Aviation Appreciation Station v2

[woob]

Start packing parachutes in your carryon now?

[Fuzz]

Somebody done screwed up, that's for certain. Fortunately no one died because of it.

[Acey]

I remember when a lot of people said they wouldn't fly the MAX and any airline flying one would lose so much business the frames would no longer be profitable to fly.

[Manhattanboy]

Has the MAX turned out to be an epic failure in terms of taking a 50 year old design and overpowering it with huge new engines?

Obviously an oversimplification on something I don't know much about but this is not good.

[sa226]

Its actually been quite successful. That doesn't absolve Boeing of the issues uncovered in the wake of the Lion Air tragedies.

There is a stigma to the MAXs that will never go away.

There is rarely any traction gained in the media, or even social media on reported issues with The Boeing 777, the Airbus 321 Neo or the A220, but if it's a MAX it's the front page of every news outlet.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Has the MAX turned out to be an epic failure in terms of taking a 50 year old design and overpowering it with huge new engines?

Obviously an oversimplification on something I don't know much about but this is not good.

It's not really overpowered, new engines are just phyiscally bigger because they have higher bypass ratios and are more efficient that way. This window/door blowout isn't objectively related to the design being 50 years old. A good chunk were cancelled but with 4,000 unfulfilled orders still, by any objective measure the frame is not an epic failure in terms of sales.

The $20 billion the crashes cost Boeing are only a small portion of the total cost of all the MAX's the will sell, at list prices.

[btimbit]

One thing I wonder though; how much cancelling/delaying the NMA/797 to focus on returning the MAX to service will hurt them in the long run. Airlines like Delta can't run their 757's forever, and even their MAX 10 order won't cover that capacity

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by btimbit

One thing I wonder though; how much cancelling/delaying the NMA/797 to focus on returning the MAX to service will hurt them in the long run. Airlines like Delta can't run their 757's forever, and even their MAX 10 order won't cover that capacity

Delta, run those 757's forever. Please.

[Acey]

If you look at the number of MAX currently on backorder alone, not even counting the 1,300+ already built, it's more than 4x the number of 757 built in a 20 year run for that frame.

Therefore, it's reasonable to say keeping MAX from blowing up and falling out of the sky is likely Boeing's best allocation of resources at the moment.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Acey

If you look at the number of MAX currently on backorder alone, not even counting the 1,300+ already built, it's more than 4x the number of 757 built in a 20 year run for that frame.

Therefore, it's reasonable to say keeping MAX from blowing up and falling out of the sky is likely Boeing's best allocation of resources at the moment.

No question that it was the only decision, but just a thought about how it still puts them even further on the backfoot

[timun]

Originally Posted by sa226

There is rarely any traction gained in the media, or even social media on reported issues with The Boeing 777, the Airbus 321 Neo or the A220, but if it's a MAX it's the front page of every news outlet.

Because there haven't been any issues with the B777, A321 Neo or A220 anywhere near as serious as the issues with the B737 Max.

[sa226]

My post was rather ambiguous.

I meant post return to service of the MAX

[timun]

And again: it's because there have never been issues with those other planes as serious as the issues with the 737 Max.

Like... I don't understand how this isn't blatantly obvious. Just because the 737 was cleared to re-enter service doesn't mean we collectively forget that Boeing ####ed up the redesign and implementation of this newest generation of plane so badly that they killed over 300 people. They killed those people with corruption, cheapening out on what should have always been mandatory safety features and retraining, pressuring their own people to let things slide and lobbying regulators to let things slide. It's corporate capitalism run amok.

So when we hear stories of wall panels blowing out the side of one of these turkeys, yeah: it's going to get a let more media coverage because it's a 737 Max. We already know they cheaped out on it: it just begs the question "What else did they cheap out on?"

[btimbit]

Worth noting that this doesn't seem to be an issue with all -9's, seems to be just ones touched by a particular facility Boeing has sub-contracted fuselage assembly to.

Not to excuse anyone or suggest that it changes the point at all. Just to say that it doesn't seem like a design issue, but a manufacturing issue. Will be interesting to see where the investigations go

[Bill Bumface]

At this rate we'll seen be seeing a bunch of AC Delco stamps all over Boeing parts.

[DoubleK]

Weird seeing a bunch of AA Max planes parked on the apron this morning at SeaTac. I would have thought they would have parked them at Boeing Field.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Weird seeing a bunch of AA Max planes parked on the apron this morning at SeaTac. I would have thought they would have parked them at Boeing Field.

American does not operate the Max9 to my knowledge.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

American does not operate the Max9 to my knowledge.

Alaska

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Alaska

Gotcha, I saw AA and my brain defaulted to American.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Gotcha, I saw AA and my brain defaulted to American.

As would most aviation people, AS would have solved that issue.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk