CZAMFlyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by bimmerdriver

...they should be informed about the particular aircraft is called, even if a dumb-a** marketing moron changed the name. If someone can't see through a superficial move like renaming an aircraft, they aren't smart enough to hold a passport.

Ryanair isn't "speculated" to rename the aircraft, the aircraft variant they operate is officially called the 737-8200. The renaming has nothing to do with an attempt to alter the name of the type to assuage the public's opinion of the grounded models. This is a separate version of the airplane, built to Ryanair's high-density seating configuration and includes an additional pair of emergency exit doors to reflect the increased capacity, which is hardly "a superficial move". It was not branded by some "dumb-... marketing moron".

Unless AC decides to squeeze 200 customers inside their fleet, we won't see an -8200 in their fleet. Perhaps we should be better informed ourselves prior to ridiculing hypothetically ill-informed travellers.

pitz

I'd have to presume that the crew (pilots, FA's), who are exposed to 80 (or potentially more with overtime) flight hours per month on the 737Max would be a far more forceful group of people with respect to ensuring that the 737Max is a safe aircraft to operate. Would AC be able to operate an airline if most of their crew refuse to bid 737 assignments? Or FA's scheduled onto an A320 substituted onto a 737?

What I find so crazy is that Boeing is still stubbornly clinging to the idea that the problems in their aircraft can be fixed with a mere software update and perhaps some training. When one's flying a Cat III ILS into YYT and picking up a bit of ice on approach at night, waiting for the lights at the end of the runway to appear, the last thing that's tolerable is a less than fully redundant system inadvertently activating or even showing a discrepancy error that requires a checklist. And a system cannot determine if its malfunctioning with only 2 sensors. Boeing would have had a lot more credibility if they actually started planning for a triple redundant implementation instead of cheaping out, yet again, and deluding that they can achieve a 'fix' in software.

RangerNS

I heard an FA mumbling that the MAX was on her never-fly list, before. But not all of them have that bid-priority luxury.

Pilots, especially so. Eventually, that is assuming a nightmare future the MAX returns to service, X pilots will be given the options of Y flying slots or Z transition slots, where X~=Y+Z. This implies X-Y unhappy pilots. Possibly unhappy and unemployed, possibly unhappy and flying anyway.

canadiancow

The MAX was on some FA no-fly lists before the grounding.

Biggest laugh I ever had from a mainline* FA was when I was in 1F, mentioned the grime on the armrest, and she stepped into our seat area to wipe it down. "Wow you have more space here than in the galley".

It was a joke, but it was accurate.

*ask me in person about Jazz

Fiordland

The pilots don't randomly get assigned an aircraft. They have some complex seniority process that lets them pick the aircraft they want to be trained on. Once trained on a specific aircraft they stick with that aircraft until retained on another.

Some pilots like the automated modern cockpit that exists on the Airbus and 787/777 aircraft other like the old fashion flying that is the 737.

I believe the cabin crew get bounced from type to type.

RangerNS

I think that's what I said. But to be more explicit:

They all have some seniority/bidding process. FAs, far easier to move from A/C to A/C - possibly the A/C type is irrelevant (outside of ETOPS?).

The AC MAX pilots - now all only MAX certified - are in a bind. They will eventually have to bid on the small number of training slots for something else, fly the MAX, or, basically, quit.

Jagboi

This is where I heard the plane was being renamed: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509

pitz

Small number of training slots? There's lots of training opportunities coming up imminently for the A220-300. Most likely some have already returned to the A320 if they were previously credentialed with some sim time and a check ride to fly the extra sorties that have been extracted from that fleet (including new A330 deliveries). And there's probably even some grounded 737Max pilots who have enough seniority to hold F/O (albeit with a crappy schedule) on the Boeing widebody hardware.

I guess my question is, is AC bringing on new hires, and actually training them in the 737Max (ground school + sim) as though they'll have all the planes back in service soon including completed but undelivered planes, or have they shut that down at this point?

bimmerdriver

The length of the grounding and the number of flights that have been cancelled are secondary issues for passengers. The only issue that matters for passengers when the MAX is recertified is whether they accept the work of the respective authorities (FAA and TC). After that, as a passenger, you will either fly on the MAX or not as you choose. If someone claims to be concerned about this it's on them to determine if a potential flight is on a MAX or some other aircraft. If you think Transport Canada is going to obligate AC and Westjet to belabor the matter, you will probably be disappointed.

bimmerdriver

Boeing isn't "stubbornly clinging" to anything. The proposed fixes are common knowledge, unless or until FAA and/or some other authority determines otherwise.

bimmerdriver

The original 777 HD was also on a no fly list for some FAs.

WildcatYXU

Boeing is not using 3 or more AOA sensors on any of it's aircraft. That includes the 777 and 787 as well. The AOA is verified using the data from the ADIRU's on these aircraft. I don't think it would be possible on the 737 though.
That said, I don't think the third AOA sensor would necessarily to make the MCAS safer. In the unlikely case of two of the three sensors failing high indicating the same value, the computer would vote out the sensor indicating the correct value (already happened on Airbus) and activate MCAS. The only way to make the MCAS safer is to get rid of it. I don't think Boeing is ready to do that.

FlyerTalker70

You are correct that the only issue that should matter for passengers is the safety and airworthiness of the aircraft once re-certified. However, put yourselves in the passengers shoes for just a moment. They were told in the past that the 737 MAX was completely safe and airworthy for the past several years when that clearly was not the case (see Lion Air and Ethiopian). Combine that with the setbacks that the MAX had for re-certification and the fact that the bird likely won't be flying for the good portion of a year whilst the world investigates this bird and you have to wonder why any passenger would initially have confidence in the bird. Regardless of what you think of the aircraft, it is going to take time for the MAX to earn the trust and confidence of the flying public. This controversy has been all over the news and has resulted in countless delays, cancellations and challenges for passengers originally scheduled to fly that bird.

And don't get me started with Atlantic Canada. The biggest betrayal of the MAX is Atlantic Canada with the elimination of TATL routes to the UK to say nothing of the feeds provided at YHZ and elsewhere to mainland Canada. Why don't you ask someone in the fisheries whether the MAX grounding has impacted their livelihood? No doubt AC was making a killing on cargo from Atlantic Canada to Europe. Who even knows how this grounding will impact ETOPS or if these once essential links between Atlantic Canada and Europe are restored.

However that no fly list had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with comfort. When you cram so many people like sardines into Y then ask your FAs to serve all of them it's no wonder they'll be annoyed to say the least. If you are an AC captain or FA, who in their right mind would commit to being on this bird? In the best case scenario the bird gets re-certified and enters its migratory stage and has many decades of safe service like the 777. In the worst case, the issue with MCAS is not resolved and there will be future groundings and safety issues. Why would you put your livelihood on the line for an unproven aircraft? I can't imagine to think of the anger of AC pilots and FAs who trained for this bird only to find out that they're out of work thanks to some beancounter in Chicago thinking it smart to fit computers to an inherently unstable aircraft.

This raises an interesting question for AC. It's my understanding that pilots and FAs are represented by a union. I would be curious to see whether the union makes any demands of AC with regards to the 737 MAX. Will they insist that pilots and FAs get compensated for lost work due to the MAX grounding? Will they demand pilots and FAs get additional training above and beyond what is required once the MAX gets its wings back so to speak. Will there be carve outs for pilots and FAs who feel uncomfortable flying on the MAX but who can service other 737 birds? One unknown quality is the union (if AC has one) and how they will respond once the dust settles. I think we are all taking it for granted that the Union will be fine having their membership service the aircraft. What if there are not enough AC employees to pilot and provide cabin service for all these birds? Will there be a subsequent grounding there? We are also assuming that there will not be any restrictions initially on passengers, cargo, ETOPs and other things once the MAX regains its wings.

I'm not an expert on Boeing, but it is my understanding that by and large AOA sensors are largely not used extensively by the flight computers when the bird enters its migratory phase. The exception to that rule was MCAS which relied on it heavily to prevent stalls and they were only reliant on one AOA sensor, provided the pilots with virtually no training on this technology and made it darn near impossible to kill the system when it malfunctions. I find it surprising that the modern airliners have a fire extinguisher that can literally kill an engine (and make it inoperable) in flight should it catch on fire but we don't have a similar system to disable/fry on-board systems when they function. Food for thought!

Safe Travels,

James

RangerNS

It can, however, it can't recover.

Which means it kicks back control to the pilots.

Which means the pilots need to be trained on that failure condition.

Which means it isn't a 737, for pilot training and certification purposes, any more.

Which means, for carriers that aren't Air Canada, a major feature of the aircraft isn't there any more.

Santander

Um, if there was so much cargo demand YHZ-LHR, AC would've found a way to keep a 763 on the route. AC does fly a bit of lobster, but most of the lobster that flies out of YHZ and YQM goes to Asia on cargo airlines. And it's not like AC can't fly lobsters YHZ-YYZ-Europe.