Why didn’t they just turn the trim off completely and use the handles? Could have cleaned up then...
|
Originally Posted by FullWings
(Post 10593578)
Why didn’t they just turn the trim off completely and use the handles? Could have cleaned up then...
|
" F1 is a hard inhibit." - about as 'hard' as the 'soft' ware?
|
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. |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10593703)
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 |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 10593709)
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 |
Originally Posted by rattman
(Post 10593053)
11 arrived about 2 weeks ago, my understanding is that flew flaps up except for indonesian airspace where they were required to fly flaps 5
|
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 |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by OldnGrounded
(Post 10592800)
I believe STS is on the MEL, but MCAS is not.
|
Originally Posted by Lake1952
(Post 10593972)
How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?
|
Originally Posted by hayes67
(Post 10593837)
I'm curious does anybody have any idea how this all works financially? I suspect any smaller operations, especially any who go out of business because of the grounding will be dealt with in the courts. |
Originally Posted by Lake1952
(Post 10593972)
How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?
|
Originally Posted by GWYN
(Post 10592820)
Yes, Uplinker, I think we all remember that little escapade. I seem to remember that crew did not believe the fuel consumption figures that they were given on their PLOG. Thought they knew better and could get all the way back.
|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10593916)
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. 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? |
Originally Posted by etudiant
(Post 10593703)
Seems the airlines no longer anticipate a return to service before 2020 and are putting the aircraft into low cost long term storage.
|
Originally Posted by Uplinker
(Post 10593916)
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. |
Originally Posted by Mookiesurfs
(Post 10594129)
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.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.