Would you fly on a 737 Max?

Would you fly on a 737 Max?

Author
Discussion

Condi

11,450 posts

135 months

Monday 1st February
quotequote all
Unbusy said:
Quite why man slaughter charges haven’t been brought is a travesty. Heads should roll for such a fk up.
Lots of protection from the US government most likely.

dudleybloke

16,315 posts

150 months

Tuesday 2nd February
quotequote all
They should insist that the Boeing board are on the first few flights, best way to be sure they don't cut any more corners.

aeropilot

23,747 posts

191 months

Tuesday 2nd February
quotequote all
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.

"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.

The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.

Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."

scratchchin......oooops.....laugh

LotusOmega375D

5,342 posts

117 months

Tuesday 2nd February
quotequote all
Airbus must be laughing about the tankers.

Lord.Vader

3,478 posts

103 months

Tuesday 2nd February
quotequote all
Not really, A400M programme has cost billions and billions and billions, in all sorts of fees, costs, etc.

Stupid vanity project.

Part of my job is assessing and raising investigations on known quality issues on aircraft, it’s really, really common, from something that is accept as is (but incorrect to spec) through to ground the fleet.

I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.

havoc

25,615 posts

199 months

Tuesday 2nd February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.

"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.

The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.

Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."

scratchchin......oooops.....laugh
If only our government engaged in procurement contracts like that! frown

Krikkit

20,924 posts

145 months

Friday 5th February
quotequote all
Lord.Vader said:
Part of my job is assessing and raising investigations on known quality issues on aircraft, it’s really, really common, from something that is accept as is (but incorrect to spec) through to ground the fleet.

I wouldn’t fly on a 737 max.
Interesting, MCAS aside, what issues do you think still remain?

Teddy Lop

4,651 posts

31 months

Saturday 6th February
quotequote all
havoc said:
If only our government engaged in procurement contracts like that! frown
its amazing (during peacetime) how much aggro firms have trying to adapt resolved designs. McDonnell Douglas attempts to build Merlin helicopters is another, they gave up after spending $4.5billion.

havoc

25,615 posts

199 months

Saturday 6th February
quotequote all
Teddy Lop said:
havoc said:
If only our government engaged in procurement contracts like that! frown
its amazing (during peacetime) how much aggro firms have trying to adapt resolved designs. McDonnell Douglas attempts to build Merlin helicopters is another, they gave up after spending $4.5billion.
I was more thinking of HS2, Crossrail (inter alia)...and of course the last 12 months 'emergency procurement' corruption...

J4CKO

33,333 posts

164 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
Looks like they are flying again, one testing from Manchester which has caused the inevitable "Wouldn't get me on that".

I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.

I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.

Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.

One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.

CeramicMX5ND2

2,321 posts

37 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
I don't need to fly any more...

But RyanAir will operate them - so loads of people will fly on them and not be aware of the Max's history..!

aeropilot

23,747 posts

191 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
CeramicMX5ND2 said:
I don't need to fly any more...

But RyanAir will operate them - so loads of people will fly on them and not be aware of the Max's history..!
Exactly, how many people that are currently saying "I won't get on one" are big users of Ryanair..?

Given Ryanair are buying shed loads of them, if you book Ryanair, within a few years, you'll be flying on a Max regardless.

And there will be nothing on the safety card, nothing written on the sides to tell you, as that's all being redone to erase the Max wording....
Unless you are a plane geek, you'll not know you are on a Max.


RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat

11,428 posts

59 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
"how do you know this is a Max"

"We're pointing downwards at 600mph 10 minutes after takeoff?"

El stovey

37,917 posts

227 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Looks like they are flying again, one testing from Manchester which has caused the inevitable "Wouldn't get me on that".

I know there were two crashes which isnt acceptable, but there were also a lot of completely uneventful flights as well before all the modifications, I spect after the best part of two years they have engineered it right out.

I wonder if anyone will get to the gate and decide they arent boarding ? As risks go it was low before in number of flights vs that set of circumstances, if one crashes now I suspect it will be something else like pilot error, weather or the usual stuff that causes plane crashes.

Its like the Covid vaccine "Not having that as its new" mitigating a really tiny risk, yet accepts much bigger risks every day without thinking.

One bloke on Facebook that says he isn't going to get on one has him on a Big Sports Bike as his profile picture, as for the chances of meeting a swift and violent death I would think the motorbike is several thousand times more likely to kill you then even a pre fix Boeing 737 Max.
Passenger gets to gate. Sees (or hears) it’s a max and says to the gate staff “I’m not getting on I want an alternative” (or whatever) gate staff “says sorry this is your only option, what’s your name I’ll offload you now and we’ll start looking for your bags or stop them going in the hold. Here’s a ticket that will get you back through security to the airport exit.”

Passenger gets on plane.

I’ve seen this scenario unfold many times over the years when passengers go from deciding something’s “definitely not safe” to getting on when then realise that they’re going to have to buy another flight or more frequently their wife just tells them to shut up and get on the plane.






Edited by El stovey on Friday 19th February 14:27

CeramicMX5ND2

2,321 posts

37 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
RyanAir's fleet of Max's will only increase too, as they retire off the older 737's - They do like to keep a modern and up-to-date fleet of aircraft..


El stovey

37,917 posts

227 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
CeramicMX5ND2 said:
RyanAir's fleet of Max's will only increase too, as they retire off the older 737's - They do like to keep a modern and up-to-date fleet of aircraft..
There’s going to be loads of Max aircraft around. Along with all the other aircraft that PHers have said they’re not going to fly on like the 787 threads years ago when the batteries caught fire after the ‘fire type event’.


matrignano

2,895 posts

174 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
And Boeing have just been hit with yet another cost penalty for their troubled KC-46 tanker for the USAF.

"The announcement a few days ago, of a new $275 million charge on the KC-46, Boeing has now paid as much in cost overruns for the troubled program as the U.S. Air Force invested in the tanker’s development.

The new charge, which the company reported as part of fourth-quarter 2020 earnings, means Boeing has now paid more than $5.0 billion out of pocket to pay for the myriad technical problems and production issues that have cropped up since the company won the program in 2011.

Under the firm, fixed-price contract signed then, Boeing is responsible for paying for any costs in excess of the contract’s $4.9 billion ceiling......."

scratchchin......oooops.....laugh
Far from an expert, but how can it cost $10bn to convert (not many I imagine) 767s into Tankers?
and still not get it right by the way!

J4CKO

33,333 posts

164 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
737 Max passengers be like,



Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.


El stovey

37,917 posts

227 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
737 Max passengers be like,



Ryanair wouldn't be buying them if they thought they were still a problem, pissing passengers off is one thing but slamming them into the ground at speed is another, O'Leary likes profit and if you kill your punters then profit doesn't happen and you tend to go bust.
Ryanair is very safety conscious. You can criticise them for all sorts but their training and safety is top notch,

CanAm

6,832 posts

236 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Ryanair is very safety conscious. You can criticise them for all sorts but their training and safety is top notch,
However, see post by CeramicMX5ND2 on 27 January.