Icelandair Maxes ferried to Spain with flaps 1?
 

Indeed, but only flap 1. What would that be, 10% - 20% extra burn?

We once ferried an A330 back from Sanford, KSFB, with the gear locked down.............at FL250 and 250kts.........long story. I cannot remember the fuel flow now, but we had to refuel at Goose Bay.

Odd, though that the MCAS cannot be deactivated by the engineers? I suppose inoperative MCAS is a no-go item on a Max?

I agree - it does seem odd.

To me, it suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the natural balance of the aircraft occasioned by the revised engine installation (or whatever) and it requires the intervention of the MCAS gizmo to disguise this. Pulling a few plugs in the harness evidently won't do.

I believe STS is on the MEL, but MCAS is not.

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. Thank goodness for Goose!

Other aircraft reported F1 as approx 7% more fuel burn. But that's at the same altitude. They're flying F1 at FL190 instead of cruising at OPT ALT which would be FL360 or higher depending upon weight. The difference in altitude is approx. 25-30% plus the additional drag from the flaps. Maybe 35% overall??

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

These planes have been sitting for months. Now they're being moved to a storage facility. Is that an indication that the operators have gotten the word that they won't be flying any time soon?

Storage costs would be much cheaper in Lleada and Alice, and there would be less clutter at busy airports where parking is at a premium. Rumour has it the the fee for the 5 TUI Maxes parked down the end of the taxiway at MAN is around 2000 GBP a day.

kika

pm for you GWYN :ok:

Is Spain cheaper than KEF??

Migrating to warm, dry locations for the winter. It makes sense.

If it lasts much longer, the grounding will have lasted longer than the entire development program.

Air Canada have ferried ten MAXs to Marana AZ within the last few weeks also.

Yes! Only about 3 and a bit more years to go, almost there!

Stupid thing to say.

Why didn’t they just turn the trim off completely and use the handles? Could have cleaned up then...

They would have had to fly manually and below RVSM airspace. While an A/P can always disconnect and if it's not your day MCAS could activate, F1 is a hard inhibit.

" 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.

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

I wonder how the payment schedules have been adjusted.

heard them on the radio couple days ago, flaps1 and FL190 into Alice

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

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.

How could MCAS (which is just software code) be on the MEL. if it wasn't even mentioned in the manual?

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.

Exactly. I should have picked an appropriate emoji for that post.

Recalls Hapag-Lloyd 3378; sorry for the thread drift.

Talk is that Boeing's "NMA" programme is being dropped for a "FSA" -- Future Small Aircraft.

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?

I don't know what the quota is for Alice, but don't be surprised if there's a few parked up at YPDN shortly

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.

Boeing panicked when AA went for the A320 Neo in July 2011. The Max is the result.