Anybody getting on a 737 Max?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nice, Cote d'Azur
Age: 44
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
The following users liked this post:
"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..................
I'd bet that applies to almost everyone who posts on here - but if you look around we're the only ones..................
The following 4 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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....................
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.
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.
Last edited by waito; 12th Jan 2024 at 04:30.
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 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...
- 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'.
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
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, 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.
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…
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…
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…
The following users liked this post:
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.
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.
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...................
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
The following users liked this post:
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