chillymac

Any other FTers feel compelled to tell Alaska Airline to never buy any of the 737 max aircraft?

I just read the test pilot remarks about the plane and it makes me never want to fly on that plane. It seems that a plane that flies so far outside the norms (experienced test piots repeatedly crashed in the simulators) and requires software to make if feel as though it flies like a normal plane is a major red flag for me.

Alaska has a chance to save itself from this disaster waiting to happen and look at other options. I as a frequent flyer encourage them to do so because I will be looking to stay off that aircraft.

JPat

I share your concern and intend to avoid flying the MAX until it has a couple of years of proven safety.

BayAreaTrvler

I certainly do. The 737 Max is just completely compromised from a reputational standpoint, as is Boeing itself at this standpoint. I think Boeing should just cancel the model, sell the inventory they’ve built already at a discount, and offer to fill orders with NG models until they can design a 737 replacement. I will be watching the schedule carefully and avoiding the Max entirely.

jsguyrus

I have some bad news for you. The strong rumor is AS plans to announce a large Max order soon as the grounding is lifted. On a practical note, they really have no other choice if they want to grow in the next few years.

Personally I have confidence in AS flight crews and if they feel safe flying it, I feel safe flying with them.

RAD_PDX

No. I hope they use the situation as leverage to get a great price and order even more.

dayone

Let's remember that WN flew thousands of MAX cycles without a major incident prior to the grounding.

NeilA

My thinking is that when it gets the okay to fly again it will be an extremely safe airplane.

WebTraveler

This plane won't fly under its present name, Boeing has way too many problems with it and the latest NYT article of Boeing employee emails shows how bad this is.

It may come back, but not under this name

Alaska needs to follow thru on the Airbus order in process for now.

channa

They already ordered them. Aren't they already built?

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/cu...tion-737s.page

I got schedule changed onto one a while back before the grounding got extended several times.

Phrozen

The DC-10 went through this when it was new, and the USAF, UPS and FedEx have been flying them for decades with very few issues. The MAX will get its issued worked out, and in all likelihood continue the 737's run as the best mid-sized regional jet on the market.

Also, I might be the only one who thinks like this, but I absolutely loath the Airbus jets AS has. I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but every time I'm on one, they're the noisiest, rattleiest, shakiest, bumpiest planes ever. I'd honestly rather fly on Q400s forever than another Airbus.

jinglish

Yeah, about that....

While MCAS as originally implemented was absolutely a disaster, and Boeing really should've gone cleansheet anyway instead of trying to sling the LEAPs under the 737's wings, computer modification of flight controls isn't at all unheard of. Mostly it's seen on military aircraft, since aerodynamic instability goes hand-in-hand with increased maneuverability, but even the MD-11 has some computer handling tweaks to replicate the DC-10's handling characteristics despite a smaller tail assembly.

VegasGambler

"If", not "when".

And I'm unconvinced that even if it does get the ok to fly again it will ever be safe. In part, because I wonder whether the Boeing employee who made the "dogs watching TV" statement was correct. Are planes so complicated now that the FAA can't really do their jobs properly, or they just have to believe whatever the engineers who designed it tell them?

Simply put: Does the FAA have the technical expertise to determine whether this plane is safe? That's the real question that Congress should be asking in these investigations, because that is something that they have the power to fix. (Let the DOJ worry about whether Boeing lied to the FAA or whether any other crimes were committed -- that's their job). The question needs to be asked -- I think the days of blind trust in the FAA are over.

As an engineer, I believe that it's obvious that Boeing has serious culture issues which resulted in revenue being put before safety. I won't fly this plane for several years, and I would also have qualms about flying in any newly-designed Boeing aircraft for the next several years. Culture takes time to fix -- a new CEO is a good start, but it's just a start.

TL;DR: To answer the OP, yes -- I would request that AS not buy these things.

danielonn

I think the A 340 or A350 would be great for transcons

eddiehuang97

So the fact is that MAX is actually a safe plane to fly but because of the design change it requires re-certification for all pilots. To solve this problem Boeing implemented MCAS so pilots with 737 certifications don't need to re-certify for MAX. Without MCAS the plane flies just fine but 737 pilots can't fly it. The youtube channel of blancolirio has a lot of updates on this issue if you want to know more.

Admiral Ackbar

They had to make extensive modifications to the DC-10 and introduce the MD-11 which has had (statistically) a high hull loss rate with many similar accidents resulting from tricky handling characteristics in the landing regime due to software called LSAS. LSAS compensated (sounds familiar again) for the fact that the vertical stabilizer on the 11 was 40% smaller than the 10 for fuel economy reasons. When you read the articles linked below (one of many found on the topic) many of the statements seem very familiar.

That Tragic MD-11 Safety Record

Before the pitchforks come out, I would get on a Boeing (or an MD11 for that matter, flew then a lot on KLM) without hesitation but there are serious process problems at Boeing (and its relationship with the FAA) which need to be addressed. MD-11 was commercial failure which I believe is what the MAX will be but what do I know.