LarryJ

Those have been the designation of the airplanes from the beginning. Nothing has changed.

notquiteaff

jinglish

No, they haven't. The official names are 737 MAX (number), at least as far as all marketing goes. If 737-8's on the certification docs and data plate, that's one thing, but even so, that would've been like Bombardier deciding to (before the sold the program to Airbus) rebrand the CS100 back to BD500-1A10--i.e., not a designation ever presented to the public.Maybe not officially yet, but check out IAG's press release.This isn't an internet era thing. Not to bring this thread into OMNI/PR territory, but: the vast majority of gun homicides in the US involve handguns, with rifles accounting for maybe one percent, but some of the most-frequently-proposed new gun laws in the US are semiauto rifle bans. People care more about mass shootings with rifles because--among other reasons--they get plastered all over the news (unlike some random drive-by), and this has been the case since at least the '90s. We've had months of talk in the media about not just the MAX crashes themselves but the Boeing and FAA goofs that helped lead to them; this isn't going to be forgotten as easily as the 787's battery problems.

JacksonFlyer

The 737 series of aircraft have been flying since the 60's with subsequent models being produced through the years; it is one of the most popular aircraft types for many airlines and has an excellent safety record. The majority if not most hull breaches have been contributed to pilot error (and not saying the recent MAX fatalities are due to pilot error...NOT BLAMING THE PILOTS). Heck, a Hawaiian 737-200 had half of its roof torn off at altitude and landed safely; the aircraft is a good design, however as automation and electronics become more entwined with aircraft control, great lengths need to be taken for redundancy, and that is where the MAX had a problem, From what it appears, Boeing appeared to want to monetize the redundancies by asking more money for extra sensors. The 737 Max has been operating in the USA since 2017 by AA and Southwest (and I believe others) and has been doing so without incident; multiple flights each day prior to grounding. The root cause is not the aircraft, it is the automation that makes the MAX feel like a 700/800/900 series and that needs to be addressed completely. Heads should roll starting with the CEO and other key players at Boeing.

I have mentioned it before, AS is not really the best size of airline to managed various aircraft types. They had to have separate maintenance facilities and pilots for their previous 737 and MD-80 aircrafts and that will lead to operational problems particularly when AS has so many outposts. The best thing to do is stick with one aircraft type and I believe they will stick with Boeing. Yes, I would be happy to fly an AS 737 MAX particularly with an AS crew.

LarryJ

Right, marketing. MAX is a marketing designation. The airplanes are the 737-7, 737-8, 737-9, and 737-10; all part of the MAX series. The 737-600 through 737-900 were the NG series.

Superjeff

That's misleading, it was an Aloha Airlines 737-200, not Hawaiian. I know that the term "Hawaiian" might refer to the geographic area, but here you're referring to a particular incident. The 737-100/200, the 737-300/400, the 737-700/800/900, and the 737-Max 8/9/10 are similar only in name; there have been many changes over the years.

JacksonFlyer

Oh please, forgive my ignorance on the airline name, it still flew despite having significant damage....my point being that Boeing makes a sound/safe aircraft. Yes, comparing an 800 series to a 100 series has many nuances, however the safety factor of the series has steadily improved, until the recent MAX crashes. Leadership, cost cutting and production has to take a back seat to safety and that is what needs to change in the culture of Boeing, but yes, once certified, I would fly on a MAX; I get others will not. The thread was should the AS stay committed to the MAX, I think so, others might not. I just pointed out that AS is not at a size to manage multiple aircraft types, that is why AS (not Horizon) maintained a single fleet until the merger.

milypan

Gig103

And Boeing doesn't make the NG series anymore, right? So basically it really is MAX or Airbus for Alaska?

jinglish

That's not what happened. The AOA disagree indicator (or at least one that wasn't buried in menus) was part of an add-on package, but even with that extra, MCAS sourced only one AOA sensor.

fly18725

Alaska has a contract. They’ve presumably paid substantial deposits since there are airplanes ready to deliver and heir not going to walk away from hundreds of mil of dollars when they are almost guaranteed to receive the safest and most scrutinized airplane in the world.

I would point out the AOA disagree option was a minuscule amount of money and it wasn’t selected by airlines because their pilots don’t use it.

frebethemature

Somehow, I think people use a bathtub/spa much more than they fly on a 737 Max every year...
It's not a question of 'how many died,' it's a question of the likelihood of a fatal accident. I'm not saying that if you fly on a 737 Max you're doomed, but a bathtub is absolutely not comparable to the Max in terms of the chance of death
Same applies to skyscrapers
Same applies to cars

notquiteaff

channa

Walk away? The aircraft manufacturer is producing planes that cannot be legally flown. AS has plenty of leverage to renegotiate that contract at the moment.

PABE

The first Alaska-painted-rudder 737 MAX-9 (N913AK) rolled off the line at KRNT on Wednesday and flew over to KBFI for parking. So it seems like the orders are being produced.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n913ak