No, they might have fixed the MCAS issue, but what else is there to discover? From what I've read I have to admit I'm not sure I trust Boeing anymore. Would I fly the Max in 2-3 years? Maybe, but then again it is not that hard to avoid the Max in Europe as there are only a few airlines that use it or have ordered it. But in any case I'd prefer the train.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Would you fly on a Boeing 737Max?
- Thread starter Scotrail314209
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Scotrail314209
Established Member
Quite agree. I believe the biggest order of 737MAX's is for Ryanair with just over 200 on order.
Currently Ryanair have 210 rircraft on order.
100 ordered 28th November 2014
10 ordered 16th June 2017
25 ordered 29th March 2018
75 ordered 2nd December 2020
Why wouldn't you get on any commercial airlines?
4th largest after SouthWest (280), flydubai (251), and Lion Air (251)
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Not been on one yet. Cant wait to try it.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Sadly it's just a 737 with the Sky Interior, nothing fancy like 787 style big windows! They'll need to move to composite fuselages for that, which I guess is something to look forward to in the 737 replacement whenever that shows up.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
No question 737 is and has been a cash cow for Boeing but it needs replacing. Only been on one 787 and that was October 18th - CUN to MEX on AeroMexico codeshare flight with Delta. It is a very nice plane indeed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yep, despite the slightly cramped seating I loved the 787. Massive windows (in some ways felt a bit like being on a flying Pendolino rather than an actual plane), and because of the LCD "blinds" you can still see out when it's "sleep time" (I can't sleep on planes, so I always want to look out) without being antisocial and filling the cabin with light. Higher cabin pressure and humidity mean I arrive not feeling like death. Quiet and smooth. What's not to like? A new 777-300ER equivalent based on it would be the ideal long-haul plane.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
How much can you see out when the LCD blinds are on their darkest setting?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Fairly well given that the cabin is dark when they're all like that. The colour is blueish so it makes it rather monochrome, but you can certainly make out what you're flying over.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Thanks; I've been hesitant at looking at any flight with a 787 ( not that there's much opportunity at the moment anyway! ) in case they completely blanked it - same reason as you; I like looking out. At least on a 787 I won't have to hunch under my jacket to avoid light spilling onto everyone else... ( yes... I've done the jacket hunch thing... )
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
Southwest will be the big users here but they do not fly out of CHA so unlikely to fly them just yet. LPL to NOC on Ryanair is my best bet when I can post COVID get to see my grand kids
I’d be surprised if they were on a run that short for a while. Being more fuel efficient than their predecessors, Ryanair will be keen to get them on long runs.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
True hadn't thought of that - you are almost certainly correct
ian959
Member
Late to the party, but there is not a cats chance in hell of me ever getting on a 737MAX. My grandfather was an engineer and was always going about "if it doesn't look right, it isn't right". The 737MAX never looked right with the engines slung so far forward and higher so it clearly interfered with the airflow over the wing. Then again, Boeing have proved themselves more interested in profit than safety too, so I would be reluctant to get into any Boeing product now. It could get even worse with the 787 production being switched completely to South Carolina, which is being purely done for money saving reasons. Money saving reasons that results in poor quality control to the extent that some airlines have rightly refused deliveries until the problems were fixed. The 737 is an ancient airframe by commercial standards and should have been replaced 10-15 years ago with something purpose designed for modern high bypass turbofan engines.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it looks wrong. After all, aircraft over the years have had engines in all sorts of places, including inside the wing, on/in the tail etc. I think it looks fine, and the advantage of short landing gear is that you don't have to walk up quite as many steps to board (and built-in steps are viable, as Ryanair tend to use, though I forget if the MAX has that feature).
The problem was really just the approach of "bodging a bit on" in the form of MCAS to make it handle the same as the previous series so it wouldn't need its own type rating. If they'd just accepted that and not bothered with MCAS none of this would have happened.
The problem was really just the approach of "bodging a bit on" in the form of MCAS to make it handle the same as the previous series so it wouldn't need its own type rating. If they'd just accepted that and not bothered with MCAS none of this would have happened.
But the vast (if not all other engine mounting designs) leave the leading edge of the wing clean to assist producing as much lift as possible. Even those mounted in the wings are buried and ducted. Easy boarding and short landing gear has served the MAX well in the last two years of grounding while trying to fix the issue caused by bodging the engine position and then bodging the flight characteristics caused by the engine bodge.
To answer the original question - will be looking to actively avoid and will be a quandary when the decision becomes "go max or don't go".
I arrive at this decision not based on one factor, but through the toxic combination of many:
Design is flawed.
Bodge was created.
Bodge was flawed.
People died.
Bodge was improved.
Plane remains flawed.
The root cause of the problem? Money.
The fact this means I'll need to avoid mostly Ryanair and BA make this decision more, rather than less palatable.
I arrive at this decision not based on one factor, but through the toxic combination of many:
Design is flawed.
Bodge was created.
Bodge was flawed.
People died.
Bodge was improved.
Plane remains flawed.
The root cause of the problem? Money.
The fact this means I'll need to avoid mostly Ryanair and BA make this decision more, rather than less palatable.
Class465pacer
Member
Between March 2017 and March 2019 500,000 Boeing 737 Max flights were made. 2 of those led to crashes. I’d take those chances.
Source:
Source:
The Boeing 737 Max is now the deadliest mainstream jetliner
Two fatal crashes, under similar circumstances, fuel speculation of a terrible flaw in the popular jet.finance.yahoo.com
BA's owner IAG Group only took an option to purchase agreement on 200 aircraft in June 2019. The fact that they haven't yet exercised the ability to convert this option to an order suggests we are at least 4-5 years away from seeing them with BA.
Ah. Absolute statistics.
For comparison, how many A320neo flights were made in the same timeframe, and how many of those fell out of the sky?
(I genuinely don’t know, but reckon it’s around 2 million and none respectively)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Very unlikely another one will crash due to MCAS (even if they hadn't bolted another bodge on top of the existing bodge) as only a pilot who has spent the last few years with his head in a bucket of sand wouldn't know about it and how to respond to it.
It's all a bit De Havilland Comet, is it not?
The difference is the De Havilland Comet was a safe aircraft bar the windows (which was not known about by anyone at the time). The windows were not a bodge like MCAS so there isn't suspicion about the rest of the aircraft. It still concerns me that Boeing didn't spend the extra money on a second sensor for the MCAS...
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
To fix it, they used the MCAS from the 787.
Well in the sense that they used a thinner skin so they could use their own engines instead of Rolls Royce engines, yes there are comparisons to be drawn. The main reason for Comet crashes was our lack of understanding of pressurisation back then, Boeing knew about redundancy and failed to enact it on the MAX. Now why this oversight happened is yet to be determined.
I hope it's just to try and position for a better haggle with Airbus for A2x or A3x aircraft but we will see.
Exactly Comet 4 had the physical defect removed, Max hasn't.
And to make it worse isn't the second airspeed sensor already there so it was complete penny pinching not to include it in the MCAS set up in the first place?
Agree entirely on your point about haggling for a better price from Airbus!
With respect to the second sensor. One of the biggest ticket's in terms of cost for retrofitting the grounded MAX's (as opposed to new build) is the cost of installing the cables to link the 2nd Sensor to the aircraft computer databus module
The Comet was cutting edge at the time and dealing with forces not fully understood at the time. The MAX is a 60 year old design that been bodged to within an inch of its life (and beyond the lives of the 346 killed by those bodges)
And the Comet was redesigned and fixed and flew safely (for that period and with no crashes due to the stress issue) in some forms (the Nimrod) till 2011.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Correct. For whatever reason, they neglected to use both.
- Status