SLF avoid travel on 737 max
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the majority of large companies
CEOs and boards with little or no experience of that industry but lots of political and city connections
Large Legal and PR organisations
Bonus /Stock price fixated
Just for a laugh to myself i wrote to Easyjet (actually a company I like and trust) when they brought out seat selection which for me had been a no no for using them. I asked, tongue in cheek if they achieved their lower fares through savings on operational xpenses, pilots engineers, maintenance etc. needless to say i got back a form letter saying that they dd none of those things complied with all the rules etc and safety was their first priority. To which i replied that I had asked the question because their board members responsibilities listed things like HR Finance market Sales Business development etc etc , but non of them was responsible for safety . No answer. As is aid I am fine with Ez and have used them often but it is this culture where the management distance themselves from the real core fo the business on the a good manager can manage anything principle . That's Ok in business school with fictional widget companies and in the real world with straightforward business enterprises but airlines are not straightforward business enterprises nor is building airliners and there has to be an understanding that sometimes large sums of money need to be invested in new technology, on fixing unforeseen problems or in the case of airlines things like strikes and weather adding zillions to the cost line but still demanding they meet analyst expectations somehow.
Not a problem confined to aviation but one that is often at the heart of various disasters major accidents etc where as someone pointed out no lessons have been learned from the 2008 financial crash because these is too much money at stake and as 2008 proved no ones going to jail over it. And as another poster pointed out we always think our generation is the smartest
CEOs and boards with little or no experience of that industry but lots of political and city connections
Large Legal and PR organisations
Bonus /Stock price fixated
Just for a laugh to myself i wrote to Easyjet (actually a company I like and trust) when they brought out seat selection which for me had been a no no for using them. I asked, tongue in cheek if they achieved their lower fares through savings on operational xpenses, pilots engineers, maintenance etc. needless to say i got back a form letter saying that they dd none of those things complied with all the rules etc and safety was their first priority. To which i replied that I had asked the question because their board members responsibilities listed things like HR Finance market Sales Business development etc etc , but non of them was responsible for safety . No answer. As is aid I am fine with Ez and have used them often but it is this culture where the management distance themselves from the real core fo the business on the a good manager can manage anything principle . That's Ok in business school with fictional widget companies and in the real world with straightforward business enterprises but airlines are not straightforward business enterprises nor is building airliners and there has to be an understanding that sometimes large sums of money need to be invested in new technology, on fixing unforeseen problems or in the case of airlines things like strikes and weather adding zillions to the cost line but still demanding they meet analyst expectations somehow.
Not a problem confined to aviation but one that is often at the heart of various disasters major accidents etc where as someone pointed out no lessons have been learned from the 2008 financial crash because these is too much money at stake and as 2008 proved no ones going to jail over it. And as another poster pointed out we always think our generation is the smartest
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Harry, don't be obtuse. My comment was tongue in cheek. Boeing, having chosen 7n7 as their model numbers may have resisted a switch to 8n8 as a marketing ploy. They would not be the first company to get hung up on numbers: SAAB with their 9n went to 900 and then 9000 before reusing 90 numbers. Peugeot had a thing with their numbers as did Volvo.
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Florida
Age: 86
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an SLF in the US,I have an advantage. Along with quite a few others we here in the states have an elite crew of Professional Pilots.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.
I DO expect the thing, if it ever flys again, WILL be rebranded.
Value Jet became Air Tran and all was forgiven.
So guys, don't pilot the thing if there is a problem. Don't worry about my old wrinkled tail bone.
Think of your own, and act as your professional sense tells you.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.
I DO expect the thing, if it ever flys again, WILL be rebranded.
Value Jet became Air Tran and all was forgiven.
So guys, don't pilot the thing if there is a problem. Don't worry about my old wrinkled tail bone.
Think of your own, and act as your professional sense tells you.
I have a very personal "risk analysis" which takes into account not only the airline and aircraft but route, airport(s) etc. I'm not going to write all the rules here (I'm not sure it's well enough developed). However, one thing I consider is the alternative options to flying on what might be considered "something dodgy". Despite the Max crashes if they were still flying, unmodified, and I had the choice between flying on a Max or taking a Filipino or Indonesian ferry or driving from Nairobi to Addis I'd fly. Yes, the risk on the Max is slightly increased but the risk of those surface journeys is even more.
That said, I think I'll try and avoid the Max for a while assuming it comes back into service.
When Boeing and TWA first introduced the idea of 767s across the Atlantic I was offered the opportunity to go to Kansas City via St Louis (from London) using 767s. I declined and we went on 747s via Chicago. Looking back I was probably over cautious, if memory serves they still had to stay within 60 minutes of an airport at the time but I'm here to tell the tale. Then again I was in China in the very early 1980s and among the planes we flew on was an IL14 (or a Chinese copy) and in the late 70s I was in Nepal on Twin Otters in some interesting places.
Like I said it's a personal decision and I should add I'm non technical.
That said, I think I'll try and avoid the Max for a while assuming it comes back into service.
When Boeing and TWA first introduced the idea of 767s across the Atlantic I was offered the opportunity to go to Kansas City via St Louis (from London) using 767s. I declined and we went on 747s via Chicago. Looking back I was probably over cautious, if memory serves they still had to stay within 60 minutes of an airport at the time but I'm here to tell the tale. Then again I was in China in the very early 1980s and among the planes we flew on was an IL14 (or a Chinese copy) and in the late 70s I was in Nepal on Twin Otters in some interesting places.
Like I said it's a personal decision and I should add I'm non technical.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on land
Age: 60
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello folks,
Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.
Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.
I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.
Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.
Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.
I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello folks,
Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.
Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.
I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.
Fully agree crews should know their stuff - period, But I don't want well trained snake charmers on the flight deck if it wakes up, I want the 'snake' off the plane. Forgive the invocation of Capt Sully as though he's the final arbiter of all things aviation, but when he recreates the accidents in a Level D Max sim and describes the system as 'pernicious' and 'deadly' in it's initial state, and that focusing on the pilots was wrong, I pay attention. He did of course also emphasize that proper training, maintenance etc is critical as well.
Somewhere on the pro side there was comment about half of air crews responding improperly to some recent test scenarios, don't remember the details. But ultimately resolving the issue anyway. Not good enough of course, but if it means lives are saved, I much prefer the tool, however improperly used, not compound the issue. I'm not convinced either crash would have occurred if the accident crews had been able to focus on the issues arising without a subsystem actively affecting vertical control in that way.
I'd fly the Max once I see concrete evidence MCAS 2 or whatever, is incapable of ever responding as it's predecessor did.
I don't have too much time for "I told you so" whistle blowers, these are often disgruntled ex employees, but what did come out is that the persons responsible were instructed to play down the significance of differences of the Max to the NG, if the regulating authority decide that the differences are too significant then a full new type certification may be ordered and those not only cost money but are an inconvenience to the manufacturer.
As an SLF in the US,I have an advantage. Along with quite a few others we here in the states have an elite crew of Professional Pilots.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.
I was damned good at my job and they are damned good at theirs.
Every pilot in the US (and hopefully the world) has watched this drama unfold.
THEY will make my decision easy.
If THEY will fly the thing , I am good with that.
The day they refuse is the day I refuse.
Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, you probably should do some reading on the pilots of Colgan 3407, Atlas 3591 and AA 587. The USA has plenty of good pilots, and no shortage of bad. Just like the rest of the world.
Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.
Pilots will fly the MAX if it’s eventually allowed to fly, not because it’s safe, but because they are captives of their pay cheques. Principles won’t feed your family.
I have watched this story unfold for some time, and what really worries me is that Boeing and the FAA will come up with a MCAS 2.0 or whatever, and try and tell every Airworthiness board and the General Public, that the MAX is "safe and a perfectly good airplane"
It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?
How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!
If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?
Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..
Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!
Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!
It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?
How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!
If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?
Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..
Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!
Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have watched this story unfold for some time, and what really worries me is that Boeing and the FAA will come up with a MCAS 2.0 or whatever, and try and tell every Airworthiness board and the General Public, that the MAX is "safe and a perfectly good airplane"
It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?
How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!
If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?
Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..
Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!
Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!
It seems the general opinion here and elsewhere, that MCAS is more than a software fix to make the MAX fly like a 737NG, to avoid recertification and all the pitfalls and expense that this would entail...do we know if the MAX can fly to all corners of the envelope without MCAS? If it cannot, then will Boeing re certify it as a "7X7" and train pilots accordingly, or just try a PR campaign to convince everyone that its safe as is? Or will they just say that the whole MAX programme is simply too big to fail, and nearly 5000 orders cannot be cancelled?
How far will Boeing develop the 737 after this, and still insist that intrinsically, its still a good ol 1967 based B737? As someone has already mentioned, when the -400 was introduced to British Midland's fleet in the late 80s, all the -200 rated pilots did was a multi choice exam (not sure about any Sim time) and off they went, flying paying Pax, and still asking each other, "What does this button do?" I thought that Kegworth had put a stop to all that!
If re certification is required, then maybe a lot of customers will simply cancel and buy something else, like an A320NEO or even a Comac C919?
Please dont think that I am anti Boeing, far from it....they have made some truly wonderful aircraft over the years, my favourite is the 757, a true workhorse, even now Airbus struggle to match it with the A321..
Although I am not really a frequent flyer, I have flown in a large number of different types, including Airliners, gliders, microlights, helicopters and a Hawk jet trainer, I have never got in an aircraft that I was afraid of....but now I for one will be avoiding the MAX like the Plague!
Oh, and the comment about all US pilots being damn good pilots without any bad ones, was arrogant beyond belief!
I am also curious as to how Airbus got the A320NEO up and running with far less trouble, except for a niggle with a launch customer! maybe Airbus use of full FBW from the start with the A320 made it far simpler to upgrade with different engines!
There is more ground clearance under the wings of a A320.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much alike the DC8 vs B707 wiith the DC8 being designed to take propellors there wasn't a problem in it's later years taking fan engines for the -70 series.
The B737 was deigned for JT9 'rockets' but ever since the -300 series, with the flat bottomed enginge cowlings, Boeing. have been 'scratching' it.
Airbus came along with a natural sized Y190 (ish) A320, a stretched A321 variant capable of Y230 (ish) but for Boeing's 737 to compete with an A320 they have already stretched it and simply cannot compete with the A321.
A 53 y/o concept designed to take underwing 'rockets' still going today! It's not just the Max's ID that has been tarnished, it's the B737 ID that has been tarnished, we might recognise the different generations of airliners here but, generally speaking, Joe Public don't, were it a particular model of BMW car that were tagged as life threatening do you think that potential cusatomers would remember the precise ID or just avoid that brand of car totally?
Time for a wake-up Boeing, time to start from scratch again, a new aircraft with longer legs to take the fan engines and call it anything except a 737 or even a Boeing.
The B737 was deigned for JT9 'rockets' but ever since the -300 series, with the flat bottomed enginge cowlings, Boeing. have been 'scratching' it.
Airbus came along with a natural sized Y190 (ish) A320, a stretched A321 variant capable of Y230 (ish) but for Boeing's 737 to compete with an A320 they have already stretched it and simply cannot compete with the A321.
A 53 y/o concept designed to take underwing 'rockets' still going today! It's not just the Max's ID that has been tarnished, it's the B737 ID that has been tarnished, we might recognise the different generations of airliners here but, generally speaking, Joe Public don't, were it a particular model of BMW car that were tagged as life threatening do you think that potential cusatomers would remember the precise ID or just avoid that brand of car totally?
Time for a wake-up Boeing, time to start from scratch again, a new aircraft with longer legs to take the fan engines and call it anything except a 737 or even a Boeing.
