or Canadian 737s crashed despite flying an order of magnitude more flights in the airplane? There was a recent report that said that a large number (hundreds) of Pakistani airline pilots didn’t have legitimate licenses. That kind of thing is more scary than the 737 Max. The copilot on the Ethiopian airlines crash had just 200 hours of experience. On a US airline, the minimum is 1500 hours. The cause of the malfunction is certainly worthy of discussion, but both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes could have been prevented with better pilot actions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/21/ethiopian-pilots-raised-safety-concerns-years-before-fatal-crash-records-show/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/21/ethiopian... https://www.wsj.com/articles/maintenance-lapse-identified-as-initial-problem-leading-to-lion-air-crash-11545739204 https://www.wsj.com/articles/maintenance-lapse-identified-as... Talking to actual pilots that operate internationally and it’s pretty clear that there are some scary operations going on. Southwest Airlines requires at least 1000 hours of turbine time as a minimum, along with an ATP rating. At Ethiopian, you could get hired with zero hours of turbine time. That’s the real scandal that these airlines put kids in the right seat of a big airliner with less experience than required to get your single engine commercial license in the US.
- manquer 6y ago
  Southwest and other airlines got lucky. Lion Air pilots were aware of the issue, and did the follow the checklist, however their airspeed was too fast and physical resistance when cutoff switch was triggered was too high they were forced to switch it back on, and MCAS went kicked back in and they didn't have time. I am not sure how much Southwest 's pilot or anyone not trained in this specific scenario could have done much better. Sullenberger the pilot who landed on the Hudson in his testimony pretty much said the same thing after spending time on the simulators with this scenario. It is easy for crews to run out of time solving this issue, the U.S. simulator training did not include the scenario in the real world it is just as likely for a U.S. pilot to have crashed.
SomeHacker44 6y ago
As a pilot, I intend never to fly on a 737 Max. The only thing that might change my mind is putting the plane on its own type certificate solely for this plane.
tw04 6y ago
>Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. Something tells me their competitors (who aren't flying 737 Max) are going to advertise that they don't and the ones who are refusing to tell you what plane you're flying on are going to lose a ton of business. Delta is already a dominant player, making a move like you've stated will just cement their position.
- CaptainZapp 6y ago
  > Delta is already a dominant player Slightly off-topic, but... They get additional bonus points from me for stringent enforcement of mask wearing policy. If you don't wear a mask you don't board the plane. If you take it off during taxiing or during the flight and refuse to wear it they kick you off the plane and ban you from flying with them. If I would have to fly any US carrier I would chose theme whenever possible. Edited to add: They kick you off while still on the ground.
  - comex 6y ago
    > Edited to add: They kick you off while still on the ground. This clarification brought a smile to my face.
ramraj07 6y ago
Simple, people will just choose airlines that don't have too many max aircraft
WalterBright 6y ago
> would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I would - and I'm a former Boeing flight controls engineer, so my opinion is not limited to whatever I read from journalists who get about 75% of things wrong whenever they write about aviation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ralph84 6y ago
It depends on who’s flying it. No argument the aircraft design was faulty and Boeing is fully responsible for that, and even worse covering it up. However Lion Air pretty regularly crashes non-MAX 737s and the first officer on Ethiopian was extremely inexperienced and wouldn’t have been let anywhere near the front of a commercial airliner in the US. Your choice of airline will have a much bigger impact on risk than your choice of aircraft.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  Your 'However' subreptitiously implies that there are mitigating factors that _diminish_ Boeing's murderous lack of duty of care. This is factually incorrect for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, where 157 people died. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 was extensively analysed and no pilot fault was found (irrespective of a junior 1st officer). [0] That crew absolutely did their job and died trying to save 157 souls. I appreciate that it was probably not your intention but you should take stock and think about this before (even if subsconsciously) 'However'ing Boeing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#Expert_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#...
mcgoo 6y ago
The MAX is also known as the 737-8200. Now that the product recognition is working against it, I think we will see the forgettable name a lot more. At least in the US you can typically cancel a flight for free within the first 24 hours if it is booked more than seven days out, if that helps. You are right that the airline can change the type of plane like that but it is uncommon. A much more common way to end up on a different type of plane than was booked is weather cancellation. (Personally, I don't like most of the regional jets, but by the end of the day of waiting for a 1 hour flight, I'll take anything.)
- kayfox 6y ago
  The 737-8200 is the 737-8 MAX 200 that Ryanair requested before all of this happened. Its a special ultra high capacity 737 MAX 8 with two more overwing exits and some knee unfriendly seat pitch.
strogonoff 6y ago
> would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? To me getting to/from the airplane (any model) is usually of significantly more concern[0] than flying itself, so the only reason I would actively choose a specific airplane is if I get to fly in a new or interesting model. So there, you have a definite yes from me. [0] Traffic accidents, possibility of losing possessions, issues at immigration, untrustworthy taxi drivers, etc.

by Nacdor 6y ago

armitron 6y ago

I wouldn't either and none of my friends & family would. In fact, I don't see how the they can even take the chance of flying this plane without a complete structural redesign. Another crash and they are finished for good. This spells doom for boeing. If some airlines tried to hide or change the type of aircraft you have booked, then you can be sure there will be others that won't (and make it a selling point).

throwaway29102 6y ago
Boeing owns enough of the US legislature through bribery or in-district employment to never, ever, ever have to worry about bankruptcy or any other adverse market impact. Will they be allowed to teeter on the edge of insolvency? Sure. Fall over? Not when taxpayer money is free and infinite.
- manquer 6y ago
  It may not be straightforward bankruptcy. A new buyer could take them private as part of bankruptcy to reduce the liabilities because of current company, while retaining the employees keeping government happy, or they could be broken up into different companies, defence division could split / bought by another defence contractor perhaps, there are many options in these conditions which does not immediately impact politician concerns.

yellow_postit 6y ago

Given the amount of additional scrutiny these models are getting I wouldn’t be surprised if in the long run of their lifetime they have a better safety record.

ceejayoz 6y ago
I've been wondering about that, too. By the time they're allowed to fly, these might be the most heavily vetted and tested airliners in history.
- basicplus2 6y ago
  Or the only airliner properly vetted
simion314 6y ago
Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? The MAX has probably many differences because is larger so all the new stuff should be put under the microscope since you can't trust the previous tests, measurements or decisions, Boeing guys were proud on how they mind tricked the FAA guys so FAA should now re=review everything then you can be 100% this airplane was scrutinized. If this already happen and I missed it please link me to it.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > Do we know or is a reason to believe that FAA checked anything else then the MCAS and the systems related in the crashes? Yes. The FAA's proposal also involves physically re-routing some cables, which is (as far as I can tell) completely non-MCAS-related.
  - simion314 6y ago
    That seems to be related to a rule that FAA added after some other incident but the MAX was not forced to follow this new rule, it is not an issue that was discovered when scrutinizing the MAX.

BolexNOLA 6y ago

Didn’t an email link with Boeing employees basically saying the exact same thing? “I’d never let my family fly on one” or something?

Nacdor 6y ago
Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let-families-fly-on-737-max-2020-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let... > 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane
- duck 6y ago
  I would imagine with a company of the size of Boeing you could find a larger group of folks that wouldn't allow their families to fly in any airplane.
  - hashmymustache 6y ago
    Sure but there’s a big difference between not wanting someone in your family to have surgery and not wanting them to go to a specific surgeon.
  - throwaway29102 6y ago
    What would you imagine the percentage is at companies whose primary business is producing airplanes?
    - jobigoud 6y ago
      I think he means we simply never heard about the employees that said the same thing about other planes because they didn't crash. These were highlighted after the fact.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  There is a funny anecdote, likely apocryphal, but still worth retelling because of the implied wisdom: When talking about the soon to be released Chinese passenger jet one of the principals of the company was overheard saying that he would never allow his family to board one of these aircraft, that's how bad they were. Some party bigwig overheard this and addressed the man: "I know 100% certain that this is going to be one of the best aircraft ever made in China. Because you and all your extended family will be on board the maiden flight."

shajznnckfke 6y ago

Even though this model has big design flaws and a relatively bad safety record, the absolute level of risk is still pretty low. I knowingly expose myself to larger risks in my day-to-day life. So I won’t lose any sleep over booking a flight on this type of plane.

dimitrios1 6y ago
This is not a good argument. You can control this level of risk. Taking on any unnecessary risk when you don't have to is not a wise choice.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Obviously you'd choose the safer plane if it's equally convenient. But if the absolute risk is low and there's no other plane at the same time, or the alternatives cost 2x as much, it's reasonable to be willing to fly on a more dangerous plane.
  - YetAnotherNick 6y ago
    But the alternatives are of similar price range.
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      Depends on the route
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > safer airplane Every airplane is slightly different in its risks. Sort of like every car is also slightly different. The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky.
    - esperent 6y ago
      > The MAX has been so thoroughly gone over, it's likely the safest airliner in the sky. That's quite a jump of logic.

stevehawk 6y ago

I would. I get it that Boeing messed up the first time, but this was always a failure that was preventable with proper pilot instruction and awareness. Even if they didn't fix the software I couldn't imagine a 737MAX pilot not being aware of this. People still drive Tesla's using autopilot and they drive head on into barriers on the highway or under trailers and decapitate people.

dharmab 6y ago
You have more confidence in the plane than the people who designed and built it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messa...
- tridentlead 6y ago
  While Boeing totally screwed the pooch on this one, and I won't be choosing to fly on one if I can, the public having more confidence in a system than its creators/domain experts isn't exactly uncommon. Would you trust your medical record privacy to Windows XP running AVG?
- stevehawk 6y ago
  To my knowledge, we don't actually know that. None of the emails I've seen refer to anyone's title or name. For all I know it's a janitor who heard rumors around a water cooler.
  - dharmab 6y ago
    That's a ridiculous statement. The "Would you put your family on a MAX simulator trained aircraft?" quote comes from page 103 of this PDF [1] and is in the context of a technical discussion of the aircraft's design by people who clearly understand the internals. [1] https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing-communications/606e3fda752a935bc0df/optimized/full.pdf#page=84 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6653-internal-boeing...
addicted 6y ago

jonathanliu 6y ago

Even the non-MAX 737s have had issues recently. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/07/24/faa-emergency-inspections-boeing-737-corrosion-engine-failures-coronavirus-storage/5501391002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2020/07/2...

khuey 6y ago
Planes don't typically sit on the ground for several months without being used so this is a little more forgivable.
- jonathanliu 6y ago
  I agree, but I'm still going to avoid flying for awhile! (And I was up to 21 flights by March.)
- dannyw 6y ago
  I disagree, plane being out of service for a while should be a tested risk factor and is entirely within the realm of possibility pre-COVID.

beamatronic 6y ago

Watch them rename it the Boeing American Patriot

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vkou 6y ago

> Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would. You wouldn't, but the thing is - you don't get the option. Your airline won't tell you which plane you'll be flying until boarding time. You then have the option of cancelling your flight without a refund, or flying.

rsynnott 6y ago
Most airlines only use one manufacturer for this size class; it’ll be 737-XXXs, or a32Xs, but rarely both. So just choose an appropriate airline. Not always an option, of course, but on the biggest routes it generally is.
- joshcain 6y ago
  Many airlines use both Airbus and Boeing within the same size class. American, United, and Delta all operate both 737s and A320-class planes.
  - ummonk 6y ago
    JetBlue is only A320/321.
philjohn 6y ago
If flying long haul with a big carrier, Expert Flyer is pretty accurate, barring a late substitution if there's a fault with the original plane.

ErikVandeWater 6y ago

The DC10 had a phenomenal safety record after the initial crashes. There is a tremendous amount of incentive to ensure the MAX doesn't crash within the first 5 years after being recertified. I would definitely take a MAX when it becomes available again.

cm2187 6y ago
It will take a phenomenal safety record to call the MAX safe. But we are still on day 0 of that record.

briandear 6y ago

It would depend on the airline. Southwest Airlines, definitely. Some third world airline where their pilots come through pilot mills and take the controls at less than 500 hours? No way. But that is true with any airplane, not just the Max. Statistically Southwest Airlines should have had a crash, yet it was Ethiopian and Lion Air that did. Given the maintenance and pilots history of Lion Air, a crash wasn’t unexpected. Is it a coincidence that no European, American, or Canadian 737s crashed despite flying an order of magnitude more flights in the airplane? There was a recent report that said that a large number (hundreds) of Pakistani airline pilots didn’t have legitimate licenses. That kind of thing is more scary than the 737 Max. The copilot on the Ethiopian airlines crash had just 200 hours of experience. On a US airline, the minimum is 1500 hours. The cause of the malfunction is certainly worthy of discussion, but both the Lion Air and Ethiopian crashes could have been prevented with better pilot actions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/21/ethiopian-pilots-raised-safety-concerns-years-before-fatal-crash-records-show/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/21/ethiopian... https://www.wsj.com/articles/maintenance-lapse-identified-as-initial-problem-leading-to-lion-air-crash-11545739204 https://www.wsj.com/articles/maintenance-lapse-identified-as... Talking to actual pilots that operate internationally and it’s pretty clear that there are some scary operations going on. Southwest Airlines requires at least 1000 hours of turbine time as a minimum, along with an ATP rating. At Ethiopian, you could get hired with zero hours of turbine time. That’s the real scandal that these airlines put kids in the right seat of a big airliner with less experience than required to get your single engine commercial license in the US.

manquer 6y ago
Southwest and other airlines got lucky. Lion Air pilots were aware of the issue, and did the follow the checklist, however their airspeed was too fast and physical resistance when cutoff switch was triggered was too high they were forced to switch it back on, and MCAS went kicked back in and they didn't have time. I am not sure how much Southwest 's pilot or anyone not trained in this specific scenario could have done much better. Sullenberger the pilot who landed on the Hudson in his testimony pretty much said the same thing after spending time on the simulators with this scenario. It is easy for crews to run out of time solving this issue, the U.S. simulator training did not include the scenario in the real world it is just as likely for a U.S. pilot to have crashed.

SomeHacker44 6y ago

As a pilot, I intend never to fly on a 737 Max. The only thing that might change my mind is putting the plane on its own type certificate solely for this plane.

tw04 6y ago

>Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. Something tells me their competitors (who aren't flying 737 Max) are going to advertise that they don't and the ones who are refusing to tell you what plane you're flying on are going to lose a ton of business. Delta is already a dominant player, making a move like you've stated will just cement their position.

CaptainZapp 6y ago
> Delta is already a dominant player Slightly off-topic, but... They get additional bonus points from me for stringent enforcement of mask wearing policy. If you don't wear a mask you don't board the plane. If you take it off during taxiing or during the flight and refuse to wear it they kick you off the plane and ban you from flying with them. If I would have to fly any US carrier I would chose theme whenever possible. Edited to add: They kick you off while still on the ground.
- comex 6y ago
  > Edited to add: They kick you off while still on the ground. This clarification brought a smile to my face.

ramraj07 6y ago

Simple, people will just choose airlines that don't have too many max aircraft

WalterBright 6y ago

> would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I would - and I'm a former Boeing flight controls engineer, so my opinion is not limited to whatever I read from journalists who get about 75% of things wrong whenever they write about aviation.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ralph84 6y ago

It depends on who’s flying it. No argument the aircraft design was faulty and Boeing is fully responsible for that, and even worse covering it up. However Lion Air pretty regularly crashes non-MAX 737s and the first officer on Ethiopian was extremely inexperienced and wouldn’t have been let anywhere near the front of a commercial airliner in the US. Your choice of airline will have a much bigger impact on risk than your choice of aircraft.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago
Your 'However' subreptitiously implies that there are mitigating factors that _diminish_ Boeing's murderous lack of duty of care. This is factually incorrect for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, where 157 people died. Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 was extensively analysed and no pilot fault was found (irrespective of a junior 1st officer). [0] That crew absolutely did their job and died trying to save 157 souls. I appreciate that it was probably not your intention but you should take stock and think about this before (even if subsconsciously) 'However'ing Boeing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#Expert_analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_302#...

mcgoo 6y ago

The MAX is also known as the 737-8200. Now that the product recognition is working against it, I think we will see the forgettable name a lot more. At least in the US you can typically cancel a flight for free within the first 24 hours if it is booked more than seven days out, if that helps. You are right that the airline can change the type of plane like that but it is uncommon. A much more common way to end up on a different type of plane than was booked is weather cancellation. (Personally, I don't like most of the regional jets, but by the end of the day of waiting for a 1 hour flight, I'll take anything.)

kayfox 6y ago
The 737-8200 is the 737-8 MAX 200 that Ryanair requested before all of this happened. Its a special ultra high capacity 737 MAX 8 with two more overwing exits and some knee unfriendly seat pitch.

strogonoff 6y ago

> would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? To me getting to/from the airplane (any model) is usually of significantly more concern[0] than flying itself, so the only reason I would actively choose a specific airplane is if I get to fly in a new or interesting model. So there, you have a definite yes from me. [0] Traffic accidents, possibility of losing possessions, issues at immigration, untrustworthy taxi drivers, etc.