737 Max

[EwenS]

The -900 is a stretched -800 of the same 737 New Generation line as the 600/700/800. Seems the -900 isn’t that popular. Only 52 -900 and 505 -900ER built to date with no orders pending. It also seems to be cheaper on the used market than -800 indicating a further lack of popularity. Clearly the extra 17 or so passengers that most airlines use as a seating configuration wasn’t a big enough advantage to cause airlines to buy it over the -800 even though it has a theoretical capacity of 220 bodies. Delta ,Alaska, United and Lion Air account for 459 of those aircraft.

 

Success is of course relative. To put it in context 4991 -800 models are flying or on order making it the most successful version of the 737 to date. Although Boeing holds over 5000 orders for the various MAX versions it is still some way off the total of nearly 7000 600/700/800/900 models ordered.

 

I see heads have started to roll at Boeing. The head of the MAX programme appointed last Sept after postponing his retirement is going leading to a major management reshuffle. Clearly getting the programme back on schedule is now a long term job!

Edited July 12, 2019 by EwenS

[bzn20]

Such a bad reputation they've changed the "name" ?  Saw a photo today of a Ryan Air new build ,undelivered MAX 8 .

 

On the forward Fuselage it says Boeing 737 - 8200 . No MAX ..

[junglierating]

5 minutes ago, bzn20 said:

Such a bad reputation they've changed the "name" ?  Saw a photo today of a Ryan Air new build ,undelivered MAX 8 .

 

On the forward Fuselage it says Boeing 737 - 8200 . No MAX ..

Got to give it to O Leary he is not stupid....just very shrewd 

[Max Headroom]

Here is the photo......

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/boeing-737-max-ordered-by-ryanair-undergoes-name-change

 

Trevor

[bzn20]

I'd go for 737- 2020-? ..Dash question mark included ! 

[Graeme H]

And for all those feeling the love for the 787, have a read of this

 

https://simpleflying.com/jetstar-787-dual-engine-failure/

[rob Lyttle]

"operators fear some passengers may refuse to fly on the Max...." 

 

Surely THE understatement of the year!! 

 

The name change has got to be done. 

"Max" is just toxic now. Far be it from me to agree with anything that trump says but that sounds like the way forward. 

 

[stalal]

What if they do next to nothing on upgrades and just re-brand it? With Boeing having such resources at its disposal, it can convince buyers to buy this jet with a new name.

 

It was same regulators who gave Boeing go ahead to sell this flawed plane with a very lenient scrutiny.

 

However, I m wondering how we as passengers should safeguard our rights in the age of corporate sharks getting ever more strong. Even after upgrades, if I m given a choice, I will refuse flying in -8xx or MAX.

Edited July 17, 2019 by stalal

[busnproplinerfan]

On 7/12/2019 at 2:10 AM, EwenS said:

The -900 is a stretched -800 of the same 737 New Generation line as the 600/700/800. Seems the -900 isn’t that popular. Only 52 -900 and 505 -900ER built to date with no orders pending. It also seems to be cheaper on the used market than -800 indicating a further lack of popularity. Clearly the extra 17 or so passengers that most airlines use as a seating configuration wasn’t a big enough advantage to cause airlines to buy it over the -800 even though it has a theoretical capacity of 220 bodies. Delta ,Alaska, United and Lion Air account for 459 of those aircraft.

 

Success is of course relative. To put it in context 4991 -800 models are flying or on order making it the most successful version of the 737 to date. Although Boeing holds over 5000 orders for the various MAX versions it is still some way off the total of nearly 7000 600/700/800/900 models ordered.

 

I see heads have started to roll at Boeing. The head of the MAX programme appointed last Sept after postponing his retirement is going leading to a major management reshuffle. Clearly getting the programme back on schedule is now a long term job!

Doesn't one of the line up have a different wing? I want to build a -900 but not sure what's needed starting with a -800.

[busnproplinerfan]

3 hours ago, stalal said:

What if they do next to nothing on upgrades and just re-brand it? With Boeing having such resources at its disposal, it can convince buyers to buy this jet with a new name.

 

It was same regulators who gave Boeing go ahead to sell this flawed plane with a very lenient scrutiny.

 

However, I m wondering how we as passengers should safeguard our rights in the age of corporate sharks getting ever more strong. Even after upgrades, if I m given a choice, I will refuse flying in -8xx or MAX.

I agree  with what you say, but if the -max is the only plane left flying in a few years, what do we do? Guess we could resurrect Greyhound buses, float them across the pond.

[Alan P]

Funny how many people regard this as a new issue unique to the 737 Max. It's been the industry standard for decades. The Reagan-era regulatory cutbacks added reduced regulatory oversight to the competitive corporate cost slashing. Shortened approval schedules and increased inspection periods, the outsourcing of mandatory checks to company personnel, corporate manoeuvring to appoint company lobbyists and program managers to senior positions in the regulatory authority itself...this is nothing new. In fact, it's the norm.

 

If you're really worried about corporate corner-cutting and lax or overstretched regulatory oversight affecting public safety, perhaps you should avoid public transportation altogether. Because nobody's hands are clean in this game.

[EwenS]

46 minutes ago, busnproplinerfan said:

Doesn't one of the line up have a different wing? I want to build a -900 but not sure what's needed starting with a -800.

As far as I’m aware the wing is the same. What does vary is the type of winglet fitted. Some -800 and -900 aircraft have the newer scimitar winglets fitted. These however can be retrofitted to earlier aircraft.

 

check out www.b737.org.uk/winglets

[Jure Miljevic]

I agree with you completely, Alan. Back in 1920' Postmaster General Brown specified multi-engined aircraft for longer US Air Mail routes. However, his primary aim was to eliminate smaller bidders and to ensure contracts go to big companies. It was the infamous Knute Rockne crash in 1931 when public opinion pressure persuaded airline companies to purchase types like Boeing 247, Douglas Commercial series and other stressed skin, retractable undercarriage multi-engined airliners. Taking this calculating logic to the hilt would mean that it takes human sacrifices to sway public opinion, but only threats of profit loss can change corporate practices. Cheers

Jure

[RidgeRunner]

I had a meeting with a significant Mid-East operator last week, with 20+ MAX on the ground. The SVP I was with says his belief is that Boeing will abandon the MAX in favour of a modified 787 variant.  

[RidgeRunner]

3 hours ago, Alan P said:

If you're really worried about corporate corner-cutting and lax or overstretched regulatory oversight affecting public safety, perhaps you should avoid public transportation altogether. Because nobody's hands are clean in this game.

Absolutely. 

[busnproplinerfan]

6 hours ago, EwenS said:

As far as I’m aware the wing is the same. What does vary is the type of winglet fitted. Some -800 and -900 aircraft have the newer scimitar winglets fitted. These however can be retrofitted to earlier aircraft.

 

check out www.b737.org.uk/winglets

I was on a couple of -7s and -8s recently and they had the newer winglets.

[bzn20]

6 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

Boeing will abandon the MAX

I wouldn't be surprised . I thought that could happen after a few weeks of reading the problems they faced and  numbers of MAX  8s in the Boeing factory being stacked 'til further notice ,re training and possibly in a MAX 8 Sim and there is only one . How they were going to sort it all out ,if at all . Say they do fix it to FAA's regulations .  How long and how many people would be needed to kick start the back log parked in the Boeing plant and all over the world including flight testing the lot . I suppose if not a 787 derivative ,convert to a MAX 9 or shorter than the 8 . I think that gets rid of MCAS . Might be a flood of MAX cancellations and orders for the Airbus 320 neo which kicked Boeing off down the MAX route in the first place

Edited July 17, 2019 by bzn20

[bentwaters81tfw]

The dash 10 is the better option, the stretch counteracts the c/g problem and the need for MCAS. Can they stretch them (like the C-130 and C-141) after being built?

[stalal]

In an issue which might still be related to concerns on quality and regulation expressed by members here, Boeing 787, which has myriad of issues of its own, has lingering problems with its engines as well. 

 

https://australianaviation.com.au/2019/04/air-new-zealands-787-9-rolls-royce-engines-dogged-by-problems/

[Max Headroom]

7 hours ago, RidgeRunner said:

I had a meeting with a significant Mid-East operator last week, with 20+ MAX on the ground. The SVP I was with says his belief is that Boeing will abandon the MAX in favour of a modified 787 variant.  

So what happens to the ‘lame ducks’ parked in the....car park?

 

If they’re scrapped, I assume that Boeing (and by that I mean their insurers), pick up the tab and deal with their shredded reputation, not only for a ‘failed’ design, but for the inevitable court cases brought to the courts by grieving relatives. I imagine this will be a stain on their reputation for years.

 

Obviously I’m guessing here, but Boeing will launch a new narrow body type and will call it the 808, leaving the ‘797’ as an unloved number in the line-up. Sounds plausible?

 

Also, if orders dry up (IAG not withstanding), can Airbus pick up the slack? If not them, then who? Will this mean more legacy types staying with their original operators? Accountants must be running the numbers as we speak on increased costs for the operators- another bunch of law suits?

 

Frankly, if I was a Boeing lawyer, I’d be despairing at the moment.

 

Trevor

[stever219]

11 hours ago, busnproplinerfan said:

I agree  with what you say, but if the -max is the only plane left flying in a few years, what do we do? Guess we could resurrect Greyhound buses, float them across the pond.

Not a chance!  The A319/320/321neo already has a significant order backlog and Airbus must be trying to come up with ways of increasing production rates.  They already have single-aisle final assembly lines in France, Germany, China and America , all of which probably have some degree of slack available for just such a contingency, but does that slack exist further back along the supply chain?  Each site might only be able to cope with a two- or three-airframe per month increase in production rates but a major hurdle is more likely to be availability of engines, always a significant problem even when times are good.

 

Any modern airliner is a complicated piece of kit, as are all of the gadgets and gizmos inside it.  Increasing production rates for these increases the risk of building in a lethal “gotcha” such as an incompletely soldered circuit board or an incorrectly heat-treated piece of metalwork: it may not kill anyone in a million miles but it might just as easily kill someone in the first 30 minutes’ flying.

 

I’ve never been a great lover of Boeing, and I particularly dislike the 737 as a means of getting from A to B: there’s also a sneaking suspicion that some dark-and-dirty dealings involving Boeing went on to discredit the de Havilland Comet.  No-one has ever adequately explained why the jets that went into the Mediterranean had so many fewer cycles on them than the test specimen did when it failed, and with so little of one of them recovered you can get your conspiracy theory here.  Seriously though, the 737 had some suspect handling (lack of) qualities in its earlier incarnations; the CAA insisted on some significant modifications before Britannia (first UK operator I think) were let loose with theirs.

[bzn20]

1 hour ago, bentwaters81tfw said:

Can they stretch them (like the C-130 and C-141) after being built?

I would think so but would the airlines want a converted new airliner, the delays while that's happening and would the FAA and foreign agencies CAA etc. accept the MAX generation isn't a new type rating ,no sim training otherwise its going down hill anyway . The affected airlines are losing money from tens of thousands of flight cancellations hand over fist and Boeing are in the frame to compensate their losses .

 

56 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Frankly, if I was a Boeing lawyer, I’d be despairing at the moment.

I bet !

[bzn20]

1 hour ago, Max Headroom said:

808

bit ot warning

Back in 1989 Pacific State had a hit with 808 State . At the time we had RAF VC10 XR808 in for a Major and it was in a state , bit of a mess  ..It got the name 808 State so that remark made me laugh  and …. you can't have it ! taken already  . It's just plain BoB now . 808 BoB ?

[Max Headroom]

9 minutes ago, bzn20 said:

bit ot warning

Back in 1989 Pacific State had a hit with 808 State . At the time we had RAF VC10 XR808 in for a Major and it was in a state , bit of a mess  ..It got the name 808 State so that remark made me laugh  and …. you can't have it ! taken already  . It's just plain BoB now . 808 BoB ?

and now in well deserved retirement in Cosford.

 

Trevor

[busnproplinerfan]

5 hours ago, stever219 said:

Not a chance!  The A319/320/321neo already has a significant order backlog and Airbus must be trying to come up with ways of increasing production rates.  They already have single-aisle final assembly lines in France, Germany, China and America , all of which probably have some degree of slack available for just such a contingency, but does that slack exist further back along the supply chain?  Each site might only be able to cope with a two- or three-airframe per month increase in production rates but a major hurdle is more likely to be availability of engines, always a significant problem even when times are good.

 

Any modern airliner a complicated piece of kit, as are all of the gadgets and gizmos inside it.  Increasing production rates for these increases the risk of building in a lethal “gotcha” such as an incompletely soldered circuit board or an incorrectly heat-treated piece of metalwork: it may not kill anyone in a million miles but it might just as easily kill someone in the first 30 minutes’ flying.

 

I’ve never been a great lover of Boeing, and I particularly dislike the 737 as a means of getting from A to B: there’s also a sneaking suspicion that some dark-and-dirty dealings involving Boeing went on to discredit the de Havilland Comet.  No-one has ever adequately explained why the jets that went into the Mediterranean had so many fewer cycles on them than the test specimen did when it failed, and with so little of one of them recovered you can get your conspiracy theory here.  Seriously though, the 737 had some suspect handling (lack of) qualities in its earlier incarnations; the CAA insisted on some significant modifications before Britannia (first UK operator I think) were let loose with theirs.

All I know is the 737, only started flying on them seven years ago. I'm sure there are big deals going on behind closed doors, always is. Saw in the news recently Trump had a meeting with the Boeing high ups for P-8s. I remember hearing about Air Canada A-319s when they were new that they always had smoking rivets on the fuselage. I don't know much else but they still are flying. Maybe we could bring back turbo Connies as well? This is an interesting thread.