Icelandair Maxes ferried to Spain with flaps 1?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems the airlines no longer anticipate a return to service before 2020 and are putting the aircraft into low cost long term storage.
That begs the question whether Boeing, sitting on some hundreds of new MAX aircraft, will also opt to move them, away from wet and snowy Washington State to more salubrious climes in Arizona. It would certainly provide a more credible message than their public comments.
That begs the question whether Boeing, sitting on some hundreds of new MAX aircraft, will also opt to move them, away from wet and snowy Washington State to more salubrious climes in Arizona. It would certainly provide a more credible message than their public comments.
That begs the question whether Boeing, sitting on some hundreds of new MAX aircraft, will also opt to move them, away from wet and snowy Washington State to more salubrious climes in Arizona. It would certainly provide a more credible message than their public comments.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-mbl
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They already are, from very early they been flying them straight into storage. You can see regularly aircraft flying from place of production straight into storage. Silk airs 12th max flew from seattle to moses lakes
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-mbl
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/9v-mbl
I'm curious does anybody have any idea how this all works financially? By that I mean who covers all the costs of the aircraft not earning money, extra aircraft have surely been keep or dragged in by the airlines, that in turn has an impact directly with the airlines, then the storage costs, then the ongoing uncertainty which means they may look at other aircraft not knowing how long this may take to resolve? This may have been covered on another thread but I havent seen it, just surmised on some ideas! I'm just curious while chomping on breakfast!
Cheers guys and have a good safe day
Cheers guys and have a good safe day
Boeing is on the hook for most of it. They have already admitted to an 8 Billion US loss up to the third quarter, so likely this will end up costing them, with the many lawsuits filed, 15 Billion if the Max flies agin in January. At this stage there does not seem to be much chance of that given the world's regulators looking askance at Boeing and the FAA.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This goes on for another six months or so and the Max program may be unsalvageable. The public will have written the plane off before the manufacturer follows. If the plane is fundamentally unsound it should be put down.
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: VA
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing considered MCAS to be a subset of the Speed Trim System, thus it's functionality would be tied to the availability of the STS. In the original design (and similar to the 737NG today), STS was operated by two independent controllers that alternated every flight. The MEL allowed one STS channel to be inoperative as long as the other one was verified to be working. You could not dispatch with both STS channels inop. With the proposed MCAS revision, I'm expecting that the both FCC's and both STS (and thus both MCAS) controllers must be operative for dispatch.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In theory, airlines could sue Boeing for losses incurred with a high likelihood of success in the courts. However as some of these airlines are major customers of Boeing Aircraft and have been for decades, I suspect that any compensation will come in the form of future discounts or easier payment terms for existing or future sales.
I suspect any smaller operations, especially any who go out of business because of the grounding will be dealt with in the courts.
I suspect any smaller operations, especially any who go out of business because of the grounding will be dealt with in the courts.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recalls Hapag-Lloyd 3378; sorry for the thread drift.
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
I do wonder how Boeing could afford to shutter the MAX and develop a replacement. It's debatable if it will ever make money on the 787 so how could it afford the necessary debt?
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Fl
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet Boeing are now wishing they had lengthened the landing gear legs - to allow larger diameter fan engines to fit underneath, instead of forward of the wings - or brought in a FBW system (certainly in pitch), on the 73.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Or better still, started again: Boeing 797: a 150 -200 seat modern jet?
Saving money by not developing the above is, unfortunately, going to cost them many, many times more than that.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing wanted an all new airplane instead of the Max. Unfortunately, fuel was expensive at the time and airlines insisted on a quicker fuel saving solution. Hence, the Max. Plenty of blame to go around, but airlines drove the decision for the Max instead of an all new aircraft.
