19 ms·

Boeing's upgraded 737 Max completes first flight with media onboard

105 points by quickthrower2 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago
In a weird way, having the Max grounded during 2020 turned out to be lucky timing on Boeing's part. The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Now hopefully they actually did get their shit together.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  I think I disagree. If they’d taken the time to scrap the 737 Max and move to a new design, they’d have had the time and the public would have eaten the new product up. Instead, they doubled down and are now going to try to have to sell a product that many will refuse to ever fly on, myself included.
  - 8ytecoder 6y ago
    There are enough people who have no idea what a 737 Max is. I'm sure there would be enough flights and associated data before I have to fly again.
  - throwaway201103 6y ago
    The original 737 had some early issues also. Tail rudder problems that resulted in crashes is one that comes to mind. They were fixed and now nobody thinks twice about flying them and their long-term safety record is excellent.
    - kayodelycaon 6y ago
      Tail rudder problems is putting it mildly. There was malfunction with a valve that would cause the rudder to move in the opposite direction of the control inputs.
      - cdolan 6y ago
        Correct. Flight 427 to Pittsburgh. My wife’s father was on the flight. The tail’s controls inverted in freezing temperatures.
        sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Wait, what? Anyone have any more info on this? It seems completely insane for flight control inputs to invert themselves, but only in certain temperatures. I'd love to see the incident report on that... EDIT: Ah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 I'm so sorry that happened to your wife's father. The accident report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... Section 2.7.2 is interesting: 2.7.2 Unusual Attitude Training for Boeing 737 Pilots At the time of the USAir flight 427 accident, no air carrier training programs were specifically aimed at training 737 pilots to recognize and address a rudder jam or reversal. The guidance available at that time from Boeing advised pilots, as a first consideration, to maintain or regain full control of the airplane. Specifically, the guidance advised pilots to counter unwanted roll tendencies from a malfunctioning rudder with the application of up to full aileron control inputs. However, the guidance did not advise pilots that, at some airspeeds, an uncommanded full rudder input could not be successfully opposed by full wheel (aileron and spoiler) inputs and that a reduction in the airplane’s angle-of-attack could improve the effectiveness of the roll controls relative to the effectiveness of the rudder. Boeing’s guidance for relieving a jammed rudder informed pilots only that they should use maximum force to overpower the jam and specifically warned pilots against turning off flight control switches “unless the faulty control was positively identified.” No additional guidance was provided about the effects of flight control switch selections on rudder jam conditions.
        cdolan 6y ago
        If I start reading I go for hours haha. Am I correct that it inverted/reversed?
        6y ago
    - bigbob2 6y ago
      In that case maybe I'll give it 50 years to develop the same safety record.
    - Analemma_ 6y ago
      The original 737 wasn't broken-by-design in the way the Max is. The Max _requires_ software kludges to paper over its deliberate mistakes; that's very different from just having a few bugs to work out in a fundamentally sound design.
      - HPsquared 6y ago
        This is a bit of an urban myth that keeps flying around. The plane is perfectly stable without MCAS, but would have had different handling characteristics than the previous version. The purpose of MCAS was to modify the handling to match the previous plane, so pilots' type ratings would carry over with minimal retraining. At its heart, it was a (poorly implemented) kludge in an attempt to sidestep a lot of paperwork.
        throwaway201103 6y ago
        You're mostly right, but it wasn't just to make it handle like the previous versions, it was to satisfy FAA certification rules on how it handled.
        cjbprime 6y ago
        This is my understanding too, though Boeing hasn't really come out and said it definitively. Specifically: > MCAS was devised to fulfill an airworthiness certification condition in 14 CFR 25.173 and 14 CFR 25.175. In high angle-of-attack (AoA) flight configuration, it is required that stick force/g (the stick force necessary to produce (hold) an incremental normal acceleration of 1g) and stick movement/g (ditto mutatis mutandis) must increase (or at least not decrease) with an increase in AoA (thanks to Clive Leyman for this formulation). I understand that in flight test, in which “wind-up turns” were conducted (a turn with increasing angle of bank; an increasing angle of bank means ceteris paribus increasing AoA), this condition was not fulfilled. -- https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-spectrum-on-possible-software-involvement-in-two-recent-airliner-crashes/ https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-s...
        Stierlitz 6y ago
    - salawat 6y ago
      The issue isn't a really a physical one in principle here. It's an issue of corporate accountability. You had corners cut to deliver a product that ended up killing people. There is no real room for doubt in that just from the material we have available. So, what? What happens? What should happen? Everything go back to "normal"? Let the same people who ran things continue to profit off their wrongdoing? Accept that as long as you're one of only two rides in town that you have the security to deliver and recover from delivering a lethal product? That's the issue. That's the reality we're taking out of this. It isn't even self-regulating anymore. There is no bankruptcy, no hammer, no reallocation of assets to those that can wield them more responsibly, no reset. Just a token gesture. The same Goliath just shrugs and moves on. While I get that might be tenable or desirable to some, I'm not one of them. Realistic risk of falling flat on your face, being held to account, and not being able to just shrug it off and keep going keeps you honest. Once you lose that, "What's a life here and there? Doesn't bother me. Can't make an onelette without cracking a few eggs." The economy is not an omelette, and people are not eggs. Either we serve it, or it serves us. I know which side of that assertion I'm on.
      - skybrian 6y ago
        The CEO resigned, so it's questionable whether there are the same people running things. How much other management changed?
        windthrown 6y ago
        The replacement CEO was previously the chairman of the board. So while they did change personnel, I am skeptical about how different their actual management practices are.
      - pdonis 6y ago
        What alternative would you propose? You can't just remove Boeing as a company: they have tens of thousands of existing aircraft in the field that need to be maintained, and a large number of people who were not at fault in all of this whose jobs would be eliminated. So how do you hold the proper people accountable without doing so much collateral damage that the cost of that outweighs the benefits? Also, responsibility doesn't just like with Boeing; the FAA certified the 737 MAX, and the rules that allowed that to happen were written by lawmakers and bureaucrats over a period of decades. How do you hold all of them accountable? Many, if not most, of those people aren't even actively working any more.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    A new plane design takes years from inception to first revenue flight. Early development of the 787 started in 2003, first revenue flight wasn't until 2011. And then we all remember when it spent a couple months grounded in 2013.
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    Considering that a new design would take like 10 years to get into production, how would that have been an immediate solution for Boeing? They need to be able to sell more 737 until a new design is ready, and no one wants that to be rushed. While I didn't hear anyting about a new design, I sincerely hope they are at it already though.
    - brianwawok 6y ago
      Can they not make more of the previous design? Or is 100% of production capacity 737 max
      - topspin 6y ago
        > Can they not make more of the previous design? MAX exists as a response to competition. One may assume the previous design is no longer competitive. And no, the body count isn't being considered; fuel efficiency, capacity and leveraging existing training are among the considerations.
      - _ph_ 6y ago
        I don't think previous iterations of the 737 were fundamentally safer. As there were probably other changes done to the 737 Max beyond the different engines, like improving the overall build, I do think that the fixed 737 Max should be safer than any other 737. The issue with the Max was, that a software, which should improve the handling in extreme situations, kicked in in normal conditions and the pilots failed to handle this (runaway stabilizer procedure). And indeed, the software for the MCAS was really badly designed, which has been fixed now and by now every 737 pilot should be aware how the two crashes could have been prevented by the right crew reaction. Both of this should mean that these accidents won't happen again.
        l33tman 6y ago
        That's true but the lingering issue is that if Boeing and the FAA collaborated in pushing the broken design through certification, how many other issues can and will they cover up that the pilots don't know about? I think most want this systematic problem to get fixed as well, the MCAS at this point is as you say hopefully solved..
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Most people don't know what manufacturer of the aircraft they are flying in, let alone the specific model. I haven't flown in quite a while, but when I did I didn't research what model aircraft I was flying in. I doubt more than a small handful of people do.
    - awslattery 6y ago
      Plenty of airlines list it at time of booking, and is often accessible alongside digital boarding passes. I specifically chose a return option from Japan last year because it was on a 787.
  - zhte415 6y ago
    Yes. Taking a 10-15 year timeframe from Boeing publicly signalling intention in 2011 that would mean the new aircraft would have gone to market in early to mid 2020s. Perhaps no one in sufficient interests in Boeing read Irrational Exuberance [1] which covered in a decent amount of detail about downturns +/- 2 years of every decade, always the same root cause if different symptoms. Or perhaps they did but were 'maximising shareholder value' (with a 3 month window on the share price) and didn't care - "this time it's different" after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book)
  - myrandomcomment 6y ago
    Why? It's now one of the most tested planes in the sky from a review standpoint?
  - greeneggs 6y ago
    Given Boeing's recent problems, I would be much happier on an old design that has been well tested, than on a brand-new design.
    - landemva 6y ago
      They crammed big engines under the wings in a way that it could really need a new air type certification. This is more like a new plane, with the baggage of the old 737 and without the certification testing for a new plane. Yes it can fly, but it's pushing the boundaries of safety.
  - tourdownunder 6y ago
    It would have been a great time for pilots to be training on the the 737 Max as a different aircraft. The mistake with the 737 Max is that it is a simulator for pilots flying like it was a regular 737. The selling point to not have to train the pilots was the big mistake with the design.
    - BillinghamJ 6y ago
      That intention led to choices in the physical design which are less safe than they otherwise would have been. So although giving dedicated training presumably would be better than nothing, that doesn't absolve this aircraft of the significant concerns about its fundamental suitability due to the decision making approach
- cj 6y ago
  Not just timing, but COVID is a great diversion from the safety issue entirely (in the eyes of the public) Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash".
  - cupofcoffee 6y ago
    >Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash". Why would you think that?
- pengaru 6y ago
  COVID has been a godsend to many struggling or otherwise unstable businesses. Recent example I've had to deal with: Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E-Trade has completely wrecked their customer service experience. Live chat wait times are 2+ hours, getting a secure message response takes 5 days now. Their web site is covered with COVID-19 disclaimers for all the trouble, with a minor blurb about "operational shift". As they say; Never let a good crisis go to waste.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    COVID is the new 9/11. You could blame anything on 9/11... "Wifi is down, due to 9/11"
    - ChrisRR 6y ago
      I've seen people blame practically everything about the PS5 launch on covid "No stock? Must be covid causing manufacturing issues." What? You don't know the sales figures at all and you're making wild assumptions
- frogblast 6y ago
  Covid’s timing was devastating for Boeing and the 737 Max. When the planes were grounded, Boeing kept producing them assuming the issue would be resolved quickly. As of January 2020, slightly before Covid, they had 400 planes built, but not delivered to customers (and so customers haven’t paid for them). Boeing was funding these aircraft with debt. All of a sudden, demand for air travel drops off a cliff. All those airlines now decide “I’m just not going to take delivery of those aircraft”. Which also means “I’m not going to pay for them”. Had the timing gone in the other order, all of those aircraft would have been delivered, and paid for, and airlines would have been holding the bag. (and the covid crisis would have limited the damages airlines could claim, and thus demand from Boeing, if they could meet their reduced schedules with other aircraft).
  - FeistyOtter 6y ago
    Can an airline really refuse an aircraft without wasting some significant amount of money? I assume the airline or leasing company start paying from the moment they place an order all the way through construction, finished by a final payment at the moment of acceptance? When one orders a building company to build a house, you are given a payment schedule, I assume it is the same with airplanes.
    - corty 6y ago
      Airlines on the brink of bancruptcy have to refuse such orders, even if it only saves small amounts of money. And due to Corona, virtually every airline is in financially troubled waters.
    - benhurmarcel 6y ago
      Airliners are paid over a period yes, from the contract signature to several months after delivery. But the biggest chunk of cash changes hands at delivery.
  - danielfoster 6y ago
    This is true. I at least hope Boeing was able to reduce the compensation it will pay to airlines. There’s no lost income for airlines if there’s no demand for travel! Low oil prices have also not helped the situation. Airlines need fuel efficient aircraft less than ever right now.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  > The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some > serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Though I agree with you, Boeing could have really used the time to properly train 737 type pilots on the MCAS-specific issues. But the whole purpose of MCAS was to not retrain pilots, so instead of those pilot spending the past half year training on the new system, they spent the past half year mostly grounded.
  - kayfox 6y ago
    Training pilots before a training program is approved is kinda like throwing money into a fire. They would still have to turn around and train them again with the approved training. Also, being has little to do with the actual decisions on what and how to train pilots not employed by them, the airlines develop training programs that are approved by the FAA and operated with FAA oversight.
- ThinkBeat 6y ago
  Boeing is stuck with a enormous amount of completes airplanes That nobody wants or can afford. A lot (maybe most) airlines are struggling to survive with the impact of the pandemic on travel. A lot of banks that have lent money to airlines have their security in part in the airplanes. Some countries are pumping money into particular airlines to try to keep them from bankruptcy As more and more airlines news to shed aircraft and employees the market is or will be flooded with used aircraft. Possibly some can be considered converted for freight if the market stays strong there https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/07/25/see-the-boeing-737-max-pile-up-in-storage-in-these-time-lapse-satellite-images/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-737-max-cancellations-continue-as-airline-downturn-shuts-off-jet-orders/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/b...
- yread 6y ago
  MAX is a lot more efficient than the old NGs or classics (and can also do routes of 757s or 767s if they are thin enough). In a time of reduced demand airlines would prefer to park their more fuel-hungry planes and use the more efficient ones. But they can't because it's grounded. And now there are airlines failing left and right with their planes going on the second hand market, back to lessors or are gutted for parts. That's depressing the price of airplanes and spare parts. That can't be good for Boeing either. Would you buy a 15% more efficient car for twice as much?
glaucon 6y ago
"In another display of confidence, European budget airline Ryanair was set to place a hefty order for up to 75 additional 737 MAX jets, industry sources said." A Ryanair spokesperson said "It's the first time we've ever been offered a discount in excess of 100%"
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  Discount in excess of 100%? So they were paid to brake them? Makes sense for Ryan to start doing negative prices for their flights. Making profit on the bus fare into city and baggage fees.
  - londons_explore 6y ago
    That quote wasn't in the article... I suspect OP was joking, but even if they had been given a massive discount, I'm sure the contract prevents them from telling anyone else the terms...
    - ludamad 6y ago
      The joke is just a little too subtle if so lol (though perhaps how it ought to be), seen some really weird arrangements during this year
      - throwaway4good 6y ago
        The oil price can go negative then why not this. The planes are just a cost for Boeing once they are built and they obviously need to them in the air to convince everyone that they are safe and ok to buy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gsnedders 6y ago
  Ryanair were notable for also placing a large order for the 737 NG in January 2002, which was rumoured to be in excess of 50% of list price, as Boeing had struggled to make any sales and was having lay-offs.
fred_is_fred 6y ago
Given the recent news about delivery services (UPS, Fedex, Amazon) having constraints on capacity this would be a great time for them to invest in some planes. I assume Boeing is desperate to sell these. Or is there something about these planes that makes them unsuitable.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I think they are impractical as freighters. They are narrow bodies and won't hold standard freight containers.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    The economics are obviously different from a 747 or 767 but Boeing sells (converted) 737s as freighters [1]. Alaska Airlines also operates some combined passenger/freight 737s on routes in Alaska that can't fill a 737 entirely with either. Admittedly neither of these are MAX variants but the potential seems to be there. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Boeing_Converted_Freighter_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Boeing_Converted_Fr...
- aphextron 6y ago
  >I assume Boeing is desperate to sell these. Or is there something about these planes that makes them unsuitable. It's not like Boeing has a warehouse of 737-MAX's sitting around. They are ordered and delivered as they are finished.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Boeing has a years long backlog of orders. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wins-zero-new-orders-delivers-few-jets-and-loses-more-737-maxs/#:~:text=So%20far%20this%20year%2C%20Boeing,A320neo%20family%20is%205%2C956%20jets https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein....
    - fred_is_fred 6y ago
DevX101 6y ago
I recently had the frivolous idea of creating a flight search engine for flights that DID NOT use the 737 Max. Any actual interest in this?
- Xenoamorphous 6y ago
  Are airlines even obliged to disclose the type of plane? One of them even changed the type of plane and destination airport (same city though) for one of my flights.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    I don't think they're obligated, but Delta does provide that information currently.
    - hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
      Probably because they have none of these planes and no plans to add them.
      - chrisdhal 6y ago
        Delta has had it for years though, way before the Max issue came up. When you book a flight it's right there and tells you what model you're getting, which is needed since you can select seats ahead of time. Admittedly, there are times it gets changed at the last minute for whatever reason, but when you book you see what you're getting, and have for years.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I don't think they're obligated, but many airlines do. Changes do happen, though, so the plane listed at booking may not be the plane you fly on.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Isn't at least the system for past flights public? Flightradar24 has the information: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420
yyy888sss 6y ago
Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737. Presumably future engines will be bigger still, will they just tack them onto this old design as well? At the end of the day this is just a software fix.
- Closi 6y ago
  At this point they are in a corner, and from a corporate standpoint need this to compete with Airbus. The length of developing a fully new aircraft is too long considering the competition, assuming you aren’t particularly passionate about safety.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  > Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737. If I were the EU regulator, I would have forced them to... It's a great way to screw over Boeing (American) and boost sales for Airbus (EU), while having the fairly legit rationale that you no longer have confidence in the US regulator due to a long series of blunders, and you are not happy for a major new plane design to use a decades old type rating (and is therefore missing now-mandatory safety stuff).
  - Cojen 6y ago
    Such a decision would also screw over EU airlines that still depend heavily on Boeing.
  - chki 6y ago
    Doing that would mean acting in bad faith (obviously) but also breaking WTO Rules, i.e. international law, which can come with a big price tag if your caught (potentially unlikely in such a scenario and depends on the WTO being accepted by the US, which is also not very likely). That is on top of being sued by Boeing in Court for wrongfully denying the recertification. So I'm not sure whether that would really be a consideration.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
salawat 6y ago
Problem will not be resolved for me until indications of real cultural shift happen in a direction where safety and Quality take some level of priority over brute fiscal efficiency. Aerospace should be a cost-sink first, a financial growth engine second. Often, a cost-sink is actually both at the same time with the growth in industry around them that new, costly, realistically risky work creates. Whereas optimizing for the second metric at all costs tends to only benefit the undertaker, investigative agencies, and the lawyers.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  For me having good statistics is good enough. The question is how many flights are necessary for 737 Max 8 to overcome the bad start in its statistic. It needs to go back to 0.2 per million flights, which needs about 10 million flights more to prove itself (taking about 5-10 years maybe)
blackrock 6y ago
What did they do to fix it?
- wil421 6y ago
  Gave the interns a summer project.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
I love how hard parts of HN falls into the never 737 hysteria, even though its less probable than dying from the nearest sharp object.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  ,,The global fleet of nearly 400 737 MAXs flew 500,000 flights from March 2017 to March 2019, and experienced two fatal accidents for an accident rate of four per million flights when it was grounded. The previous generations of the Boeing 737 averaged 0.2 accidents per million flights.[180]'' - from Wikipedia
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    As it turns out, when you have a smaller set of results to work with, every point of data has outsized effect. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a310.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a310.htm The airbus A310 had 1.35 accidents per million flights, and for some reason people still fly in it
    - caconym_ 6y ago
      Consider two models of car. One was sold in large numbers in the early 90s and has proven exceptionally reliable, but obviously it's built to early 90s safety standards, and has been involved in a huge number of fatal accidents with various causes ranging from operator error to scattered manufacturing defects. However, no serious design issues ever surfaced. The second is a 2020 model, equipped with state of the art safety features. However, its fatal accident rate is the same as the other model (though the absolute number is much smaller), and nearly every single such accident happened in the exact same way: the driver assist system, which cannot be turned off, has a nasty habit of overpowering the driver and steering into oncoming traffic. The NHTSA investigation reveals that this system was implemented hastily, using outsourced labor and cheap non-redundant components, so that the manufacturer could qualify for a tax credit. Specific concerns regarding the implementation were raised by engineers but overruled by management. I'll take option A, thanks.
- 6y ago
pcurve 6y ago
Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.
- outworlder 6y ago
  The DC-10 recovered. It was grounded, returned to service, crashed again. Eventually, it became safe. And eventually the public forgot about the issues. The bigger problem is that you have a company that decided that a single sensor driving a safety-critical system was sufficient, even though they have two (and even that is not enough, such systems should have three). For a new system that was introduced and not explained to pilots, because that was the goal. It even made the "AOA disagree" warning _an optional feature_. Or, more specifically, it made the AOA indicator an optional feature, and the AOA disagree feature was tied to that. They knew about it, but didn't inform anyone. Including the FAA. So now we trust that same company to make the plane safe. Why?
  - adamredwoods 6y ago
    I never knew, thanks for the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
  - foldr 6y ago
    To be fair, it makes sense that the AOA indicator/disagree features were optional since airliners generally don't have AOI indicators in the cockpit and airline pilots generally aren't trained to use AOA information. These features were targeted at airlines who have lots of ex-military pilots. Their potential safety significance is probably more obvious in retrospect.
- canada_dry 6y ago
  I believe the FAA should have insisted that the MAX get several hundred hours in the air - e.g. flying for courier companies over Christmas peak - BEFORE recertifying it for public use.
Havoc 6y ago
Don’t care. Show me real movement on the corporate mindset. The plane is a STEM engineer fixable issue. The corporate mess that pushed this across flying clearance is not. I’ll aim to fly airbus until Boeing understands that difference and fixes the root cause.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ipnon 6y ago
  Airbus aircraft are generally smoother and quieter rides in my experience.
  - nerdbaggy 6y ago
    Airbus older planes have their own problem of fume events causing all sorts of serious sicknesses http://avherald.com/h?search_term=Fume+event&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 http://avherald.com/h?search_term=Fume+event&opt=0&dosearch=...
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Funny, because I have had the opposite experience.
    - dotancohen 6y ago
      I don't know why this is downvoted. I happen to love flying on Boeings, especially the 747. I think that Boeings typically have a higher wing loading than Airbusses, which might be noisier but does handle turbulence better.
  - tluyben2 6y ago
    Same experience. When I was flying bi-weekly, I made sure most international flights were with Finnair because no Boeings there, for that reason. Mostly everything was worse on Boeings (most experience is with BA; 100s of flights). But the sound was the worst. Maybe this is how the planes are kitted out by the carrier and I had bad luck in that regard?
p1mrx 6y ago
Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.
- dhritzkiv 6y ago
  Patch notes: - bug fixes and general improvements
  - hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
    - reduced changes of uncontrollably flying into the ground at users' request
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    - Corrected stability issues experienced by a small number of users.
  - jahlove 6y ago
    I Lol'd
  - oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
    - updated locales
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gsnedders 6y ago
  At least insofar as the US is concerned (and note many other regulating bodies are writing their own ADs, certifying the aircraft themselves), the FAA AD is https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/fb91abc41ef06432862586260051e5df/$FILE/2020-24-02.pdf https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf..., where the actual changes operators are required to make start on page 45.
  - 6y ago
kerng 6y ago
Curious, I never want to fly in one of these. How can one achieve that in a realistic way? Let's say airline changes plane after I booked, then I wouldnt get a refund. Is there a solution to this?
- hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
  It's usually stated when you browse flights, but obviously planes can be substituted before you fly. You can take your chances. The best plan would be to avoid airlines that own the plane, but that will be impractical for most. Even then you might be re-routed onto another airline or third party plane.
- robjan 6y ago
  The only way is to book on an airline who doesn't have the MAX, doesn't have them on order and has no history of wetleasing. Alternatively you can fly only on routes where the MAX is unsuitable i.e. longhaul.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alkonaut 6y ago
  Fly Airbus-only airlines (Which can mean having to drive or take the train if you are at an airport where only one or two airlines operate such as for example most domestic airports in Norway). You will never be able to get a refund for plane changes. Even airlines with no MAX aircraft of their own could operate your flight with a MAX if they use code share or wet lease. So while you can make your risk small, you can never be sure, without accepting that you may need to turn back at the gate. But on the other hand I assume you'll be OK with flying it once it has flown for a number of million miles in a few years from now. After all, the airlines that operate non-MAX 737's for the equivalent flights will be flying older and older craft.
ulfw 6y ago
Such stupid PR. What was the point? Prove that NOT EVERY SINGLE 737MAX FLIGHT ends in death? I mean come on. Of course it won't. It didn't before the long recertification process started either. What about every 10 or 100,000th flight though? They gonna do PR stunts for that long?
ngcc_hk 6y ago
Would not fly that if I have a choice.
brundolf 6y ago
And I bet the pilots for this flight were given a fully detailed manual to read.
medecau 6y ago
Some will want to avoid flying this aircraft model. Here are some variants > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Variants And here are some operators > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators
- mlindner 6y ago
  Please don't fearmonger.
- spoopyskelly 6y ago
  Avoid flying it in third world countries. Otherwise you'll be fine with competent pilots.
- smarx007 6y ago
  I guess one would be able to check via an app like seatguru.com instead of perusing a long list on wikipedia. I also think someone would make an along the lines 737-Max-or-not if Boeing tries too hard with the renames.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  I saw a really good take on this last time this subject came up here, that at this point this airframe is probably the most heavily scrutinized to ever exist
hu3 6y ago
Do they still have the oversized new engines on an old frame design requiring software aid (MCAS) to mitigate problems at high angles of attack?
- mlindner 6y ago
  The aircraft didn't crash because of oversized engines. It crashed because MCAS was poorly implemented. A properly implemented MCAS system and there is no problem with the aircraft.
  - hu3 6y ago
    I think my comment agrees with that? I was curious on the solution. Thanks for answering.
  - ChicagoBoy11 6y ago
    I would respectfully disagree. The reason for MCAS existing in the first place is, without it, the flight characteristics of the plane are quite a departure from the standard 737 and can be rather unstable. And the only reason Boeing did that was to circumvent some regulatory restrictions around airframe certification and pilot training. So, you're right in the sense that the MCAS was poorly implemented, but it was only required in the first place because of the abnormally sized engine. Well, not so much the size but the increased size with the same airframe caused it to be moved to a different part of the aircraft.
marcusfrex 6y ago
No matter what i will not step into any 737 Max crap until it reaches at least 10 years of stability.
Nginx487 6y ago
Anti-stalling software system was an artificial patch of an outdated planer, which could not cope with changes in aerodynamics with new engines. Boeing basically made a terribly unsafe plane and put a watchdog to prevent it from crashing too often to make it embarrassing. I will refuse flying 737 MAX even if they implement 100 watchdogs and give every passenger a parachute. Such an outrageous contempt to human's life out of corporate greed could not be justified.
bambax 6y ago
> In another display of confidence, European budget airline Ryanair was set to place a hefty order for up to 75 additional 737 MAX jets, industry sources said. If one needed another reason not to fly Ryannair, here it is.
- de_Selby 6y ago
  I believe they had an order in place already, but I bet they've negotiated a big discount on it now. I think people will fly on the MAX (or 737-8 as it's going to be badged) after a year or two assuming there are no more accidents. Cheaper long haul flights is too tempting. Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer than 1/2hrs.
  - varispeed 6y ago
    Some people also have no choice because of their financial situation. How many people drive in cars that are not road worthy? I can imagine the anxiety going through those souls who have to use Ryanair.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    > Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer than 1/2hrs. I've never noticed that, and it doesn't really make sense as it costs fuel to heat up the cabin. Are you making that up?
    - de_Selby 6y ago
      Not "making it up", I am basing it on every Ryanair flight I've been on.
aviat 6y ago
Curious about the engineering of the 737 Max compared to NG, Where can I find info about the differences and improvements in terms of aerodynamics, structures, materials and systems? For example, Does the Max have a composite wing box? What percentage of the Max is composite, compared to the NG? Do the wings use the same airfoil section? Have they been re-lofted, re-twisted? Are there any changes to the high life devices? Have there been any changes to the materials, gauge, design for the fuselage?

105 points by quickthrower2 6y ago

In a weird way, having the Max grounded during 2020 turned out to be lucky timing on Boeing's part. The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Now hopefully they actually did get their shit together.

jimbob45 6y ago
I think I disagree. If they’d taken the time to scrap the 737 Max and move to a new design, they’d have had the time and the public would have eaten the new product up. Instead, they doubled down and are now going to try to have to sell a product that many will refuse to ever fly on, myself included.
- 8ytecoder 6y ago
  There are enough people who have no idea what a 737 Max is. I'm sure there would be enough flights and associated data before I have to fly again.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  The original 737 had some early issues also. Tail rudder problems that resulted in crashes is one that comes to mind. They were fixed and now nobody thinks twice about flying them and their long-term safety record is excellent.
  - kayodelycaon 6y ago
    Tail rudder problems is putting it mildly. There was malfunction with a valve that would cause the rudder to move in the opposite direction of the control inputs.
    - cdolan 6y ago
      Correct. Flight 427 to Pittsburgh. My wife’s father was on the flight. The tail’s controls inverted in freezing temperatures.
      - sillysaurusx 6y ago
        Wait, what? Anyone have any more info on this? It seems completely insane for flight control inputs to invert themselves, but only in certain temperatures. I'd love to see the incident report on that... EDIT: Ah: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427 I'm so sorry that happened to your wife's father. The accident report is here: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9901.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... Section 2.7.2 is interesting: 2.7.2 Unusual Attitude Training for Boeing 737 Pilots At the time of the USAir flight 427 accident, no air carrier training programs were specifically aimed at training 737 pilots to recognize and address a rudder jam or reversal. The guidance available at that time from Boeing advised pilots, as a first consideration, to maintain or regain full control of the airplane. Specifically, the guidance advised pilots to counter unwanted roll tendencies from a malfunctioning rudder with the application of up to full aileron control inputs. However, the guidance did not advise pilots that, at some airspeeds, an uncommanded full rudder input could not be successfully opposed by full wheel (aileron and spoiler) inputs and that a reduction in the airplane’s angle-of-attack could improve the effectiveness of the roll controls relative to the effectiveness of the rudder. Boeing’s guidance for relieving a jammed rudder informed pilots only that they should use maximum force to overpower the jam and specifically warned pilots against turning off flight control switches “unless the faulty control was positively identified.” No additional guidance was provided about the effects of flight control switch selections on rudder jam conditions.
        cdolan 6y ago
        If I start reading I go for hours haha. Am I correct that it inverted/reversed?
        6y ago
  - bigbob2 6y ago
    In that case maybe I'll give it 50 years to develop the same safety record.
  - Analemma_ 6y ago
    The original 737 wasn't broken-by-design in the way the Max is. The Max _requires_ software kludges to paper over its deliberate mistakes; that's very different from just having a few bugs to work out in a fundamentally sound design.
    - HPsquared 6y ago
      This is a bit of an urban myth that keeps flying around. The plane is perfectly stable without MCAS, but would have had different handling characteristics than the previous version. The purpose of MCAS was to modify the handling to match the previous plane, so pilots' type ratings would carry over with minimal retraining. At its heart, it was a (poorly implemented) kludge in an attempt to sidestep a lot of paperwork.
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        You're mostly right, but it wasn't just to make it handle like the previous versions, it was to satisfy FAA certification rules on how it handled.
        cjbprime 6y ago
        This is my understanding too, though Boeing hasn't really come out and said it definitively. Specifically: > MCAS was devised to fulfill an airworthiness certification condition in 14 CFR 25.173 and 14 CFR 25.175. In high angle-of-attack (AoA) flight configuration, it is required that stick force/g (the stick force necessary to produce (hold) an incremental normal acceleration of 1g) and stick movement/g (ditto mutatis mutandis) must increase (or at least not decrease) with an increase in AoA (thanks to Clive Leyman for this formulation). I understand that in flight test, in which “wind-up turns” were conducted (a turn with increasing angle of bank; an increasing angle of bank means ceteris paribus increasing AoA), this condition was not fulfilled. -- https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-spectrum-on-possible-software-involvement-in-two-recent-airliner-crashes/ https://abnormaldistribution.org/index.php/2019/04/30/ieee-s...
        Stierlitz 6y ago
  - salawat 6y ago
    The issue isn't a really a physical one in principle here. It's an issue of corporate accountability. You had corners cut to deliver a product that ended up killing people. There is no real room for doubt in that just from the material we have available. So, what? What happens? What should happen? Everything go back to "normal"? Let the same people who ran things continue to profit off their wrongdoing? Accept that as long as you're one of only two rides in town that you have the security to deliver and recover from delivering a lethal product? That's the issue. That's the reality we're taking out of this. It isn't even self-regulating anymore. There is no bankruptcy, no hammer, no reallocation of assets to those that can wield them more responsibly, no reset. Just a token gesture. The same Goliath just shrugs and moves on. While I get that might be tenable or desirable to some, I'm not one of them. Realistic risk of falling flat on your face, being held to account, and not being able to just shrug it off and keep going keeps you honest. Once you lose that, "What's a life here and there? Doesn't bother me. Can't make an onelette without cracking a few eggs." The economy is not an omelette, and people are not eggs. Either we serve it, or it serves us. I know which side of that assertion I'm on.
    - skybrian 6y ago
      The CEO resigned, so it's questionable whether there are the same people running things. How much other management changed?
      - windthrown 6y ago
        The replacement CEO was previously the chairman of the board. So while they did change personnel, I am skeptical about how different their actual management practices are.
    - pdonis 6y ago
      What alternative would you propose? You can't just remove Boeing as a company: they have tens of thousands of existing aircraft in the field that need to be maintained, and a large number of people who were not at fault in all of this whose jobs would be eliminated. So how do you hold the proper people accountable without doing so much collateral damage that the cost of that outweighs the benefits? Also, responsibility doesn't just like with Boeing; the FAA certified the 737 MAX, and the rules that allowed that to happen were written by lawmakers and bureaucrats over a period of decades. How do you hold all of them accountable? Many, if not most, of those people aren't even actively working any more.
- selectodude 6y ago
  A new plane design takes years from inception to first revenue flight. Early development of the 787 started in 2003, first revenue flight wasn't until 2011. And then we all remember when it spent a couple months grounded in 2013.
- _ph_ 6y ago
  Considering that a new design would take like 10 years to get into production, how would that have been an immediate solution for Boeing? They need to be able to sell more 737 until a new design is ready, and no one wants that to be rushed. While I didn't hear anyting about a new design, I sincerely hope they are at it already though.
  - brianwawok 6y ago
    Can they not make more of the previous design? Or is 100% of production capacity 737 max
    - topspin 6y ago
      > Can they not make more of the previous design? MAX exists as a response to competition. One may assume the previous design is no longer competitive. And no, the body count isn't being considered; fuel efficiency, capacity and leveraging existing training are among the considerations.
    - _ph_ 6y ago
      I don't think previous iterations of the 737 were fundamentally safer. As there were probably other changes done to the 737 Max beyond the different engines, like improving the overall build, I do think that the fixed 737 Max should be safer than any other 737. The issue with the Max was, that a software, which should improve the handling in extreme situations, kicked in in normal conditions and the pilots failed to handle this (runaway stabilizer procedure). And indeed, the software for the MCAS was really badly designed, which has been fixed now and by now every 737 pilot should be aware how the two crashes could have been prevented by the right crew reaction. Both of this should mean that these accidents won't happen again.
      - l33tman 6y ago
        That's true but the lingering issue is that if Boeing and the FAA collaborated in pushing the broken design through certification, how many other issues can and will they cover up that the pilots don't know about? I think most want this systematic problem to get fixed as well, the MCAS at this point is as you say hopefully solved..
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Most people don't know what manufacturer of the aircraft they are flying in, let alone the specific model. I haven't flown in quite a while, but when I did I didn't research what model aircraft I was flying in. I doubt more than a small handful of people do.
  - awslattery 6y ago
    Plenty of airlines list it at time of booking, and is often accessible alongside digital boarding passes. I specifically chose a return option from Japan last year because it was on a 787.
- zhte415 6y ago
  Yes. Taking a 10-15 year timeframe from Boeing publicly signalling intention in 2011 that would mean the new aircraft would have gone to market in early to mid 2020s. Perhaps no one in sufficient interests in Boeing read Irrational Exuberance [1] which covered in a decent amount of detail about downturns +/- 2 years of every decade, always the same root cause if different symptoms. Or perhaps they did but were 'maximising shareholder value' (with a 3 month window on the share price) and didn't care - "this time it's different" after all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_Exuberance_(book)
- myrandomcomment 6y ago
  Why? It's now one of the most tested planes in the sky from a review standpoint?
- greeneggs 6y ago
  Given Boeing's recent problems, I would be much happier on an old design that has been well tested, than on a brand-new design.
  - landemva 6y ago
    They crammed big engines under the wings in a way that it could really need a new air type certification. This is more like a new plane, with the baggage of the old 737 and without the certification testing for a new plane. Yes it can fly, but it's pushing the boundaries of safety.
- tourdownunder 6y ago
  It would have been a great time for pilots to be training on the the 737 Max as a different aircraft. The mistake with the 737 Max is that it is a simulator for pilots flying like it was a regular 737. The selling point to not have to train the pilots was the big mistake with the design.
  - BillinghamJ 6y ago
    That intention led to choices in the physical design which are less safe than they otherwise would have been. So although giving dedicated training presumably would be better than nothing, that doesn't absolve this aircraft of the significant concerns about its fundamental suitability due to the decision making approach
cj 6y ago
Not just timing, but COVID is a great diversion from the safety issue entirely (in the eyes of the public) Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash".
- cupofcoffee 6y ago
  >Anyone walking onto an aircraft today is thinking "I hope I don't get a virus" instead of "I hope my plane doesn't crash". Why would you think that?
pengaru 6y ago
COVID has been a godsend to many struggling or otherwise unstable businesses. Recent example I've had to deal with: Morgan Stanley's acquisition of E-Trade has completely wrecked their customer service experience. Live chat wait times are 2+ hours, getting a secure message response takes 5 days now. Their web site is covered with COVID-19 disclaimers for all the trouble, with a minor blurb about "operational shift". As they say; Never let a good crisis go to waste.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  COVID is the new 9/11. You could blame anything on 9/11... "Wifi is down, due to 9/11"
  - ChrisRR 6y ago
    I've seen people blame practically everything about the PS5 launch on covid "No stock? Must be covid causing manufacturing issues." What? You don't know the sales figures at all and you're making wild assumptions
frogblast 6y ago
Covid’s timing was devastating for Boeing and the 737 Max. When the planes were grounded, Boeing kept producing them assuming the issue would be resolved quickly. As of January 2020, slightly before Covid, they had 400 planes built, but not delivered to customers (and so customers haven’t paid for them). Boeing was funding these aircraft with debt. All of a sudden, demand for air travel drops off a cliff. All those airlines now decide “I’m just not going to take delivery of those aircraft”. Which also means “I’m not going to pay for them”. Had the timing gone in the other order, all of those aircraft would have been delivered, and paid for, and airlines would have been holding the bag. (and the covid crisis would have limited the damages airlines could claim, and thus demand from Boeing, if they could meet their reduced schedules with other aircraft).
- FeistyOtter 6y ago
  Can an airline really refuse an aircraft without wasting some significant amount of money? I assume the airline or leasing company start paying from the moment they place an order all the way through construction, finished by a final payment at the moment of acceptance? When one orders a building company to build a house, you are given a payment schedule, I assume it is the same with airplanes.
  - corty 6y ago
    Airlines on the brink of bancruptcy have to refuse such orders, even if it only saves small amounts of money. And due to Corona, virtually every airline is in financially troubled waters.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    Airliners are paid over a period yes, from the contract signature to several months after delivery. But the biggest chunk of cash changes hands at delivery.
- danielfoster 6y ago
  This is true. I at least hope Boeing was able to reduce the compensation it will pay to airlines. There’s no lost income for airlines if there’s no demand for travel! Low oil prices have also not helped the situation. Airlines need fuel efficient aircraft less than ever right now.
dotancohen 6y ago
> The airlines slowdown due to COVID likely gave them some > serious breathing room while they got their shit together. Though I agree with you, Boeing could have really used the time to properly train 737 type pilots on the MCAS-specific issues. But the whole purpose of MCAS was to not retrain pilots, so instead of those pilot spending the past half year training on the new system, they spent the past half year mostly grounded.
- kayfox 6y ago
  Training pilots before a training program is approved is kinda like throwing money into a fire. They would still have to turn around and train them again with the approved training. Also, being has little to do with the actual decisions on what and how to train pilots not employed by them, the airlines develop training programs that are approved by the FAA and operated with FAA oversight.
ThinkBeat 6y ago
Boeing is stuck with a enormous amount of completes airplanes That nobody wants or can afford. A lot (maybe most) airlines are struggling to survive with the impact of the pandemic on travel. A lot of banks that have lent money to airlines have their security in part in the airplanes. Some countries are pumping money into particular airlines to try to keep them from bankruptcy As more and more airlines news to shed aircraft and employees the market is or will be flooded with used aircraft. Possibly some can be considered converted for freight if the market stays strong there https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremybogaisky/2019/07/25/see-the-boeing-737-max-pile-up-in-storage-in-these-time-lapse-satellite-images/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jeremyboga... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-737-max-cancellations-continue-as-airline-downturn-shuts-off-jet-orders/%3famp=1 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/b...
yread 6y ago
MAX is a lot more efficient than the old NGs or classics (and can also do routes of 757s or 767s if they are thin enough). In a time of reduced demand airlines would prefer to park their more fuel-hungry planes and use the more efficient ones. But they can't because it's grounded. And now there are airlines failing left and right with their planes going on the second hand market, back to lessors or are gutted for parts. That's depressing the price of airplanes and spare parts. That can't be good for Boeing either. Would you buy a 15% more efficient car for twice as much?

glaucon 6y ago

"In another display of confidence, European budget airline Ryanair was set to place a hefty order for up to 75 additional 737 MAX jets, industry sources said." A Ryanair spokesperson said "It's the first time we've ever been offered a discount in excess of 100%"

throwaway4good 6y ago
Discount in excess of 100%? So they were paid to brake them? Makes sense for Ryan to start doing negative prices for their flights. Making profit on the bus fare into city and baggage fees.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  That quote wasn't in the article... I suspect OP was joking, but even if they had been given a massive discount, I'm sure the contract prevents them from telling anyone else the terms...
  - ludamad 6y ago
    The joke is just a little too subtle if so lol (though perhaps how it ought to be), seen some really weird arrangements during this year
    - throwaway4good 6y ago
      The oil price can go negative then why not this. The planes are just a cost for Boeing once they are built and they obviously need to them in the air to convince everyone that they are safe and ok to buy.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 6y ago
Ryanair were notable for also placing a large order for the 737 NG in January 2002, which was rumoured to be in excess of 50% of list price, as Boeing had struggled to make any sales and was having lay-offs.

fred_is_fred 6y ago

Given the recent news about delivery services (UPS, Fedex, Amazon) having constraints on capacity this would be a great time for them to invest in some planes. I assume Boeing is desperate to sell these. Or is there something about these planes that makes them unsuitable.

throwaway201103 6y ago
I think they are impractical as freighters. They are narrow bodies and won't hold standard freight containers.
- mulmen 6y ago
  The economics are obviously different from a 747 or 767 but Boeing sells (converted) 737s as freighters [1]. Alaska Airlines also operates some combined passenger/freight 737s on routes in Alaska that can't fill a 737 entirely with either. Admittedly neither of these are MAX variants but the potential seems to be there. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Boeing_Converted_Freighter_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Boeing_Converted_Fr...
aphextron 6y ago
>I assume Boeing is desperate to sell these. Or is there something about these planes that makes them unsuitable. It's not like Boeing has a warehouse of 737-MAX's sitting around. They are ordered and delivered as they are finished.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Boeing has a years long backlog of orders. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-wins-zero-new-orders-delivers-few-jets-and-loses-more-737-maxs/#:~:text=So%20far%20this%20year%2C%20Boeing,A320neo%20family%20is%205%2C956%20jets https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein....
  - fred_is_fred 6y ago

DevX101 6y ago

I recently had the frivolous idea of creating a flight search engine for flights that DID NOT use the 737 Max. Any actual interest in this?

Xenoamorphous 6y ago
Are airlines even obliged to disclose the type of plane? One of them even changed the type of plane and destination airport (same city though) for one of my flights.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I don't think they're obligated, but Delta does provide that information currently.
  - hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
    Probably because they have none of these planes and no plans to add them.
    - chrisdhal 6y ago
      Delta has had it for years though, way before the Max issue came up. When you book a flight it's right there and tells you what model you're getting, which is needed since you can select seats ahead of time. Admittedly, there are times it gets changed at the last minute for whatever reason, but when you book you see what you're getting, and have for years.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I don't think they're obligated, but many airlines do. Changes do happen, though, so the plane listed at booking may not be the plane you fly on.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Isn't at least the system for past flights public? Flightradar24 has the information: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/aa9750/#26332420

yyy888sss 6y ago

Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737. Presumably future engines will be bigger still, will they just tack them onto this old design as well? At the end of the day this is just a software fix.

Closi 6y ago
At this point they are in a corner, and from a corporate standpoint need this to compete with Airbus. The length of developing a fully new aircraft is too long considering the competition, assuming you aren’t particularly passionate about safety.
londons_explore 6y ago
> Maybe they should have bit the bullet and fully redesigned the 737. If I were the EU regulator, I would have forced them to... It's a great way to screw over Boeing (American) and boost sales for Airbus (EU), while having the fairly legit rationale that you no longer have confidence in the US regulator due to a long series of blunders, and you are not happy for a major new plane design to use a decades old type rating (and is therefore missing now-mandatory safety stuff).
- Cojen 6y ago
  Such a decision would also screw over EU airlines that still depend heavily on Boeing.
- chki 6y ago
  Doing that would mean acting in bad faith (obviously) but also breaking WTO Rules, i.e. international law, which can come with a big price tag if your caught (potentially unlikely in such a scenario and depends on the WTO being accepted by the US, which is also not very likely). That is on top of being sued by Boeing in Court for wrongfully denying the recertification. So I'm not sure whether that would really be a consideration.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago

salawat 6y ago

Problem will not be resolved for me until indications of real cultural shift happen in a direction where safety and Quality take some level of priority over brute fiscal efficiency. Aerospace should be a cost-sink first, a financial growth engine second. Often, a cost-sink is actually both at the same time with the growth in industry around them that new, costly, realistically risky work creates. Whereas optimizing for the second metric at all costs tends to only benefit the undertaker, investigative agencies, and the lawyers.

xiphias2 6y ago
For me having good statistics is good enough. The question is how many flights are necessary for 737 Max 8 to overcome the bad start in its statistic. It needs to go back to 0.2 per million flights, which needs about 10 million flights more to prove itself (taking about 5-10 years maybe)

blackrock 6y ago

What did they do to fix it?

wil421 6y ago
Gave the interns a summer project.

NikolaeVarius 6y ago

I love how hard parts of HN falls into the never 737 hysteria, even though its less probable than dying from the nearest sharp object.

xiphias2 6y ago
,,The global fleet of nearly 400 737 MAXs flew 500,000 flights from March 2017 to March 2019, and experienced two fatal accidents for an accident rate of four per million flights when it was grounded. The previous generations of the Boeing 737 averaged 0.2 accidents per million flights.[180]'' - from Wikipedia
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  As it turns out, when you have a smaller set of results to work with, every point of data has outsized effect. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a310.htm http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/a310.htm The airbus A310 had 1.35 accidents per million flights, and for some reason people still fly in it
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    Consider two models of car. One was sold in large numbers in the early 90s and has proven exceptionally reliable, but obviously it's built to early 90s safety standards, and has been involved in a huge number of fatal accidents with various causes ranging from operator error to scattered manufacturing defects. However, no serious design issues ever surfaced. The second is a 2020 model, equipped with state of the art safety features. However, its fatal accident rate is the same as the other model (though the absolute number is much smaller), and nearly every single such accident happened in the exact same way: the driver assist system, which cannot be turned off, has a nasty habit of overpowering the driver and steering into oncoming traffic. The NHTSA investigation reveals that this system was implemented hastily, using outsourced labor and cheap non-redundant components, so that the manufacturer could qualify for a tax credit. Specific concerns regarding the implementation were raised by engineers but overruled by management. I'll take option A, thanks.
6y ago

pcurve 6y ago

Chances are, these will be safe. Because one more crash even remotely related, would spell complete doom for Boeing. No recovering that one, ever.

outworlder 6y ago
The DC-10 recovered. It was grounded, returned to service, crashed again. Eventually, it became safe. And eventually the public forgot about the issues. The bigger problem is that you have a company that decided that a single sensor driving a safety-critical system was sufficient, even though they have two (and even that is not enough, such systems should have three). For a new system that was introduced and not explained to pilots, because that was the goal. It even made the "AOA disagree" warning _an optional feature_. Or, more specifically, it made the AOA indicator an optional feature, and the AOA disagree feature was tied to that. They knew about it, but didn't inform anyone. Including the FAA. So now we trust that same company to make the plane safe. Why?
- adamredwoods 6y ago
  I never knew, thanks for the information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_191
- foldr 6y ago
  To be fair, it makes sense that the AOA indicator/disagree features were optional since airliners generally don't have AOI indicators in the cockpit and airline pilots generally aren't trained to use AOA information. These features were targeted at airlines who have lots of ex-military pilots. Their potential safety significance is probably more obvious in retrospect.
canada_dry 6y ago
I believe the FAA should have insisted that the MAX get several hundred hours in the air - e.g. flying for courier companies over Christmas peak - BEFORE recertifying it for public use.

Havoc 6y ago

Don’t care. Show me real movement on the corporate mindset. The plane is a STEM engineer fixable issue. The corporate mess that pushed this across flying clearance is not. I’ll aim to fly airbus until Boeing understands that difference and fixes the root cause.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ipnon 6y ago
Airbus aircraft are generally smoother and quieter rides in my experience.
- nerdbaggy 6y ago
  Airbus older planes have their own problem of fume events causing all sorts of serious sicknesses http://avherald.com/h?search_term=Fume+event&opt=0&dosearch=1&search.x=0&search.y=0 http://avherald.com/h?search_term=Fume+event&opt=0&dosearch=...
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Funny, because I have had the opposite experience.
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    I don't know why this is downvoted. I happen to love flying on Boeings, especially the 747. I think that Boeings typically have a higher wing loading than Airbusses, which might be noisier but does handle turbulence better.
- tluyben2 6y ago
  Same experience. When I was flying bi-weekly, I made sure most international flights were with Finnair because no Boeings there, for that reason. Mostly everything was worse on Boeings (most experience is with BA; 100s of flights). But the sound was the worst. Maybe this is how the planes are kitted out by the carrier and I had bad luck in that regard?

p1mrx 6y ago

Why do these articles say so little about how Boeing fixed the problem? People are more likely to fly on these if they know what's different from the ones that crashed.

dhritzkiv 6y ago
Patch notes: - bug fixes and general improvements
- hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
  - reduced changes of uncontrollably flying into the ground at users' request
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  - Corrected stability issues experienced by a small number of users.
- jahlove 6y ago
  I Lol'd
- oehtXRwMkIs 6y ago
  - updated locales
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 6y ago
At least insofar as the US is concerned (and note many other regulating bodies are writing their own ADs, certifying the aircraft themselves), the FAA AD is https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/fb91abc41ef06432862586260051e5df/$FILE/2020-24-02.pdf https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf..., where the actual changes operators are required to make start on page 45.
- 6y ago

kerng 6y ago

Curious, I never want to fly in one of these. How can one achieve that in a realistic way? Let's say airline changes plane after I booked, then I wouldnt get a refund. Is there a solution to this?

hehetrthrthrjn 6y ago
It's usually stated when you browse flights, but obviously planes can be substituted before you fly. You can take your chances. The best plan would be to avoid airlines that own the plane, but that will be impractical for most. Even then you might be re-routed onto another airline or third party plane.
robjan 6y ago
The only way is to book on an airline who doesn't have the MAX, doesn't have them on order and has no history of wetleasing. Alternatively you can fly only on routes where the MAX is unsuitable i.e. longhaul.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alkonaut 6y ago
Fly Airbus-only airlines (Which can mean having to drive or take the train if you are at an airport where only one or two airlines operate such as for example most domestic airports in Norway). You will never be able to get a refund for plane changes. Even airlines with no MAX aircraft of their own could operate your flight with a MAX if they use code share or wet lease. So while you can make your risk small, you can never be sure, without accepting that you may need to turn back at the gate. But on the other hand I assume you'll be OK with flying it once it has flown for a number of million miles in a few years from now. After all, the airlines that operate non-MAX 737's for the equivalent flights will be flying older and older craft.

ulfw 6y ago

Such stupid PR. What was the point? Prove that NOT EVERY SINGLE 737MAX FLIGHT ends in death? I mean come on. Of course it won't. It didn't before the long recertification process started either. What about every 10 or 100,000th flight though? They gonna do PR stunts for that long?

ngcc_hk 6y ago

Would not fly that if I have a choice.

brundolf 6y ago

And I bet the pilots for this flight were given a fully detailed manual to read.

medecau 6y ago

Some will want to avoid flying this aircraft model. Here are some variants > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Variants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Variants And here are some operators > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Boeing_737_operators

mlindner 6y ago
Please don't fearmonger.
spoopyskelly 6y ago
Avoid flying it in third world countries. Otherwise you'll be fine with competent pilots.
smarx007 6y ago
I guess one would be able to check via an app like seatguru.com instead of perusing a long list on wikipedia. I also think someone would make an along the lines 737-Max-or-not if Boeing tries too hard with the renames.
thatguy0900 6y ago
I saw a really good take on this last time this subject came up here, that at this point this airframe is probably the most heavily scrutinized to ever exist

hu3 6y ago

Do they still have the oversized new engines on an old frame design requiring software aid (MCAS) to mitigate problems at high angles of attack?

mlindner 6y ago
The aircraft didn't crash because of oversized engines. It crashed because MCAS was poorly implemented. A properly implemented MCAS system and there is no problem with the aircraft.
- hu3 6y ago
  I think my comment agrees with that? I was curious on the solution. Thanks for answering.
- ChicagoBoy11 6y ago
  I would respectfully disagree. The reason for MCAS existing in the first place is, without it, the flight characteristics of the plane are quite a departure from the standard 737 and can be rather unstable. And the only reason Boeing did that was to circumvent some regulatory restrictions around airframe certification and pilot training. So, you're right in the sense that the MCAS was poorly implemented, but it was only required in the first place because of the abnormally sized engine. Well, not so much the size but the increased size with the same airframe caused it to be moved to a different part of the aircraft.

marcusfrex 6y ago

No matter what i will not step into any 737 Max crap until it reaches at least 10 years of stability.

Nginx487 6y ago

Anti-stalling software system was an artificial patch of an outdated planer, which could not cope with changes in aerodynamics with new engines. Boeing basically made a terribly unsafe plane and put a watchdog to prevent it from crashing too often to make it embarrassing. I will refuse flying 737 MAX even if they implement 100 watchdogs and give every passenger a parachute. Such an outrageous contempt to human's life out of corporate greed could not be justified.

bambax 6y ago

> In another display of confidence, European budget airline Ryanair was set to place a hefty order for up to 75 additional 737 MAX jets, industry sources said. If one needed another reason not to fly Ryannair, here it is.

de_Selby 6y ago
I believe they had an order in place already, but I bet they've negotiated a big discount on it now. I think people will fly on the MAX (or 737-8 as it's going to be badged) after a year or two assuming there are no more accidents. Cheaper long haul flights is too tempting. Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer than 1/2hrs.
- varispeed 6y ago
  Some people also have no choice because of their financial situation. How many people drive in cars that are not road worthy? I can imagine the anxiety going through those souls who have to use Ryanair.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  > Though I don't think I'd like to be stuck in a Ryanair plane with the temperature notched all the way up so the passengers buy drinks for longer than 1/2hrs. I've never noticed that, and it doesn't really make sense as it costs fuel to heat up the cabin. Are you making that up?
  - de_Selby 6y ago
    Not "making it up", I am basing it on every Ryanair flight I've been on.

aviat 6y ago

Curious about the engineering of the 737 Max compared to NG, Where can I find info about the differences and improvements in terms of aerodynamics, structures, materials and systems? For example, Does the Max have a composite wing box? What percentage of the Max is composite, compared to the NG? Do the wings use the same airfoil section? Have they been re-lofted, re-twisted? Are there any changes to the high life devices? Have there been any changes to the materials, gauge, design for the fuselage?