Would you fly on a 737 Max?

[Teddy Lop]

MitchT said:

craigjm said:

Munter said:

Probably. Because by the time I knew what it was I'd just about be walking into it, and chances are wouldn't turn around and refuse to board.

Would I deliberately book a flight on one given an alternative? Not for say 5years after it's back in the air without significant incidents.

This. You never know exactly what plane you are flying on until you are boarding and the vast majority of passengers would have no idea how to determine what it is either. It’s not like the model name is splashed down the side in the livery

You could look on FightRadar to see what's rocking up at your gate before you're past the point of no return!

most airlines have fleets of type they use for routes, so should be fairly easy for anyone so concerned to find out ahead of time rather than discover at the gate?

aeropilot said:

There's photo evidence that Ryanair have decided to help passengers not realise what they might be getting by removing all the large 737 Max logo's from the forward fuselages of their existing Max fleet during their grounding...

Wonder if they will do the same on all the safety evac cars in the seat backs as well?

its ryanair, it'll be tippexed, or use a magic marker to smudge "max" into "mqz"

[anonymous-user]

Brother D said:

People have a terrible grasp on understanding risk...

Usually due to not understanding the actual issues behind the problem. Plus also their entire concept of risk can be changed by other factors like cost.

Many years ago, I had a flight where I had a delay down route due to a technical problem. I told the passengers what it was and how it would be fixed and how long it would take etc.

One small group of passengers became convinced ( likely through alcohol and lack of understanding) that it was never going to be properly fixed to their satisfaction. They were being stoked up by one of them that seemed to know enough to sound authoritative but not enough to actually understanding the issue.

Then when it was fixed they refused to get on demanding a different aircraft. “How do we know it’s safe and you aren’t just lying to get us on” one even asked.

I spent a lot of time explaining to them that this aircraft was safe and why and asked why they thought I’d ever want to fly an unsafe aircraft myself.

They completely refused to get on, so in the end I unfortunately had to tell them that we’d need to get their bags off and they’d have to get another flight home.

They asked who’d pay for it and I told them that the airline was providing them with a flight home and it was entirely up to them whether they got it or not. If they wanted another flight, they’d simply have to find another and pay for it themselves. They had a choice of a few options from this airport.

They were shocked they’d have to pay themselves and the cost of a new flight outweighed the risk that was previously unacceptable to them and their families and they got on rather than find another flight.

This was a short haul flight to the U.K. from a very popular European destination in summer and the alternative options would have been numerous and affordable to most people.

They went from flat out refusing to get on due to safety to getting on due to cost of an alternative.

[Ayahuasca]

A few years ago I was in a 737 being pushed back from the gate when its wing collided with the next door 737. No obvious visible damage to either.

We stopped, the pilots did a quick inspection, then we carried on. But the passengers were having none of it. The captain protested that he wouldn’t fly if he thought it was unsafe, but nobody believed him. Such are airlines in the tropics.

[JuniorD]

Ayahuasca said:

A few years ago I was in a 737 being pushed back from the gate when its wing collided with the next door 737. No obvious visible damage to either.

We stopped, the pilots did a quick inspection, then we carried on. But the passengers were having none of it. The captain protested that he wouldn’t fly if he thought it was unsafe, but nobody believed him. Such are airlines in the tropics.

Did you fly and what happened??

[MB140]

Ayahuasca said:

A few years ago I was in a 737 being pushed back from the gate when its wing collided with the next door 737. No obvious visible damage to either.

We stopped, the pilots did a quick inspection, then we carried on. But the passengers were having none of it. The captain protested that he wouldn’t fly if he thought it was unsafe, but nobody believed him. Such are airlines in the tropics.

Not a chance would I have stayed on that airplane. I’d rather have had to deal with the law/consequences of kicking up a stink. Not without a proper parts off visual inspection by an engineer, s/he would probably have insisted on it being NDTd before signing it off. I’ve worked fixing aircraft pretty much all my adult life for a reference of my experience. Most pilots I know wouldn’t have a clue what they were looking at structurally underneath the outer panels. Might know what there called but how to assess if it’s structurally safe. No way.

[Ayahuasca]

JuniorD said:

Ayahuasca said:

A few years ago I was in a 737 being pushed back from the gate when its wing collided with the next door 737. No obvious visible damage to either.

We stopped, the pilots did a quick inspection, then we carried on. But the passengers were having none of it. The captain protested that he wouldn’t fly if he thought it was unsafe, but nobody believed him. Such are airlines in the tropics.

Did you fly and what happened??

Yes, and nothing.

Another time, 737, same airline, I happened (mid flight) to notice a bolt sticking up out of the wing. Not just a bit, but a good few inches. Took a photo and informed the crew. The captain’s face was a picture.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Sunday 8th November 16:00

[MB140]

Ayahuasca said:

Yes, and nothing.

Another time, 737, same airline, I happened (mid flight) to notice a bolt sticking up out of the wing. Not just a bit, but a good few inches. Took a photo and informed the crew. The captain’s face was a picture.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Sunday 8th November 16:00

That looks like a dzus fastener. There self retaining. There’s plenty in there and no chance of it coming off in flight or the associated panel.

We recently kept getting quite a strong vibration on one of our 707s. Searched all under the floor. Tried turning different pumps and fans on and off to see if we could isolate the cause of the problem. Could not get it to stop so we decided to RTB. Upon inspection the part of root to body panel Was found bent back. One of the retaining brackets behind the panel had snapped. This meant that while all the fasteners were in place. The whole bracket was moving. The airflow has got underneath the panel and folded it back.

Fleet inspection and another aircraft was found to have the same starting to happen.

Will see if I can get the bosses permission to put a picture up.

Now that was quite an interesting flight. I was quite surprised at the level of vibration and noise it generated.

[Ayahuasca]

MB140 said:

That looks like a dzus fastener. There self retaining. There’s plenty in there and no chance of it coming off in flight or the associated panel.

I am sure you are right, but to a layman the thought process is - if they forgot to do up that fastener, what else did they forget to do?

[anonymous-user]

Ayahuasca said:

MB140 said:

That looks like a dzus fastener. There self retaining. There’s plenty in there and no chance of it coming off in flight or the associated panel.

I am sure you are right, but to a layman the thought process is - if they forgot to do up that fastener, what else did they forget to do?

Those pop out like that fairly often tbh.

[Brother D]

El stovey said:

Brother D said:

People have a terrible grasp on understanding risk...

Usually due to not understanding the actual issues behind the problem. Plus also their entire concept of risk can be changed by other factors like cost.

Many years ago, I had a flight where I had a delay down route due to a technical problem. I told the passengers what it was and how it would be fixed and how long it would take etc.

One small group of passengers became convinced ( likely through alcohol and lack of understanding) that it was never going to be properly fixed to their satisfaction. They were being stoked up by one of them that seemed to know enough to sound authoritative but not enough to actually understanding the issue.

Then when it was fixed they refused to get on demanding a different aircraft. “How do we know it’s safe and you aren’t just lying to get us on” one even asked.

I spent a lot of time explaining to them that this aircraft was safe and why and asked why they thought I’d ever want to fly an unsafe aircraft myself.

They completely refused to get on, so in the end I unfortunately had to tell them that we’d need to get their bags off and they’d have to get another flight home.

They asked who’d pay for it and I told them that the airline was providing them with a flight home and it was entirely up to them whether they got it or not. If they wanted another flight, they’d simply have to find another and pay for it themselves. They had a choice of a few options from this airport.

They were shocked they’d have to pay themselves and the cost of a new flight outweighed the risk that was previously unacceptable to them and their families and they got on rather than find another flight.

This was a short haul flight to the U.K. from a very popular European destination in summer and the alternative options would have been numerous and affordable to most people.

They went from flat out refusing to get on due to safety to getting on due to cost of an alternative.

If you told people up front that they had a choice of flying on a Max vs a NG 900, but the flight was $5 per person cheaper on the Max, you'd have some pretty empty NG flights.

[cardigankid]

MB140 said:

That looks like a dzus fastener. There self retaining. There’s plenty in there and no chance of it coming off in flight or the associated panel.

Oh, that’s all right then. In no f’ing way would I set foot on a 737 Max and thanks for reminding me. WW2 safety standards are all very well but not if I’m off on holiday on the damn thing. I’d rather drive. I understood that the 737 Max issue was due to Boeing stretching the old technology beyond its sensible limits to save on development costs.

I was on a Sabena flight, to Geneva I think one time in murky conditions, couldn’t land in Brussels so they circled around for ages looking for an alternative. At one point they announced that they had to land within an hour or they would run out of fuel. Finally we came down through solid clag and high winds, and bounced to a halt, Charleroi I think it may have been. The passengers got off and were taken across to a shed to wait for the plane to be refuelled, and after some discussion a few of us said that we would rather have our luggage off and continue by rented car. Ultimately the crew persuaded us to get back on, but, as they used to say, Such A Bloody Experience Never Again. Sabena of course went west a while back.

[hyphen]

Piginapoke said:

If Boeing succeeds in certifying the 737 Max to resume flying, would you be happy to fly on one?

The company has 500 airframes made and 3000 on order; it seems to be assuming that all will be fine once US regulators give the green light. I'm not so sure I would fly on it though- any views?

Edited by Piginapoke on Monday 2nd November 07:42

Not many people consider the model of a plane when they book a flight. They book a date and a time, and the right price.

So unless any future mishaps happen, doubt it will be affected.

[rjfp1962]

Just to be sure, I've got one of these! Anything to avoid getting on a Max...!

[uncinqsix]

hyphen said:

Not many people consider the model of a plane when they book a flight. They book a date and a time, and the right price.

As they should. The public should be entitled to rely on the regulator to keep them safe, so the safety of the aircraft shouldn't be a consideration in their decision making.

[rs4al]

The public have such short memories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_is...

Was it that these two crashes happened before social/24hr media ?

[MarkwG]

rs4al said:

Was it that these two crashes happened before social/24hr media ?

Partly that, partly that the original 737 had been flying for decades so had accrued a statistically "safe" record, & partly that the lack of evidence of a malfunction pointed towards pilot error, which is easier for the flying public to accept as a one off event or two off event. Inside the business, there was a lot of turmoil & concern at the time.

[aeropilot]

rs4al said:

The public have such short memories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_is...

Was it that these two crashes happened before social/24hr media ?

There will be an element of that. But this is a much bigger issue.
Plus events and disclosures in recent times have sullied the trust between regulators and manufacturing because of the financial/commercial pressures.....
The reason the Max exists is because Boeing was put under commercial pressure by a number of its existing customers to come up with yet another silk purse out of a 50 year old sows ear design - relying on software, that is simply a step too far....and a overseeing regulator that allowed them to self certificate rather than do the job they were supposed to do.

[Magnum 475]

By the time the 737 MAX re-enters service, the known issues will have been resolved. Boeing can't afford to put this aircraft back into service and have the problem recur. The only thing they'd achieve by doing that is to boost sales for Airbus. I'd have no problem flying on the max for this reason.

As a (very) frequent flyer, the only aircraft I've deliberately avoided flying on is the DC10 / MD11. I know it's irrational as most of the problems were resolved, but I never liked or trusted that aircraft type. Thankfully for me there are none left in passenger service anymore.

[Eric Mc]

What was the "known problem" with the DC-10?

As mentioned earlier, the door problem was resolved very early in the life of the aircraft.

The MD-11 is another story and I do think it had aerodynamic issues, especially in the flare and landing phase.

Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 9th November 10:41

[Halmyre]

aeropilot said:

rs4al said:

The public have such short memories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_is...

Was it that these two crashes happened before social/24hr media ?

There will be an element of that. But this is a much bigger issue.
Plus events and disclosures in recent times have sullied the trust between regulators and manufacturing because of the financial/commercial pressures.....
The reason the Max exists is because Boeing was put under commercial pressure by a number of its existing customers to come up with yet another silk purse out of a 50 year old sows ear design - relying on software, that is simply a step too far....and a overseeing regulator that allowed them to self certificate rather than do the job they were supposed to do.

But was the decision to build the 737 MAX customer driven or cost-driven? Surely the customers would have preferred a completely new aircraft instead? Or did Boeing have them over a barrel - well, we can sell you the 737 MAX at such and such a price or a new 7XX but it'll be 10% more expensive.