Boeing 737 Max

[AsleepInYorkshire]

The Boeing 737 Max is currently grounded due to a fault in some of the software that is used to stabilise the vehicle.

I'm trying to book a holiday to Tenerife for me, my good lady and our 12 year old daughter. I've asked the Tour operator if they can reassure me that I won't have to fly on the Max. In short the response is no they can't.

I know it's grounded. But it could be given air worthiness in the meantime and I could be asked to fly on one. Which is something these vehicle don't seem to do to well.

Is there a way I can "specify" the type of aircraft I fly on and pay for that please?

Thank you in advance for any help

AiY

[Lootman]

Is there a way I can "specify" the type of aircraft I fly on and pay for that please?

No, and airlines can and do swap out aircraft types for operational reasons quite often.

I am picky about the type of aircraft I fly on and will at least partly choose airlines and schedules based on the plane type. It's mostly just personal preferences as all aircraft are very safe. But I generally prefer wide bodies to narrow bodies, and jets to turbo props. Even so I have been caught out a few times with last minute equipment swaps.

I was scheduled on a 737-MAX next month but it seems highly unlikely that it will be back in the air by then, and the schedule is now showing a 767 instead, which I'd prefer.

I suspect that airlines will be sympathetic to passengers who find themselves on a MAX in the unlikely event it is back in the air in the next few weeks. I think the problem is more fundamental then just tweaking the avionics. The problem is that Boeing tried to fix a hardware problem with a software solution. Tweaking the software some more probably won't satisfy a lot of people.

[Mike88]

The OP's best bet is to avoid an airline that either owns such an aircraft or has one on order. The list of airlines falling into these categories is on the list below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_B ... deliveries

[flyer61]

Fly with easyJet......all Airbus!

[roger4]

The real problem with 737MAX is it was certified for flight by FAA as an upgrade or modification of an existing model. In the same way all the variants of 747 were certified.
But the new engines are of such diameter that they could not be fitted under the existing wings. So, Boeing changed and strenthened the undercarriage to raise the distance of the wings from the ground. The next difficulty is that the larger engines are considerably heavier than the original wings were designed for and consequently the wings were strengthened and enlarged to handle that. Finally, the placing of the engines meant that the centre of gravity was moved forward and that meant the plane wanted to dive all the time. So the software fix was introduced but it wasn't highlighted in the flight control manuals.
Certification said it was a new variant on the old design so there was no need for pilots to train specifically for this aircraft. This was a major selling point as far as the airlines were concerned. Thus the anger at Boeing by the American Pilots Union who only found out about the software after the 2 aircraft had crashed.
Choose an airline that doesn't have any of this specific aircraft in its fleet.
Roger

[jackdaww]

amending software carries risk .

the risk depends on ---

the quality of the original .

the quality of the amendments.

the testing of the amendments.

from evidence so far , i would avoid any boeing .

[dspp]

The real problem with 737MAX is it was certified for flight by FAA as an upgrade or modification of an existing model. In the same way all the variants of 747 were certified.
But the new engines are of such diameter that they could not be fitted under the existing wings. So, Boeing changed and strenthened the undercarriage to raise the distance of the wings from the ground. The next difficulty is that the larger engines are considerably heavier than the original wings were designed for and consequently the wings were strengthened and enlarged to handle that. Finally, the placing of the engines meant that the centre of gravity was moved forward and that meant the plane wanted to dive all the time. So the software fix was introduced but it wasn't highlighted in the flight control manuals.
Certification said it was a new variant on the old design so there was no need for pilots to train specifically for this aircraft. This was a major selling point as far as the airlines were concerned. Thus the anger at Boeing by the American Pilots Union who only found out about the software after the 2 aircraft had crashed.
Choose an airline that doesn't have any of this specific aircraft in its fleet.
Roger

Roger,
I think you are muddling up some of technical issues in a variety of ways, including between the NG (3rd generation 737) and the Max (4th gen). It wasn't a CoG issue that caused the Max aircraft to nose down, it was the MCAS system. The revised engine placements, and increased nacelle size, actually lead to increased nose up in particular circumstances which is why the MCAS was introduced. If the 737 structure could accommodate longer main undercarriage they would have done that a long time ago, hence the chipmunk cheeks on the NG's engines, and the revised (further forwards and higher) engine placement on the Max. There are a number of threads on pprune dealing with all this and there are a great many aspects to this:
https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/621 ... es-12.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#737_MAX
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

AiY,
Short answer is as flyer61 says: fly EasyJet. This is because EasyJet fly only Airbus aircraft, the A319/320. That's one reason I prefer EasyJet to Ryanair as Ryanair only fly the 737 which in my opinion is a nasty antique of an aircraft that was already past its sell-by-date with the NG, and really is a warmed over 1950s design. So book with EasyJet and sort your own holiday arrangements out (there are actually a lot of accomodation offers on the EasyJet site, but I've never used them). If you go with any 'holiday / charter' company they can do an aircraft type swap on you in a way that is extremely unlikely with EasyJet.

Personally I will be simultaneously impressed and suspicious if the Max is flying worldwide before Christmas. It is not obvious that it will ever fly again as what they need to do to resolve the issues is very complex and creates as many potential problems as it solves, for the 737 design. However Boeing are still producing Max's on low-rate production (I think about 30/month, instead of 50/month, from memory). There is the potential for this to bankrupt Boeing. The US authorities will bend over backwards to stop that happening. It gives China an interesting 'lever' to pull when the FAA proudly announce 'problem solved'. US-CN trade disputes could be only simmering - as opposed to boiling - for a reason.

regards, dspp

[flyer61]

Dspp

just for the record easyJet fly Airbus 319/320CEO and NEO and as of the last 12 months A321NEO's.

The NEO's are super fuel efficient.

[flyer61]

Oh and easyJet now do holidays as well....

[Lootman]

Seems that BA has not been put off the 737-MAX. They just ordered 200 of them!

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/paris-s ... grounding/

[dspp]

Seems that BA has not been put off the 737-MAX. They just ordered 200 of them!

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/paris-s ... grounding/

Not for BA. These are for use by the loco brands in the IAG stable (vueling etc), if they ever get delivered. Nasty squished cramped cheap cabins the 737 with undersized overheads, vs the wider cabins and proper overheads of the 320. That's before getting to the important bits of the aircraft. I bet the discount IAG have obtained will be good mind you.

Isn't it Paris orders $10bn for Airbus vs $2bn for Boeing so far ? It ought ordinarily to be near parity.

- dspp

[Lootman]

Seems that BA has not been put off the 737-MAX. They just ordered 200 of them!

https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/paris-s ... grounding/

Not for BA. These are for use by the loco brands in the IAG stable (vueling etc), if they ever get delivered. Nasty squished cramped cheap cabins the 737 with undersized overheads, vs the wider cabins and proper overheads of the 320. That's before getting to the important bits of the aircraft. I bet the discount IAG have obtained will be good mind you.

I don't believe it was announced which parts of IAG will be getting these planes. You could well be correct, although Aer Lingus and Iberia also ordered the A321XLR which is the obvious alternative.

As you say, the announcement may come to nothing and the price would have been discounted. If the problem isn't fixed, IAG walks away. If all is well, IAG gets some cheap planes.

As an aside I flew on the first A330-900neo the other day and it is a delightful plane. I'm looking forward to my first A350 flight next month. Airbus must be making hay right now.

[redsturgeon]

Who'd have thought that an aircraft produced by the European uberstate apparatus could be better than the product of the wonderful free market US?

John

[dspp]

The news item says they are for use out of LGW, at least in the Guardian, so that could include the more leisure BA routes:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... 7-max-jets

The Forbes one also mentions use by Iberia, and I didn't think they were using LGW as a hub:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarc ... irbus/amp/

It also indicates that IAG may have split fleets in some of its carrier brands, i.e. A320 alongside 737.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/622 ... 7-max.html

It is only at LOI stage, and quite a lot could happen before it reaches service.

regards, dspp

[Howard]

As an aside I flew on the first A330-900neo the other day and it is a delightful plane. I'm looking forward to my first A350 flight next month.

I don't know any people who look forward to flying on a "delightful plane".*

You must lead an interesting life .

Regards

Howard

*Except for those wealthy acquaintances who own their own, of course.

[Lootman]

It also indicates that IAG may have split fleets in some of its carrier brands, i.e. A320 alongside 737.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/622 ... 7-max.html

There seems to be a trend of airlines not only using planes from both of the main suppliers, but also owning planes that directly compete with each other.

So for instance BA has orders for both the 787 and the A350. And uses A380s and 747s. American flies A330s and 777s. Many airlines operate both the 737 and A320 variants. And so on.

Having a mixed fleet makes maintenance and crew training more complicated, but avoids being beholden to any of the two makers. For all they know, it could be Airbus that has the next big problem. The strategy keeps both Airbus and Boeing on their toes.

But not all. AFAIK Aer Lingus, Finnair and TAP are all 100% Airbus.

[dspp]

The real lo co's are historically single type rating narrowbody fleets, SouthWest (737), Ryanair (737), Easyjet (319/320) etc etc. There are occasional oddities when they buy out a minnow to get a base/slots/etc and then need to shed the odds & sods for a while, but by and large proper locos are single types.

The ersatz locos that the legacy carriers run as spoilers and feeders are often mixed narrowbody fleets for the reasons you describe. So IAG run 737 and 320 in Vueling and BA and etc, a complete mishmash. It makes sense when they try to optimise each hub, but is sub-optimal overall and really a sign of the different culture. It also has implications for acquisition of the larger twin-aisle aircraft, and crews.

I'm not sure that the legacy carriers will be successful running these mixed operations. An example was Go (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(airline)) . It was once pointed out to me that a business could choose to be technically innovative, operationally innovative, financially innovative, or organisationally innovative - but that trying to do everything at once was doomed to failure, and that as a result only one or two of these areas should be pushed hard at a time. Therefore it seems to me that mixed operations of these natures cannot succeed over the full cycle.

I avoid investing in airlines ! That is quite apart from avoiding 737 use when I have a choice. Mind you Carcosa's outstanding AVAP analyses give me food for thought viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6425 ).

regards, dspp

[dspp]

For those hereabouts with an interest in these things

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... us-459277/

"OBITUARY: Roger Beteille – father of Airbus - Roger Beteille viewed the decision whether Airbus Industrie should launch the A320 as a simple one: “We just had to do it,” he told Flight International in 1984.

For the highly regarded engineer then in the twilight of a distinguished aerospace career, the A320 was his ultimate creation and followed a series of impressive achievements. Spearheading a still-adolescent Airbus, the A320 would be Europe’s final roll of the dice to establish a civil aircraft industry in Europe. What Beteille and his team of aerospace pioneers created was an all-new airliner bristling with technology on a mission to usurp Boeing and McDonnell Douglas in the mass-market, single-aisle sector.

“Perhaps we were too bold – we had no choice. Either we were going to be first with new technologies or we could not expect to be in the market,” Beteille told Flight in 1997, when recalling how the single-aisle family had come about."

etc

[Itsallaguess]

Some interesting comment on Bloomberg -

Boeing's 737 Max Software Outsourced to $9-an-Hour Engineers -

It remains the mystery at the heart of Boeing Co.’s 737 Max crisis: how a company renowned for meticulous design made seemingly basic software mistakes leading to a pair of deadly crashes. Longtime Boeing engineers say the effort was complicated by a push to outsource work to lower-paid contractors.

The Max software -- plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw -- was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs. Increasingly, the iconic American planemaker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace -- notably India.

In offices across from Seattle’s Boeing Field, recent college graduates employed by the Indian software developer HCL Technologies Ltd. occupied several rows of desks, said Mark Rabin, a former Boeing software engineer who worked in a flight-test group that supported the Max.

The coders from HCL were typically designing to specifications set by Boeing. Still, “it was controversial because it was far less efficient than Boeing engineers just writing the code,” Rabin said. Frequently, he recalled, “it took many rounds going back and forth because the code was not done correctly.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-28/boeing-s-737-max-software-outsourced-to-9-an-hour-engineers

Scary stuff....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[ReformedCharacter]

Scary stuff....

It certainly is. I've been following the 737 saga with a sense of almost disbelief; it's a tale of simple disregard of common sense and safety. I think those at the top of Boeing should face charges of corporate manslaughter or whatever they call it in the US. It might just focus a few minds and change the culture. It really is a disgrace.

RC