Would you fly on a 737 Max?

Would you fly on a 737 Max?

Author
Discussion

J4CKO

33,333 posts

164 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
El stovey said:
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,
Indeed, my eldest works up at Prestwick on the Ryanair fleet, he has been pretty complimentary about the safety standards.

Like I say, O'Leary isn't exactly generous and is pretty ruthless, but he isn't stupid.

El stovey

37,918 posts

227 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Indeed, my eldest works up at Prestwick on the Ryanair fleet, he has been pretty complimentary about the safety standards.

Like I say, O'Leary isn't exactly generous and is pretty ruthless, but he isn't stupid.
I think the lowcos always knew that people would ask where savings were being made and point at safety but they knew any crashes would be very bad for their reputation.

As a result training is excellent and the equipment is all new and well maintained.

Ryanair actually have one of the best safety records around.

Lord.Vader

3,478 posts

103 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
Krikkit said:
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?
Could be anything and everything, if I had to bet, it’ll be a MAX specific composite element that joins ‘old’ 737 design to new MAX design.

I was involved in the A380 rib foot cracking investigation, something so simple and standard on a/c design was just missed off!

I probably would fly on a MAX tbh, I probably have, but I wouldn’t be happy about it.

J4CKO, do you think Ryanair do that because they want to, or have to?

Aircraft standard require, for example, a C check every ‘x’ years, most safety and maintain eye will be manufacturer dictated through hours and cycles, not driven by the operator.

In a few instances in the last, when I was on A400M, the operators generally try and push for extended equipment life (this was life vests, cargo straps, fire safety, etc) as they are ridiculously expensive and MUST be replaced / retested, obviously the OEM makes an absolute fortune for recert so have no interest in extending anything.

OEM equipment is 99% design and build, as opposed to structure which is normally build to print.

aeropilot

23,747 posts

191 months

Friday 19th February
quotequote all
matrignano said:
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!
They are not converting any 767's into KC-46A for the USAF, they are all new build KC-46A....and the USAF have ordered 180 of them.


J4CKO

33,333 posts

164 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
Lord.Vader said:
Krikkit said:
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?
J4CKO, do you think Ryanair do that because they want to, or have to?

Bit of both I expect, I dont think even O'Leary would be keen on cutting corners safety wise, obviously aviation is heavily regulated so safety is mandated but even so as has been mentioned, no airline is keen on the reputational damage crashes do. Look at Boeings Reputation before and after the 737 Max debacle.

Nobody is saying "If its not Boeing, I am not going" any more.

Also, I dont think all the staff would be that keen on sending stuff out with their name on it that isn't safe, or flying on it for that matter.

At the very least, planes that arent maintained fully arent reliable and despatch performance suffers, if its sat on the ground being fixed it is costing money, better to have scheduled, rather than impromptu maintenance.


Lord.Vader

3,478 posts

103 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
Yeah absolutely.

But I’d expect Ryanair are regularly in a room with Boeing saying we’ve checked ‘x’ 750 times and never found an issue, ‘y’ after every flight and never found an issue, can we stretch it to 2 / 3 flights, etc.

Better for Ryanair as less downtime, better for Boeing as from a sales perspective they increase their air time.

Same for Airbus, etc.

JuniorD

8,129 posts

187 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
I’d classify all British and Irish airlines as being really safe. I can’t imagine any of them compromising on their maintenance responsibilities

Teddy Lop

4,651 posts

31 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
matrignano said:
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!
They are not converting any 767's into KC-46A for the USAF, they are all new build KC-46A....and the USAF have ordered 180 of them.
the design can be called a conversion if not the airframes

Meanwhile Airbus's voyager seems to be quite a success and stealing most global orders for tankers.

I wonder sometimes why Airbus even bother submitting a tender for US defence contracts.

Teddy Lop

4,651 posts

31 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
JuniorD said:
I’d classify all British and Irish airlines as being really safe. I can’t imagine any of them compromising on their maintenance responsibilities
a crash traced to external/unforeseeable factors is a tragedy but a survivable incident for the company for most western airlines, but one traced to skipped maintenance even as a minor but contributing factor would probably be ruinous, in an age where people can be picky. I mean, you can (and I do) book my holidays (generally long weekends) with the criteria: 1) not too disagreeable flight times 2) preferably local departure luton/stansted 3) ideally not ryanair or air chance


RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat

11,428 posts

59 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
If the Ryanair model is high volume low margin, it's in their interests to have new aircraft that spend the least amount of time in maintainence with maximum fuel efficiency.

aeropilot

23,747 posts

191 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
If the Ryanair model is high volume low margin, it's in their interests to have new aircraft that spend the least amount of time in maintainence with maximum fuel efficiency.
Yep, the PCP of the aviation world......

nordboy

218 posts

14 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
Surely they must now be safe? If not, would Boeing survive another 737 Max crashing? Not sure they would as a company.

I would have liked to think they were safe the first (and second) time round mind you!!!

El stovey

37,918 posts

227 months

Saturday 20th February
quotequote all
Tui MAX airborne today in Manchester

https://youtu.be/dbGca8w35Rc

QuickQuack

1,231 posts

65 months

Wednesday 24th 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.
Comparing refusing to fly on a 737 Max with refusing a COVID vaccine is disingenuous and a straw man argument. For a start, not flying somewhere doesn't make you more likely to die, refusing a vaccine does. We have now had several million people vaccinated around the world and not had a single fatality as a result of the vaccine, but several hundred people have died as a result of flying on a 737 Max. The Max was designed to the specifications of airlines interested in lowering their costs, the vaccines were designed by people interested in saving people's lives. Absolutely incomparable.

Also, there are reasonable alternatives to flying on a 737 Max and there were several other documented incidents which were similar in nature to the crash causing incidents prior to the crashes which were brushed under the carpet, and massive errors in the plane's design and testing stages due to corporate cost cutting. My faith in big organisations isn't blind enough to think that they will do things right, or that they will do the right thing, even after blindingly obvious mistakes have been pointed out.

Personally, I have lost a lot of faith in Boeing and I don't want to fly in a 737 Max. I never flew Ryanair anyway but I definitely won't in the future as I don't want to fly in a Max. I'll be flying a lot less in the future so the chances will be lower anyway, but I'll keep an eye on plane types a bit more than I used to, especially for holidays. As for the comment above where the bloke would walk on board after the wife and kids, my wife wouldn't walk onboard a Max either.

As an aside, neither of us are exactly at the bottom of the class, both doctors with additional degrees, post grad qualifications etc and we try to look at the evidence in front of us as impartially as possible. Since the COVID vaccine was brought into the conversation, she's had her Covid vaccine already and I've been in one of the trials for quite some time, before any were even licensed.

J4CKO

33,333 posts

164 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
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.
Comparing refusing to fly on a 737 Max with refusing a COVID vaccine is disingenuous and a straw man argument. For a start, not flying somewhere doesn't make you more likely to die, refusing a vaccine does. We have now had several million people vaccinated around the world and not had a single fatality as a result of the vaccine, but several hundred people have died as a result of flying on a 737 Max. The Max was designed to the specifications of airlines interested in lowering their costs, the vaccines were designed by people interested in saving people's lives. Absolutely incomparable.

Also, there are reasonable alternatives to flying on a 737 Max and there were several other documented incidents which were similar in nature to the crash causing incidents prior to the crashes which were brushed under the carpet, and massive errors in the plane's design and testing stages due to corporate cost cutting. My faith in big organisations isn't blind enough to think that they will do things right, or that they will do the right thing, even after blindingly obvious mistakes have been pointed out.

Personally, I have lost a lot of faith in Boeing and I don't want to fly in a 737 Max. I never flew Ryanair anyway but I definitely won't in the future as I don't want to fly in a Max. I'll be flying a lot less in the future so the chances will be lower anyway, but I'll keep an eye on plane types a bit more than I used to, especially for holidays. As for the comment above where the bloke would walk on board after the wife and kids, my wife wouldn't walk onboard a Max either.

As an aside, neither of us are exactly at the bottom of the class, both doctors with additional degrees, post grad qualifications etc and we try to look at the evidence in front of us as impartially as possible. Since the COVID vaccine was brought into the conversation, she's had her Covid vaccine already and I've been in one of the trials for quite some time, before any were even licensed.
I was pointing out that we make choices every day that involve risk, whether you do something or dont do something.

I am comfortable with flying on a Max, I am comfortable with having the Covid vaccine as I am pretty certain neither are a huge risk.

I am however planning on taking a decent ride, on public roads on my bicycle, for maybe 30/40 miles on Friday, I will come home and perhaps have a takeaway and some alcohol, all of which I deem as riskier than the vaccine or flying on a Boeing 737 Max.

Something will get me eventually, sometime between right now and the next 40 years or so.


there is an element of trusting the experts, with the acknowledgement they are human and can get stuff wrong, I think avoiding the Max (or whatever it gets called going forward) will get difficult for a lot of destinations, but, like the vaccine trust will be built in it.


I know I would avoid flying on a Max and find a 320Neo that crashes anyway, its a bizarre but wonderful way to travel and every plane has potential issues we just arent aware of yet, they mostly get designed out but even then there are still humans flying them, still freak weather and still other factors that can cause a crash.

Fairly certain a Max will have an accident at some point but it probably wont be because of the ACAS issue that caused the other crashes, a 737 crashed in Indonesia on the 9th of January, that wasnt a Max.

Wouldn't try to convince anyone to fly on something they werent happy with but for me, I will still travel on them.

"Even if its Boeing, I am still going" is the new slogan biggrin




eharding

11,524 posts

248 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
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.
Comparing refusing to fly on a 737 Max with refusing a COVID vaccine is disingenuous and a straw man argument. For a start, not flying somewhere doesn't make you more likely to die, refusing a vaccine does. We have now had several million people vaccinated around the world and not had a single fatality as a result of the vaccine, but several hundred people have died as a result of flying on a 737 Max. The Max was designed to the specifications of airlines interested in lowering their costs, the vaccines were designed by people interested in saving people's lives. Absolutely incomparable.

Also, there are reasonable alternatives to flying on a 737 Max and there were several other documented incidents which were similar in nature to the crash causing incidents prior to the crashes which were brushed under the carpet, and massive errors in the plane's design and testing stages due to corporate cost cutting. My faith in big organisations isn't blind enough to think that they will do things right, or that they will do the right thing, even after blindingly obvious mistakes have been pointed out.

Personally, I have lost a lot of faith in Boeing and I don't want to fly in a 737 Max. I never flew Ryanair anyway but I definitely won't in the future as I don't want to fly in a Max. I'll be flying a lot less in the future so the chances will be lower anyway, but I'll keep an eye on plane types a bit more than I used to, especially for holidays. As for the comment above where the bloke would walk on board after the wife and kids, my wife wouldn't walk onboard a Max either.

As an aside, neither of us are exactly at the bottom of the class, both doctors with additional degrees, post grad qualifications etc and we try to look at the evidence in front of us as impartially as possible. Since the COVID vaccine was brought into the conversation, she's had her Covid vaccine already and I've been in one of the trials for quite some time, before any were even licensed.
Whilst public faith in Boeing has been justifiably shaken by the 737 Max debacle, if you think there aren't problems with other types just waiting - sometime for decades - to come out and kill you, then you're mistaken.

A BA mate was flying a 747 from Johannesburg a few years ago when, just after take off, a fault that had been buried in the design of the thrust reverser system for probably 20 years caused the leading edge slats to retract, leaving the aircraft on the bleeding edge of a stall and going down into the built up area north of the airport. His wife, also a BA pilot, was in the first class cabin travelling as a passenger, could hear the stick shaker going off in the flight deck above her as he was trying to keep the thing in the air, which thankfully he did. But it was a very close run thing, and whilst you would hope any line pilot who just happened to be the one handling the aircraft that day would have also held it together, the fact he was also an accomplished aerobatic pilot and therefore more familiar than most with dancing on the edge of departure from controlled flight certainly didn't hurt.

You can probably find lots of cases of hidden design faults causing potential accidents after years in unblemished service, but that's just one I'm personally familiar with. Of course, that's another example of a Boeing issue, but if you're going to boycott the Max you might want to consider just not going on a Boeing at all (and content yourself with fretting about the Airbus you're travelling in suddenly having a mind of it's own....)

QuickQuack

1,231 posts

65 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
"Even if its Boeing, I am still going" is the new slogan biggrin
I quite like that! rofl You might well be the one to make me take my first tentative step back on to one! Boeing should sack their entire marketing department and have you instead! beer

QuickQuack

1,231 posts

65 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
eharding said:
Whilst public faith in Boeing has been justifiably shaken by the 737 Max debacle, if you think there aren't problems with other types just waiting - sometime for decades - to come out and kill you, then you're mistaken.
It's mainly that trust issue. I know things go wrong, people make mistakes, and people die as a result. My mistakes have resulted in harm and injury in the past; I have seen and witnessed many mistakes which led to deaths and injuries, so I am well aware of problems with people and things made, done or designed by people. However, the mistakes I made and the mistakes I saw and witnessed were made not due to trying to save on costs or to cut corners in safety tests to make more money, they were as a result of extreme stress, tiredness due to trying to look after too many patients, working when unwell as there was nobody who could cover a shift etc.

It takes a lot to build trust, and when it's been lost its very difficult to regain it. In fact, I would think that it would be easier to build trust where there was no pre-existing relationship and you started from a neutral or even a hostile perspective than having previously trusted someone or something but you've lost that trust as a result of what you feel is a massive failure.

Halmyre

9,027 posts

103 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
QuickQuack said:
J4CKO said:
"Even if its Boeing, I am still going" is the new slogan biggrin
I quite like that! rofl You might well be the one to make me take my first tentative step back on to one! Boeing should sack their entire marketing department and have you instead! beer
It's better than "Boeing, Boeing, gone"

Shy Torque

302 posts

151 months

Wednesday 24th February
quotequote all
eharding said:
Whilst public faith in Boeing has been justifiably shaken by the 737 Max debacle, if you think there aren't problems with other types just waiting - sometime for decades - to come out and kill you, then you're mistaken.

A BA mate was flying a 747 from Johannesburg a few years ago when, just after take off, a fault that had been buried in the design of the thrust reverser system for probably 20 years caused the leading edge slats to retract, leaving the aircraft on the bleeding edge of a stall and going down into the built up area north of the airport. His wife, also a BA pilot, was in the first class cabin travelling as a passenger, could hear the stick shaker going off in the flight deck above her as he was trying to keep the thing in the air, which thankfully he did. But it was a very close run thing, and whilst you would hope any line pilot who just happened to be the one handling the aircraft that day would have also held it together, the fact he was also an accomplished aerobatic pilot and therefore more familiar than most with dancing on the edge of departure from controlled flight certainly didn't hurt.

You can probably find lots of cases of hidden design faults causing potential accidents after years in unblemished service, but that's just one I'm personally familiar with. Of course, that's another example of a Boeing issue, but if you're going to boycott the Max you might want to consider just not going on a Boeing at all (and content yourself with fretting about the Airbus you're travelling in suddenly having a mind of it's own....)
As an aside, after that event, BA pilots were given the Jo’burg scenario in the simulator - a lot didn’t manage it.