Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31301193)

I would.

Originally Posted by copperred (Post 31302827)

Indeed. It's a bit odd to suggest in a world where people have far more access to knowledge and likely will still have access to screening out an aircraft (that probably won't fly until next year) that is thought extremely unsafe. Indeed, mixing Airbus and Boeing mainly occurs in very large airlines because of the differences in cockpit and type ratings.

Few except the most dedicated Boeing customers or delusional would announce they'd buy any now, lest it tarnish the brand.

Originally Posted by highupinthesky (Post 31302919)

Again. Tango Alpha's quote is taken out of context. The missing part is that the issues with the B737-max had to be fixed and the reputation restored.

Originally Posted by highupinthesky (Post 31301204)

When you quote, please be fair and quote the whole context. I did write that a prereq. for SK to order B737-max would be that the current issues has been solved and the reputation has being restored. It's an important part of the sentence IMHO.

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

The prerequisite that the current issues with the 737 Max has been solved and the reputation has been restored is obvious (though IAG didn’t wait for that…).

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

But it is not the current Max-crises at all, that makes be doubt, that SAS ‘ever’ would go back to a Boeing narrowbody. SAS has emphasized, that it is going for a simple, unified fleet. In that, it even avoids choosing any 319/321 for medium haul – which would give some route-optimizing-opportunities.

Originally Posted by copperred (Post 31303256)

The whole problem is trying to use software to fix a radical change in hardware design. It's like lipstick on a pig with three legs. If, and it's a big one, the autopilot doesn't require rewrite/redesign, it will still be many months before it flies again. Ryanair seems to be trying a renaming of its aircraft, trying to make them a continuation on the 737-800, just adding a zero or changing a following number after 8.

Originally Posted by copperred (Post 31303256)

Even with that, why would SK add Boeings (and one with such a horrible reputation) to an all Airbus fleet? It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by copperred (Post 31303256)

I read all of the preceding posts and did not see additional information. You can't fix it.

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

Well, quoting a long post with several points doesn’t exactly make it easy to see what part of it, one is referring to.

Originally Posted by highupinthesky (Post 31300097)

If the issues has been solve and reputation restored, I wouldn't be surprised if SK announces they will buy a bunch of B737-max in 5 years time.

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

If somebody would check your whole argument, it is very easy scrolling upwards. I always read well backwards before commenting.

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

The prerequisite that the current issues with the 737 Max has been solved and the reputation has been restored is obvious (though IAG didn’t wait for that…).

Originally Posted by Tango Alpha (Post 31304550)

But it is not the current Max-crises at all, that makes be doubt, that SAS ‘ever’ would go back to a Boeing narrowbody. SAS has emphasized, that it is going for a simple, unified fleet. In that, it even avoids choosing any 319/321 for medium haul – which would give some route-optimizing-opportunities.
In that respect, choosing a score or two of a completely different plane but with the same characteristics doesn’t make sense.

Originally Posted by ImportViking (Post 31299775)

I learned something new, thank you. :) I have been told that the only reason why the Boeing 737 NG uses G and H is to avoid confusion when using B737 as type, as that's already a 'generic' Boeing 737. Or so I have been told. No one told me that winglets make the difference here.

Originally Posted by highupinthesky (Post 31304834)

Please see the below quote of the full sentence and not just the second half which Tango Alpha quoted.


I'm not asking you to quote the hole post or even whole section. I'm only asking you not to quote out of context. You only quoted half of the sentence, which completely changed the meaning. And for your record the whole sentence is quoted below.



Well. I know quite a number of people who trusts the quotes and don't read the whole tread. All I'm asking is that you quote the whole context so the meaning of the quote is the same as in the original text.


If that were true, why have we been seeing more airlines signing contracts for B737-MAX deliveries during the last 3 months and almost no cancellations of existing orders?


And 5 years ago they praised having a fleet with different types of aircraft's as it made them less vulnerable to issues on a specific model. It's PR to justify the order they made.