737 Max Delivery Rate / Backlog
 

Throughout the period that the 737 Max has been grounded, Boeing's production line has continued to build, but not deliver, new aircraft. There is now a significant number of aircraft waiting for airlines to accept these new aircraft. I am assuming that Boeing will eventually come up with sufficient modifications to gain clearance by major aviation regulators

I understand that airlines are limited as to how many new aircraft they can effectively absorb per month. Thus the backlog of parked aircraft cannot be cleared immediately

What are the major constraints that cause this ? Lack of crew ? Time needed to sell tickets before aircraft can go into service ? Something else ?

Airlines typically do some work on newly-delivered aircraft before they start revenue flying.

That can include pre-service mods and, in my experience, fitting various buyer-furnished equipment (BFE) items and cabin furnishings (particularly seats).

So the rate at which an airline can absorb new aircraft can be constrained by the supply chain and labour availability.

Suppose Boeing were to agree to supply the labour at zero or nominal cost to fit things like airline specific seats as a one-off. Would that enable Boeing to make aircraft delivery faster, clear the parking areas, and thus get their money off the airlines ?

The airlines will need to have enough trained pilots available to fly these aircraft. In addition I believe many airlines need to arrange finance to pay the final tranche that is payable on delivery and they may wish to spread this out over a period of time. In all likelihood Boeing will just need to bear the cost of maintaining this excess stock until airlines are in a position to take the aircraft.

But the majority of these airlines shall already be operating the B737-NG so the training to the MAX shall literally be a day or two in a classroom and a simulator session or two.

But there lies part of the problem, the crew of the BMA crash on the M1 had been trained on the -300, a quickie two day conversion to the -400, and whilst what happened thereafter may be history the flight crew subsequently won an industrial tribunal or two on the grounds that they hadn't been sufficiently trained to operate the -400.

There are significant differences between the NG and the MAX which manufacturers play down to avoid total new type certifications, the crew could have been operating an NG yesterday, a MAX today and an NG tomorrow, easy to make a mistake of which type of B737 they are operating!

It's all about money.
Boeing tried to save money by not making a brand new design. They had got complacent with the way the NG performed and (perhaps) were still dealing with the fall out of the 787 start up.

Now they are paying the price and one can be sure that the carriers and leasing companies will get every dollar out of them that they can. Boeing have nothing to argue with.

One problem noted elsewhere is that Boeing are apparently booking every MAX out of the door to the parking lot as a "delivery" - even tho no-one is going to pay them until the situation is fixed.........

This was what sprang to my mind VERY quickly after the Max was grounded. The lesson was learned in 1988 that an OHP presentation in class wasn't sufficient to nail home some of the gotchas in the new aeroplane, and a lot of people died or had life changing injuries as a result.
I was disappointed this happened again!

Tragically, as we see in so many walks of life, man does not learn from the previous generation. The landmark explanation is still: The Tombstone Imperative: The Truth about Air Safety by Andrew Weir

Whenever there is a failure causing death - the Ponte Marandi bridge in Genoa (2018) the London Kings Cross Tube fire (1987) and the Shuttle Challenger disaster (1986) - even the VW Dieselgate scandal (2015) which did not directly cost lives - there always turns out to be:

1. Someone saving money and/ot time to please the big boss.
2. Someone has pointed out the risk months (or years) in advance and was ignored.

It is the human condition because, until people die - very little changes. Sometimes, not even then.

Regarding the Challenger disaster, and I heard this from a reliable American source, it was political pressure, was it to be the first woman or the first school teacher in to space, the eyes of USA were upon it, NASA knew that the craft wasn't, so to speak, airworthy but they were ordered to launch it regardless.

Regarding new type certifications it's not Boeing at fault here, it's the regulating authorities that allow it, compare the MAX to the B737-100/200, is that the same type to you, the MD80/90's and B717's are DC9's, the F70/100's are F28's, the F50 a F27 and so it goes on, I can't think of Airbus yet extracting the urine in such a respect but the American manufacturers certainly are, the Brits might joke that CAA stands for 'Campaign Against Aviation' for their strictness, perhaps the FAA might think about earning itself such a pseudonym also!

Agreed Harry Wayfarers. The politics can be financial, promotion, or actual politiics. The end result is always the same and 'the little people' die.

The FAA have been criminal in the way they have been best buddies to Boeing. And, if memory serves, this risk had been highlighted long before and in the main forums.

And now for the big question, will you be flying the Max when the thing is back in the air?
Me? Nah, I'll drag me feet a few years. Don't trust Boeing anymore, don't trust FAA, don't trust US politicians.
Per

Good question.
I had not considered this and first reaction is certainly to wait. BUT I expect the fix will be so well documented and tested and publicised that it will probably be a good fix and no need to wait.

I suppose that this to me is a fix on a fix on a fix on something so old that is should be in a museum.
Per

I'll be choosing not to fly on the Max where there is an alternative; at least for a good few years. If the airline replaced the plane I was expecting to fly on with a Max though, I would probably go along with it to save hassle.

Flight Global
Wall Street Journal

It appears that the carriers have already made this calculation ...

Further, airline staff are making their view felt:

I'll be choosing not to fly on the Max
 

So you have already booked a flight with an airline. They take delivery of a Max (under a different name). Will they be obliged to send you an e mail in advance offering you a refund if you choose not to fly?

Nope. It will be buisness as usual.
When the aircraft does enter service, we can expect a massive amount of gabbling in the press and media, with numerous pax questioned at the airport. However, as in all things, the news cycle will move on. Those who want to learn what aircraft type they are to travel on, will be able to do so just as they are today. Some websites that specialise in seat maps will probably find a boost in their page views.

Another MAX crash could kill the whole company................