Anybody getting on a 737 Max?

[Mr Mac]

Post latest issue re Alaskan Airlines can I ask if anyone is getting on these aircraft on here. I have just posted on the Alaskan Airlines thread about how I am actively avoiding the 787 / 737 Max and just wondered if it was just me ? As a business I know we are not using the Max for staff travel and to be honest none of our staff like the 787 so that seems to sort itself out. Also the carriers we use LH, SQ, EK limit our exposure, but I just wondered how wide spread or not is that feeling ?

Cheers
Mr Mac

[davidjohnson6]

I am thinking about avoiding shorthaul with airlines using the 737 Max-9 until the Alaska Air investigation is substantially complete or a root cause clearly identified. The grounding of these aircraft may spread from Alaska to other airlines and result in many people having their flights cancelled. If I book a flight, it is because I need or want to fly, and don't fancy having travel plans cancelled. If flights are cancelled, I prefer it happen to other people rather than me.
Aeromexico, Air Tanzania, Alaska, Copa, Corendon Dutch, Flydubai, Icelandair, Lion Air, SCAT, Turkish, United - sorry but no short-haul bookings from me for now.

[alserire]

Won’t use it. Fortunately I use mostly EI, LH and LX so that helps.

[ZFT]

I believe one has to rely on the regulators. Else why have them?

If there really is an issue they should take action.

[davidjohnson6]

US FAA has grounded 171 737 Max 9s for inspection. CAAs all round the world will now likely feel duty bound to do the same thing. Cue flight cancellations
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67903655

[PAXboy]

I have said in here before that I would not use the Max. Not because of safety issues as the original problem was fixed. But the problem was created by Boeing for monetary reasons and some airlines were also part of that. My not travelling on the Max will not be noted but I will not do it. This latest problem may (or may not) turn out to be a manufacturing problem. I expect that millions of people will be safely carried by the Max but it does not change my view.

The 787 is in related territory. Thus far I have only done four sectors on it and can see/feel no advantage to me. I understand the advantage for the operators. Thus far, the 78 has had longer to have design problems addressed but we have yet to learn about any manufacturing ones. It looks like I may have to use the 78 later this year as the operator is not giving me any options - even though they originally said that the route in question would be served by a different machine.

[James 1077]

I won’t fly the Max and avoid any airline that operates it where it could be used as a replacement airframe.
it just isn’t worth the risk.

[nuisance79]

I believe one has to rely on the regulators. Else why have them?

If there really is an issue they should take action.


Because like in several other industries, the regulators have been compromised (in this case by the manufacturer)

[alserire]

I believe one has to rely on the regulators. Else why have them?

If there really is an issue they should take action.

I’d sooner rely on my own common sense.

[Andy_S]

I am thinking about avoiding shorthaul with airlines using the 737 Max-9 until the Alaska Air investigation is substantially complete or a root cause clearly identified.

That seems fair enough.

If I had to get on a 737 Max I would do so, but would avoid it if I could, at least until, as you say, the cause of the Alaska Air incident is identified.

Unlike some, I don't have an issue with other Boeing types.

[jared131]

I would fly on the 737 Max but keep my seatbelt on at all times.

[DIBO]

I think that after the MCAS-debacle, future safety statistics will prove the MAX not to be an unacceptable safety risk.
That being said, I'll try to avoid it where I can, but that's got to do more with the fact the MAX was a project ran by bean-counters and the design being based one time too many, on grandfather rights.
Refusing to fly with Ryanair on socio-economic grounds will, in my continent anyway, facilitate future MAX-avoiding.

Contributing also, my disliking the 737 since its introduction, with the fat, ugly original one, replacing the mighty 727 in my neck of the woods. Not to speak about the subsequent generation with its 'unaesthetic' (to avoid further foul language) engines being forced under the too low a wing.:8 And yes, the MAX did a good job on this aspect....because there was no other option...

[Hartington]

I believe that other recent 737s (737-800, 737-900) have this plug door arrangement? Should I avoid them too?

[PAXboy]

It seems that the question abiout this incident is not design but manufacturing. Depending on time and place of manufacturer - will hinge any concerrns.

[kap'n krunch]

I’ve flown in the back several times on the 39M over the past few months on Alaska and United. Nice planes, the pilots seem to like them also.

[Armorer]

At this point I would actively avoid flying on a max.

[PAXboy]

This information is from the website of FR24. I think they are known as a reliable source of fleet data.

Which airlines operate the 737-9 MAX? (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/737-9-max-airlines/)

They detail which have the door active and which blocked.

[rog747]

This information is from the website of FR24. I think they are known as a reliable source of fleet data.

Which airlines operate the 737-9 MAX? (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/737-9-max-airlines/)

They detail which have the door active and which blocked.


Great, and to simplify more, the 737's with Door Plugs (exit unused) has a Window, and those with an active exit door - these have a small porthole.

[rog747]

I believe that other recent 737s (737-800, 737-900) have this plug door arrangement? Should I avoid them too?

The 737-900ER (a stretched -800) has the door option.
900's do not have them (such as KLM's)
No -800's have them.

[DaveReidUK]

This information is from the website of FR24. I think they are known as a reliable source of fleet data.

Which airlines operate the 737-9 MAX? (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/737-9-max-airlines/)

They detail which have the door active and which blocked.

More than 80% of the Max 9 aircraft built to date have the door plug.

[alserire]

Initial investigation suggests warning lights had lit up on three flights in the month or so before the one where the door blew out.

‘Alaska Airlines decided to restrict the aircraft from long flights over water so that the plane “could return very quickly to an airport” if the warning light reappeared, said Jennifer Homendy, chair of the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).’

That’s scandalous really. How was the plane not grounded?

[PAXboy]

alserie How was the plane not grounded?
Not sufficient evidence - this fault not seen before and, usually, the suspect would be an outflow valve. Or, of course the old favourite, money?

[alserire]

alserie
Not sufficient evidence - this fault not seen before and, usually, the suspect would be an outflow valve. Or, of course the old favourite, money?


Madenss.

Could have killed hundreds.

[WB627]

Some years ago I told my family to NEVER get on an ATR

Or anything Russian including their airlines.

I subsequently added the 737 (MAD) Max to the family no fly list.

I also refused to allow my ATC son to fly on Chinooks or USAF aircraft, until the nagging got too much to tolerate and the Chinook issues had all gone quiet. The day after he flew on a Chinook, the RAF grounder their entire fleet. I rest my case.

[PAXboy]

I also have a list of airlines that are not to be touched. In my circle, I am known as an experienced traveller and often asked for advice. Thus far, after 58 years, no mistakes but you have to keep up to date.

A relative of mine in another country is involved with the airline world there and, with a visit being booked, I checked with him about internal flights. He told me which one to avoid, due to their (not public) reputation.

[S.o.S.]

BBC webnews (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67919436)
Bolts in need of "additional tightening" have been found during inspections of Boeing 737 Max 9s, United Airlines has said.

[DaveReidUK]

"Additional tightening" - love it ! :O

[Asturias56]

Some years ago I told my family to NEVER get on an ATR

Or anything Russian including their airlines.

I subsequently added the 737 (MAD) Max to the family no fly list.

I also refused to allow my ATC son to fly on Chinooks or USAF aircraft, until the nagging got too much to tolerate and the Chinook issues had all gone quiet. The day after he flew on a Chinook, the RAF grounder their entire fleet. I rest my case.

Why the ATR? Russians - yes - but it 's useless advice if you have to go to Russia . Same as odd airlines in Indonesia, Nepal, Africa. Sometimes it 's that or a hellishly dangerous trip by car or boat - or no trip at all.

[rog747]

Why the ATR? Russians - yes - but it 's useless advice if you have to go to Russia . Same as odd airlines in Indonesia, Nepal, Africa. Sometimes it 's that or a hellishly dangerous trip by car or boat - or no trip at all.
Some ATR were lost over the years due to the very critical wing subject to icing problems in certain weather conditions and it was shown that the aircraft was very susceptible in cooler climes

there is one aircraft that I never fancy riding again is the LET 410
being on a few and I really wasn't keen and quite a few of it lost in the developing world for one reason or another

Don't laugh but this comes from someone fmworking with British Midlands who worked with the SH 330 and 360 bread van shoe boxes at Heathrow regularly ten times a day Birmingham and East Midlands

[meleagertoo]

I’d sooner rely on my own common sense.If there were any of that present this thread would be very short indeed.
I'd sooner rely on industry experts and regulators than a bunch of self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts.
Sorry to burden the thread with unnecessary complications like common sense or reality...

[S.o.S.]

You are welcome to your opinion meleagertoo just as all the other people in this forum. If someone chooses not to use a particular company for their own personal reasons? That is fine. Bear in mind that when some products are recommended, they turn out not to be so good. I am not just referring to aircraft.

Yes, you do have more direct experience than those that Pax but, people will always make choices for a multiplicity of reasons. Please stay and contribute to the cabin.

[crewmeal]

So if you’ve booked a package holiday to a European destination with TUI or even Ryanair and a 737 Max turns up what are you going to do? I doubt any insurance company would pay out if you refused to fly.

[davidjohnson6]

So if you’ve booked a package holiday to a European destination with TUI or even Ryanair and a 737 Max turns up what are you going to do? I doubt any insurance company would pay out if you refused to fly.
Much of the debate seems to be specifically about the 737 Max 9. Do you think the scope of concern should be widened to include all 737 Max aircraft ? I don't know what the right answer is

[crewmeal]

I appreciate that this generally about the 737 Max 9 but several on here have made it clear they wouldn’t fly on a 737 Max which I presume they mean the 8 series.

On a different note I wonder how this will affect t the certification of the series 10 Max.

[ZFT]

The vast majority of pax have no idea what type of aircraft they have boarded until they look at the safety briefing card I would suggest

[James 1077]

So if you’ve booked a package holiday to a European destination with TUI or even Ryanair and a 737 Max turns up what are you going to do? I doubt any insurance company would pay out if you refused to fly.
I don't book anyone who flies the Max, just in case of this eventuality.

[ZFT]

I don't book anyone who flies the Max, just in case of this eventuality.
I wonder whether you also check the safety ratings of cars brfore you hire them?

[TowerDog]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/540x537/img_2403_10f66fea8a0a171854f321ba2866e867c9da6599.jpeg

[alserire]

If there were any of that present this thread would be very short indeed.
I'd sooner rely on industry experts and regulators than a bunch of self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts.
Sorry to burden the thread with unnecessary complications like common sense or reality...
Would you listen to the Boeing CEO? Who has claimed it as their fault?

The history of the Max is extraordinarily shoddy. So yes. I’ll rely on what I see and hear. And make my own decisions. The notion that the ‘real’ experts can never be wrong is exactly what gets people killed.

[DaveReidUK]

On a different note I wonder how this will affect t the certification of the series 10 Max.

Given that the FAA are now playing hard ball on the Max 7 certification, I think we can guess the answer re the Max 10.

[nuisance79]

The vast majority of pax have no idea what type of aircraft they have boarded until they look at the safety briefing card I would suggest
And made even more confusing with certain Airlines branding them 737 8-200 ;)

[Asturias56]

The vast majority of pax have no idea what type of aircraft they have boarded until they look at the safety briefing card I would suggest

And 95% don't look at it or take it in if they do

[Clay_T]

The vast majority of pax have no idea what type of aircraft they have boarded until they look at the safety briefing card I would suggest
The serrated cowl on the LEAP is a dead giveaway.

And 95% don't look at it or take it in if they do
I look at it every time I buckle in. And count rows to the exit, and check under the seat for the PFD.

At the end of the day, I trust that the folks up front and the CC have a desire to get home safely, and they're on the plane.
Good enough for me.

Dodging ten thousand idiots in So Cal traffic every day, and driving to LAX, or SNA, or ONT to get on a plane is infinitely more risky.

[Asturias56]

"I look at it every time I buckle in. And count rows to the exit, and check under the seat for the PFD."

I'd bet that applies to almost everyone who posts on here - but if you look around we're the only ones.................. :(

[PAXboy]

I would say that's right. Some of my family and friends ask me about which carrier to use and one nervous flyer asks me if I would travel on the aircraft she intends to book.

I also check the floation device for Mrs PAXboy. I once found it missing on a short haul. I have told the story in here and won't repeat the CC lack of response. I considered the amount of time that we would be over water and the time to get to a lower altitude and decided not to make the cabin 'unsafe'. However, I noted that that carrier changed the provision on later aircraft deliveries. The jacket is now in the overhead with the O2 masks to prevent stealing.

[Asturias56]

I can remember Garuda giving a full demonstration of the lifejacket on the only flight they had which DIDN'T cross water and never on any of the others.... but that's indonesia....................

[waito]

I try to avoid as well. Not because of any one of the past issues. They are sorted out. Not because I'm afraid of the door plug issue. Will be sorted out next time I fly. And not that I ACTUALLY fear an extraordinarily risk to die in a MAX. But:

1. Boeing did accumulate too many different issues so trust is gone

2. It is very likely that, given the company culture, more and more issues will pop up. It has gotten relatively out of control. I might not die from it, but face trouble more likely.

3. Bean counters and sharedrunk management rule. My company is on the same way. I know how, slowly, culture changes, madness becomes normality and nothing else really matters. I have enough of it so I use Boeing as an example of a rotten enterprise in demise from former glory - to as many people as I can.

[SLF3]

If there were any of that present this thread would be very short indeed.
I'd sooner rely on industry experts and regulators than a bunch of self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts.
Sorry to burden the thread with unnecessary complications like common sense or reality...

I'd sooner rely on 'industry regulators and experts'. But when the regulator appears to be in bed with the manufacturer that isn't really an option, is it? I think it is called 'regulatory capture' in the jargon. Thinking about the 737:

- Have they sorted the issues with the nacelle design post the un-contained engine failure on Southwest? I don't think so.
- Will they fix the anti ice on the composite nacelle before the Max 10 is certified? I don't think so.
- Have they implemented the changes required by EASA as a condition of letting the Max back into the air? I don't think so.
- Missing / loose bolts in the rudder control system.....
- Missing / loose bolts holding in a 6' x 3' 'door'

I am waiting with some interest to see how EASA react when they are asked to certify the Max 10. But not holding my breath.

Your comment on 'self-appointed ex-spurt passengers who deem their wildly irrational fantasies on risk assessment and aircraft design superior to that of real experts' says (I would suggest) more about you than us. At the time of the second crash the hull loss rate for the Max was 1 for every 80,000 flights, compared to 1 for every 5 million for the 737 fleet as a whole. I will fly the Max if I have to, but not if I don't: not because I believe 1 in 80,000 is an unacceptable risk to take, but because I have a wildly irrational fantasy that if people don't buy broken products manufacturers might notice and produce better ones.

By the way, the definition of an expert: 'ex means out of date, and a spurt is a drip under pressure'.

[hec7or]

Well, in the Boeing v Airbus debate, I don't think that the great loss of life which occurred on AF447 could have happened on a Boeing because of lessons learned during the B47 to B52 evolution in the late 50s. Boeing realised that after the B47 had lost a few airframes due to some high G overstress incidents and subsequent loss of control in flight, that because the P1 and P2 in the B47 were seated in tandem, they could not see what each other were doing and that this was clearly not a good idea, so the B52 as a result of this had the pilots seated side by side and both had a big control column in between his/her legs to avoid any misunderstandings.
On AF447, the Pilot Monitoring did not know why the flight instruments were giving conflicting information because he had no idea that his colleague was holding the aircraft into a stall as he couldn't see the position of his colleague's sidestick and when he tried to push forward he didn't at first have control authority whereas on a Boeing, one pilot can override the other by brute force.
My view is that, overall. Boeing products when compared to Airbus are pretty sound.

[Gargleblaster]

Will be flying CPH-YYZ on a 787 in a few weeks, and will happily also board a B737 Max especially an FI (IATA code) one considering company training and history and personal friendships.

[421dog]

Well, in the Boeing v Airbus debate, I don't think that the great loss of life which occurred on AF447 could have happened on a Boeing because of lessons learned during the B47 to B52 evolution in the late 50s. Boeing realised that after the B47 had lost a few airframes due to some high G overstress incidents and subsequent loss of control in flight, that because the P1 and P2 in the B47 were seated in tandem, they could not see what each other were doing and that this was clearly not a good idea, so the B52 as a result of this had the pilots seated side by side and both had a big control column in between his/her legs to avoid any misunderstandings.
On AF447, the Pilot Monitoring did not know why the flight instruments were giving conflicting information because he had no idea that his colleague was holding the aircraft into a stall as he couldn't see the position of his colleague's sidestick and when he tried to push forward he didn't at first have control authority whereas on a Boeing, one pilot can override the other by brute force.
My view is that, overall. Boeing products when compared to Airbus are pretty sound.


Fairly certain I have posted this before, so,
with apologies:
I took my 13 y/o up6 or seven years ago in a c150. We flew around for a few minutes. She figured on a place 50 nm away she wanted to go. She started screwing around with altitude, and stalled the aircraft. She realized that a recovery involved lowering the nose, and did so.
she was back on track within 5 minutes without significant input from me.

Better than some have done…

[SLF3]

Fairly certain I have posted this before, so,
with apologies:
I took my 13 y/o up6 or seven years ago in a c150. We flew around for a few minutes. She figured on a place 50 nm away she wanted to go. She started screwing around with altitude, and stalled the aircraft. She realized that a recovery involved lowering the nose, and did so.
she was back on track within 5 minutes without significant input from me.

Better than some have done…

And this is about the Max, not Boeing vs Airbus: before hec7for’s post no mention of Airbus in this thread.

[waito]

Lufthansa Group recently ordered 40 max + 60 options. Apparently not for their flagship airlines, these are probably rather planned for the groups' low-cost operations.

When asked if they reconsider their plans, official answer was 'no'. But in the background there's worries if the reputation will be affected. Sources refer to members of the supervisory board!

Even an economist magazine publishes a comment that clearly asks for cancelling the order.

Too bad we only have a Duopol left in relevant segments of the aircraft market.

[421dog]

Will be flying CPH-YYZ on a 787 in a few weeks, and will happily also board a B737 Max especially an FI (IATA code) one considering company training and history and personal friendships.

Well, YYZ is unmatched (from a Canadian standpoint anyway)👍

[Asturias56]

The issue is of course that if you cancel orders for the Max you'll have to wait years for an Airbus - you join the queue at #8599...................

[ciderman]

I won’t fly the Max and avoid any airline that operates it where it could be used as a replacement airframe.
it just isn’t worth the risk.
Unless you read these pages you won’t know what you are flying on. I’ve asked friends who have visited how their flight was and what type of aircraft they flew on and most haven’t a clue.

[Ancient Mariner]

I try to avoid 787s and 737s simply because I don't like them. A320s, 350s or 330s, please.
Per

[FUMR]

I can only assume that European airlines ordering Boeings is because a) they are currently cheaper and b) there's a shorter waiting time for delivery.

[PAXboy]

I have only travelled on the VS 787 and I hate it for one simple reason. They electronically lock the windows at night. I cannot see out when I want to. In the morning, they have them show false shades of sunrise. I don't know if any other carriers do this.

[Asturias56]

I can only assume that European airlines ordering Boeings is because a) they are currently cheaper and b) there's a shorter waiting time for delivery.

No - there are also issues about commonality - changing to Airbus would involve some serious costs for the like of Ryanair. Training, duplication, confusion........... all a cost. O'Leary has been a genius at waiting until some external event has hammered Boeing and then arriving on their doorstep with just enough cash to keep them in business

[DaveReidUK]

They electronically lock the windows at night.

I'm always in favour of anything that prevents passengers opening windows except in an emergency ...

[SLF3]

https://leehamnews.com/2024/01/15/unplanned-removal-installation-inspection-procedure-at-boeing/#comment-509962

still want to rely on the experts?