IAG signs LOI for 200 737MAX - some for BA LGW
Jun 19, 2019, 3:40 am
#106
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,908
Here you have an aircraft whose certification was grandfathered off the older design and that the manufacturer didn’t even see fit to tell it’s customers about the MCAS system.
Then you have the fact that blame is being being deflected onto the pilots of the aircraft that crashed just because the respective airlines involved are not considered to be first world airlines, so there must be something wrong with their training or capability.
Finally, the FAA has outsourced critical safety functions to the manufacturers, so there is no independent checking of the airworthiness of the aircraft involved.
None of this was present in the Concorde accident.
Jun 19, 2019, 3:50 am
#107
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 43,024
To be fair it wasn't one thing and that was not the only cause. As with pretty much all accidents, it was a number of factors which all ended lining up with the metal strip on the runway being one of the last - the old swiss cheese model. Even beyond the impact the situation was potentially recoverable had it not been for some questionable actions in the cockpit. Anyway I apologise for going a little off topic.
Jun 19, 2019, 3:56 am
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,568
I think that you are sort of comparing apples & oranges here. Concorde was a clear accident caused by FOD. There was nothing inherently wrong with the design of the aircraft that some Kevlar couldn’t sort out.
Here you have an aircraft whose certification was grandfathered off the older design and that the manufacturer didn’t even see fit to tell it’s customers about the MCAS system.
Then you have the fact that blame is being being deflected onto the pilots of the aircraft that crashed just because the respective airlines involved are not considered to be first world airlines, so there must be something wrong with their training or capability.
Finally, the FAA has outsourced critical safety functions to the manufacturers, so there is no independent checking of the airworthiness of the aircraft involved.
None of this was present in the Concorde accident.
The 737 MAX has been grounded for safety reasons after multiple incidents plus two fatal crashes due to a conception error and there are alternatives, chief among which the 32S NEO series.
Jun 19, 2019, 4:00 am
#109
Join Date: Dec 2018
Programs: BA
Posts: 138
However the 737 is a 50 year old design, it’s been outdated for the last 30+ years and the MAX is simply Boeing attempting to polish a turd.
Jun 19, 2019, 4:30 am
#111
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: No more shiny cards -- former LH SEN, SPG Platinum, Flying Blue Platinum, BA Silver
Posts: 704
However, part of the issue rooted in the fact that the 737 is (1) based on a more than 50 year old design which (2) keeps getting bolted on 21st century tech.
At what point does Boeing say that they need to start with a clean sheet design ? I would hope that those discussions are now being taken a lot more seriously in Seattle
Jun 19, 2019, 4:52 am
#113
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Isle of Skye, Scotland
Programs: BA gold
Posts: 3,902
Part of the attractiveness to airlines is that minimal training is needed for their 737 pilots. A new plane designed from the ground up (notwithstanding all the other issues of a new design which we have seen with the 787s and A380s) would mean airlines need to invest in training.
Jun 19, 2019, 4:53 am
#114
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
Must have been given a fantastic price.
But as others have said, possibly poor judgement. If another one crashes people will actively avoid the MAX even more than they already will, and IAG seems to want to operate every aircraft type going. It can hardly be cost effective.
They already have. The reason the MAX exists is because the A320neo was so popular and Boeing needed a stop gap between the Next Gen and the new clean sheet plane.
But as others have said, possibly poor judgement. If another one crashes people will actively avoid the MAX even more than they already will, and IAG seems to want to operate every aircraft type going. It can hardly be cost effective.
They already have. The reason the MAX exists is because the A320neo was so popular and Boeing needed a stop gap between the Next Gen and the new clean sheet plane.
Jun 19, 2019, 5:17 am
#116
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MME (midway between NCL and LBA)
Programs: BA Gold, AF/KL Gold, Hilton Gold, Nordic Choice Gold
Posts: 744
Lots of quotes from WW here (could be an interview). Apparently four weeks ago he himself tested the 737-Max at the Boeing simulator at LGW.
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/
https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...oeing-737-max/
Jun 19, 2019, 5:20 am
#117
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 5 miles from EMA
Programs: BD, BAEC Pleb, VS Pleb, Accor Pleb, HHonors Gold, Big White Season Pass
Posts: 5,908
Part of the attractiveness to airlines is that minimal training is needed for their 737 pilots. A new plane designed from the ground up (notwithstanding all the other issues of a new design which we have seen with the 787s and A380s) would mean airlines need to invest in training.
In a way, it's comparable to what happened to BD92 in that Boeing changed something and didn't tell anybody and the result was a fatal crash.
Last edited by Tiger_lily; Jun 19, 2019 at 5:28 am
Jun 19, 2019, 5:35 am
#118
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Provincie Antwerpen, Vlaanderen, België
Programs: MUCCI Gold
Posts: 2,512
Part of the attractiveness to airlines is that minimal training is needed for their 737 pilots. A new plane designed from the ground up (notwithstanding all the other issues of a new design which we have seen with the 787s and A380s) would mean airlines need to invest in training.
Jun 19, 2019, 5:39 am
#119
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold4life, ICH RA, Hyatt Gold and others
Posts: 702
Too much hysteria here. Concorde flew for many years with a design flaw that proved fatal in the end. Yet people flew it happily. I had 2 tyre burst incidents on it and it didn't put me off. Was it just a lucky aircraft...until its luck ran out.
The Max performance is superior in many ways with huge range and great fuel efficiency
The MCAS issue will be resolved well before the first frames come to Gatters
And in my view they will be a vast improvement on the G-GATx frames currently flying..
The Max performance is superior in many ways with huge range and great fuel efficiency
The MCAS issue will be resolved well before the first frames come to Gatters
And in my view they will be a vast improvement on the G-GATx frames currently flying..
Jun 19, 2019, 5:50 am
#120
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,673
To be fair it wasn't one thing and that was not the only cause. As with pretty much all accidents, it was a number of factors which all ended lining up with the metal strip on the runway being one of the last - the old swiss cheese model. Even beyond the impact the situation was potentially recoverable had it not been for some questionable actions in the cockpit. Anyway I apologise for going a little off topic.
The AF CDG crash had a number of other contributing factors that showed AF in a very poor light. The frame was overweight (well over the maximum structural limits) prior to take-off but amazingly the pilot was not informed of this. The AF Ops department had loaded alot of extra baggage left over from an earlier flight but not told the captain of this. Plus the wind direction had shifted somewhat since the clearance that should have necessitated the captain electing to use a different runway. He didn't and the overweight plane took off with a small tailwind component, really far from ideal conditions when managing an engine failure at take-off!!. Then we have the missing undercarriage spacer on one of the MLG that caused the plane to veer off the CL when the engine failure occurred that undoubtedly would have caused an additional distraction to manage on the flight deck.
A bit OT from 737 MAX but a similarity in that alot of the certification was still based on 1960s standards and a shameful safety culture of the company. With the Concorde it was the operator and the MAX the manufacturer.