4 ms·

Gol rebranded the 737-MAX to 737-8 not to be confused with 737-800 which is part of the 737-NG percursor to the MAX. Not confusing at all. Arguably this confus

by dudus 6y ago

Gol rebranded the 737-MAX to 737-8 not to be confused with 737-800 which is part of the 737-NG percursor to the MAX. Not confusing at all. Arguably this confusion is meant to undermine the consumer choice of aircraft during the purchase. GOL has heavy competition from LATAM, AZUL and AVIANCA on most of their routes, and none of these companies are using the 737-MAX AFAIK.

HappySweeney 6y ago
The solution is readily apparent: treat all Boeing aircraft as if they are rebranded 737-MAX. Also, I don't find your second paragraph arguable. The model numbers on these planes are not determined by lottery, or for fun. Their marketing departments agonize over every detail for months; they know exactly what they are doing.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years.
  - HappySweeney 6y ago
    Their amazing, awe-inspiring history should not be employed to shield management from the consequences of playing fast-and-loose with passenger safety.
  - na85 6y ago
    >Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years. Yes it should. This is airworthiness; this stuff has to work. You don't give someone a pass on safety-critical stuff because "they usually do a good job". The company's past processes are irrelevant because it's their current corpus of airworthiness procedures that affects the continued airworthiness of their products that are still flying today. The company has demonstrated a serious problem and until it has demonstrated sufficient corrective actions taken to correct the problems observed then everything the company touches should be considered suspect. The fact that Boeing also made B-29s 70 years ago means exactly nothing except for PR purposes or to fanboys. Boeing has no doubt made some changes, but I'll reserve judgment as to whether or not those changes are sufficient because I don't work for a Regulator and don't have the complete picture.
  - dudus 6y ago
    If in the past few years they have shown systemic quality problems and disregard for safety standards it undermines all their history.
verhey 6y ago
https://www.voegol.com.br/en/gol/our-fleet https://www.voegol.com.br/en/gol/our-fleet Did they? I still see a lot of references to the MAX 8 on their fleet page, notably separate from their 737-800 fleet.
- dyingkneepad 6y ago
  What's interesting is that in the Portuguese page it's just "Boeing 737 MAX": https://www.voegol.com.br/pt/a-gol/nossa-frota https://www.voegol.com.br/pt/a-gol/nossa-frota
- dudus 6y ago
  Maybe it's not apparent on their websites yet. But expect to see all mention of MAX replaced with -8 Reference: https://www.aeroin.net/gol-muda-nome-boeing-737-max-8-para-737-8/ https://www.aeroin.net/gol-muda-nome-boeing-737-max-8-para-7...
toast0 6y ago
Renaming the aircraft to avoid the reputation is scummy and predictable, but aircraft scheduling being what it is, if your chosen airline flies 737-MAX, and your flight's distance is within the 737-MAX capabilities, there's no way to know if you'll be on a 737-MAX until boarding. The 737 in general is very compatible with commercial airports, so there's probably not a lot of scheduldd routes 737-MAX can't service because it's too big. If you have a preference to avoid this aircraft, you need to book flights on airlines that don't have any, or that are too long for it, or be prepared to abandon your ticket at boarding.
kayfox 6y ago
The 737 MAX 8 has always been _legally_ the 737-8. Most of the airlines calling it the 737-8 did so before the grounding.
- dudus 6y ago
  "Boeing appears to have started quietly dropping the “Max” from its 737 Max aircraft in the wake of recent air disasters, instead referring to a 737-8. The new name has hitherto been used only internally at Boeing and emerged when the company put out a statement on Wednesday to announce it had won its first order for the grounded 737 Max aircraft this year. " Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-...
raverbashing 6y ago
Avianca Brazil is no more. Latam and Azul are Joint-venturing on flights during the pandemic. And calling the variants -7/-8/-9 kinda makes sense (MAX 7/MAX 8/MAX 9 are more "official").

by dudus 6y ago

HappySweeney 6y ago

The solution is readily apparent: treat all Boeing aircraft as if they are rebranded 737-MAX. Also, I don't find your second paragraph arguable. The model numbers on these planes are not determined by lottery, or for fun. Their marketing departments agonize over every detail for months; they know exactly what they are doing.

dkdk8283 6y ago
Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years.
- HappySweeney 6y ago
  Their amazing, awe-inspiring history should not be employed to shield management from the consequences of playing fast-and-loose with passenger safety.
- na85 6y ago
  >Boeing has made some fantastic planes. Their entire history shouldn’t be marginalized because of events in the past few years. Yes it should. This is airworthiness; this stuff has to work. You don't give someone a pass on safety-critical stuff because "they usually do a good job". The company's past processes are irrelevant because it's their current corpus of airworthiness procedures that affects the continued airworthiness of their products that are still flying today. The company has demonstrated a serious problem and until it has demonstrated sufficient corrective actions taken to correct the problems observed then everything the company touches should be considered suspect. The fact that Boeing also made B-29s 70 years ago means exactly nothing except for PR purposes or to fanboys. Boeing has no doubt made some changes, but I'll reserve judgment as to whether or not those changes are sufficient because I don't work for a Regulator and don't have the complete picture.
- dudus 6y ago
  If in the past few years they have shown systemic quality problems and disregard for safety standards it undermines all their history.

verhey 6y ago

https://www.voegol.com.br/en/gol/our-fleet https://www.voegol.com.br/en/gol/our-fleet Did they? I still see a lot of references to the MAX 8 on their fleet page, notably separate from their 737-800 fleet.

dyingkneepad 6y ago
What's interesting is that in the Portuguese page it's just "Boeing 737 MAX": https://www.voegol.com.br/pt/a-gol/nossa-frota https://www.voegol.com.br/pt/a-gol/nossa-frota
dudus 6y ago
Maybe it's not apparent on their websites yet. But expect to see all mention of MAX replaced with -8 Reference: https://www.aeroin.net/gol-muda-nome-boeing-737-max-8-para-737-8/ https://www.aeroin.net/gol-muda-nome-boeing-737-max-8-para-7...

toast0 6y ago

Renaming the aircraft to avoid the reputation is scummy and predictable, but aircraft scheduling being what it is, if your chosen airline flies 737-MAX, and your flight's distance is within the 737-MAX capabilities, there's no way to know if you'll be on a 737-MAX until boarding. The 737 in general is very compatible with commercial airports, so there's probably not a lot of scheduldd routes 737-MAX can't service because it's too big. If you have a preference to avoid this aircraft, you need to book flights on airlines that don't have any, or that are too long for it, or be prepared to abandon your ticket at boarding.

kayfox 6y ago

The 737 MAX 8 has always been _legally_ the 737-8. Most of the airlines calling it the 737-8 did so before the grounding.

dudus 6y ago
"Boeing appears to have started quietly dropping the “Max” from its 737 Max aircraft in the wake of recent air disasters, instead referring to a 737-8. The new name has hitherto been used only internally at Boeing and emerged when the company put out a statement on Wednesday to announce it had won its first order for the grounded 737 Max aircraft this year. " Source: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-max-plane-new-name-poland-enter-air https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/20/boeing-737-...

raverbashing 6y ago

Avianca Brazil is no more. Latam and Azul are Joint-venturing on flights during the pandemic. And calling the variants -7/-8/-9 kinda makes sense (MAX 7/MAX 8/MAX 9 are more "official").