InTheAirGuy

Well, expect full operational chaos within 24 hours!

RangerNS

Because while an aircraft is an enormously complex system at a point in time, a fleet of aircraft operating over years is an order of magnitude more complex.

Boeing is in a position to collect, process and disseminate operational details... If end users share data, anyway.

Stranger

Norwegian also grounding their Max.

https://media.en.norwegian.com/press...lacement=N%2FA

Stranger

And assuming they can be trusted, rather than merely speaking to their bottom line.

Cozmo456

My commute to Montreal just got swapped to a 7M8. Calling concierge now ...

Other than the safety issues, the hard armrests leave bruises on my elbow. This is in J. In Y good luck finding it.

Mauricio23

Achieved by virtually eliminating armrest width and fudging how you measure "seat width". No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, the MAX has significantly less butt and shoulder room.

Stranger

Actually I don't mind the J seats. I am not so sure people will like the A220 J seats either: just like on the DC-9, you'll see four seats abreast in place of five Y seats. While on the 737 and the 320 family, you get four instead of six.

CZAMFlyer

If Air Canada decides to keep the aircraft flying AFTER evidence surfaces that there is a problem with the type, then yes, they would look extremely irresponsible, if not negligent. But until some hard data emerges, if indeed it does, then it's not unfair to agree with their decision. We may disagree with their approach, as do others; many airlines/countries seem to be acting out of an abundance of caution.

Yes, and these were both due to physical defects that were resolved, after which those types returned to service. Following the first LionAir crash (just one crash), Boeing installed a remedial fix. We don't know yet if their software fix worked, or if this second accident is related.

Well, I would have thought, and stated as much, that those contingency plans would have been started on Sunday morning. Either way, AC faces its hand being forced on two fronts: either the regulator mandates a grounding, or public sentiment reaches the level that Maxes are departing with unprofitable passenger loads. I suppose one saving grace is that its chief competitor also faces the same issue, albeit at a much smaller scale.

I'm not saying these will happen, but they are entirely possible.

RangerNS

They can be trusted to care about their bottom line, for sure. I don't think we can generalize to a massive PAX-life-is-irrelevant conspiracy.

There is enough competitiveness in the market that if Boeing, er, aggressively rounding in their favor, maintenance schedules then customers would stop buying them. Consider the E190 being retired well before EOL because of their operating costs. Widgets for a 777X they may have you by the short and curlys, but for a 737MAX, there is an "easily" fungible alternative.

5mm

Symmetre

No.

Stranger

Only paperwork "fix," software was supposed to be coming. Plus, my view is that a software fix won't do. But admittedly that's unfortunately is the only thing that's going to happen. I hope it's not just until the next crash though. But I'll stick to my guns, Boeing was very wrong not to have redesigned the horizontal stabilizer to ensure it could handle the larger engines. A software fix won't solve that and I strongly suspect that the issue will continue making the Max less safe than any modern plane, less safe than it should be and than what the public has come to expect.

ffsim

What could they possibly have to discuss? They should spend their efforts figuring out the logistics of suddenly having fewer planes with which to service their commitments to customers.

5mm

Symmetre

It took one crash to ground DC-10s, but the type had multiple incidents relating to cargo doors opening in flight before the TK fatality. One could argue that those lives could have been saved had regulators acted more promptly.