Boeing publicises new name for 737 Max planes with new order
Thread Starter
Boeing publicises new name for 737 Max planes with new order
"Boeing appears to have started quietly dropping the “Max” from its 737 Max aircraft in the wake of recent air disasters, instead referring to a 737-8.
The new name has hitherto been used only internally at Boeing and emerged when the company put out a statement on Wednesday to announce it had won its first order for the grounded 737 Max aircraft this year. Poland’s Enter Air SA agreed to buy up to four variants of the jet."
Guardian article
The new name has hitherto been used only internally at Boeing and emerged when the company put out a statement on Wednesday to announce it had won its first order for the grounded 737 Max aircraft this year. Poland’s Enter Air SA agreed to buy up to four variants of the jet."
Guardian article
With respect, that's not quite true - the aircraft has always been the 737-8 for certification and airworthiness purposes.
It's just the marketing name Max that Boeing is trying to dissociate itself from, for understandable reasons.
It's just the marketing name Max that Boeing is trying to dissociate itself from, for understandable reasons.
Like 787, 747 and 777. No surprise.
Paxing All Over The World
Nice try. They worked hard to create the name 'Dreamliner' so they worked hard to create a unique marketing name here as well. Many of us will not forget and I trust that the media will not forget.
It reminds me of 1987. The shipping line Townsend Thoresen lost a Ro-Ro car ferry 'MS Herald of Free Enterprise' due to neglect by crew and poor basic design that was done to make the ferry cheaper to operate. The line was owned by P&O European Ferries and they had started to rebrand the Townsend Thoreson ships. After the disaster, they expedited the process so as to bury the name along with the 193 passengers and crew who died.
Corporates making changes to basic design to save money and then trying to get away from the consequences? Still going on everyday.
It reminds me of 1987. The shipping line Townsend Thoresen lost a Ro-Ro car ferry 'MS Herald of Free Enterprise' due to neglect by crew and poor basic design that was done to make the ferry cheaper to operate. The line was owned by P&O European Ferries and they had started to rebrand the Townsend Thoreson ships. After the disaster, they expedited the process so as to bury the name along with the 193 passengers and crew who died.
Corporates making changes to basic design to save money and then trying to get away from the consequences? Still going on everyday.
Paraphrasing, "you can polish a turd but it is still a turd". The regulators, not just FAA but ALL regulators, are going to have to pressure Boeing big time to prove the aircraft is safe to fly not just "seen" to be safe to fly. Many people will not fly in this aircraft in the near future.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sunny Jersey
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience the general public have short memories when it comes to thinks like this. I doubt most would even know, or care, if they were flying on a Boeing or Airbus if you asked them.
In a post-Covid world people will care even less.
In a post-Covid world people will care even less.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Hopefully, it will get through. I'm still amazed that it was ever released to service with the system wired up to only one probe. Imagine removing the "flap-disagree" system.
I flew -300, -400 and -700, and despite its faults (which aircraft hasn't got some?) found it to be a good machine. Next time though, Boeing can't go any further with updating an old design. Back to the drawing board again
I flew -300, -400 and -700, and despite its faults (which aircraft hasn't got some?) found it to be a good machine. Next time though, Boeing can't go any further with updating an old design. Back to the drawing board again
Only one thing gives me any reassurance about the safety of this aircraft and it's not the the FAA or EASA and it's certainly not Boeing, It is rather that ordinary family guys like you are going to have climb into the seat and fly this thing for three or four sectors a day.
It's not too often that one is given the opportunity to fly your aircraft of choice and these days even less so, just be sure that you have good independent life insurance, not too much owing, better single rather than married,and finally remember the poor and demented suckers down the back who do not have your knowledge of the real situation. Yes, I have flown a "Dream" liner, it took me years to get on one and I still offer up a prayer for the innards of the "fireproof" box. It could also have turned out like the "Max" and the "Dream" would have ended right there.
Choose wisely,
It's not too often that one is given the opportunity to fly your aircraft of choice and these days even less so, just be sure that you have good independent life insurance, not too much owing, better single rather than married,and finally remember the poor and demented suckers down the back who do not have your knowledge of the real situation. Yes, I have flown a "Dream" liner, it took me years to get on one and I still offer up a prayer for the innards of the "fireproof" box. It could also have turned out like the "Max" and the "Dream" would have ended right there.
Choose wisely,
MAX is still an appropriate name, now it just means MCAS Activation eXpunged
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donald Trump came up with the genius idea of "rebranding the MAX and adding a lot of great features" quite a while ago. Looks like they've listened to him.
On a serious note, I don't think that many will deliberately avoid the MAX if it eventually rolls out. Personally I would be more than happy to fly on one, be it as a passenger or as a pilot - and most pax don't give a damn about what aircraft they are flying on as long as it doesn't look too shabby. A lot has been learned in the process and it is definitely the most heavily scrutinised transport aircraft these days. Having to protect Airbus in times of crisis, do you think that EASA will sign it off if even the slightest doubt exists with regards to its safety? I don't. So, as long as it gets regulatory approval (and as long as the COVID thing doesn't get really bad), I wouldn't be worried about the future of the MAX, however they name it.
On a serious note, I don't think that many will deliberately avoid the MAX if it eventually rolls out. Personally I would be more than happy to fly on one, be it as a passenger or as a pilot - and most pax don't give a damn about what aircraft they are flying on as long as it doesn't look too shabby. A lot has been learned in the process and it is definitely the most heavily scrutinised transport aircraft these days. Having to protect Airbus in times of crisis, do you think that EASA will sign it off if even the slightest doubt exists with regards to its safety? I don't. So, as long as it gets regulatory approval (and as long as the COVID thing doesn't get really bad), I wouldn't be worried about the future of the MAX, however they name it.
discorules
No argument there. But I remember. I remember Valujet too and the name they went under after that accident.
i expect that every future AD for the Max (737-8) will bring new attention to the model, thanks to the aviation press. If they do their job.
No argument there. But I remember. I remember Valujet too and the name they went under after that accident.
i expect that every future AD for the Max (737-8) will bring new attention to the model, thanks to the aviation press. If they do their job.
Last edited by GlobalNav; 25th Aug 2020 at 21:07.
EASA Signed Off On The MAX
"... do you think that EASA will sign it off if even the slightest doubt exists with regards to its safety?"
Well, they signed off on the MAX didn't they? What a disaster!
Well, they signed off on the MAX didn't they? What a disaster!
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was before the accidents. Now, there has been a lot of scrutiny into it. And COVID-19 has played its role as well. Two years ago, demand for aircraft was exceeding supply. Hence the high cost of second-hand aircraft, the success of multiple service extension programmes and the need to get anything flying onto the registers pronto. Right now, the situation is vastly different, with order deferrals and cancellations affecting Airbus in a big way. So, any possibility to make a legal act of protectionism towards the European aircraft manufacturer will likely be made advantage of. Therefore, the MAX has to truly be up to the job this time round if it is to get an EASA certificate.
Smilin_Ed
I think it would be fairer to say that EASA "accepted the FAA sign off on the MAX"
That was because they believed that the FAA had done a good job. Now they know Boeing led the FAA by the nose, and EASA's trust of the FAA as a certifying authority has been badly dented if not completely broken. So on purely technical grounds, EASA may require a whole bunch of testing because they feel they can't be seen to take the FAA's word on trust any more.
Then of course there are political / trade reasons why a delay in (re-)certifying the MAX would be seen as desirable. I hope those don't come into play, but ...
I think it would be fairer to say that EASA "accepted the FAA sign off on the MAX"
That was because they believed that the FAA had done a good job. Now they know Boeing led the FAA by the nose, and EASA's trust of the FAA as a certifying authority has been badly dented if not completely broken. So on purely technical grounds, EASA may require a whole bunch of testing because they feel they can't be seen to take the FAA's word on trust any more.
Then of course there are political / trade reasons why a delay in (re-)certifying the MAX would be seen as desirable. I hope those don't come into play, but ...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canada's Boeing 737 Max flight is a test of the global regulatory regime Country’s transport regulator plans to conduct safety tests of grounded Boeing plane this week
https://financialpost.com/financial-...ulatory-regime
https://financialpost.com/financial-...ulatory-regime
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Derry
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear esscee, I don't think you need to worry about the Max being safe to fly when it is re-certified and back in service. The 737 MAX or whatever they call it will of course not fly until all major certification authorities are totally happy. Moreover every major airline has its own training pilots who would have to be totally happy with the plane before they fly it commercially. Nobody is going to have to "pressurise" anyone or anything. If a few outliers don't accept that certification, which is pretty unlikely, then it won' t have much impact. To address other comments above about renaming. It is ofte the practice to rename airlines and planes after embarrassing events. Think DC10/MD11. Spantax/Spanair. Germanwings/Eurowings. Swissair/Swiss. Malasia Airlines v Malasian (Not too hard to guess that one though). Lots of others. I have tried asking friends about these and, as has been said here, none of them have a clue which airline is which and certainly not what kind of plane they are on. My belief is that when the Max returns, it will be the among the safest and certainly the most scrutinised plane in the sky. People have very short memories. And with the Max re-certified, they won't need to concern themselves. It will be as safe as any other plane. Thanks for your post which mirrors other concerns I have heard of similar nature. Retired Guy