Global321

The BA engineers clearly disagree.

I do apologize, but, I have not seen any articles from named aeronautical engineers that agree with your statement. I am not saying they don't exist, I just have not seen them.
(Here is a Seattle Times article, but it only focuses on MCAS software issues. No mention of a design flaw.)

I did a quick scan, and I still don't see the linked articles from aeronautical engineers stating what you (and others) state. Perhaps you could place them in the wiki for all to have ready access.

----
Here is a great article from The Atlantic.

It lists all the pilot ASRS reports. They focus on MCAS and lack of training. No mentions of pilots believing the plane is inherently unstable.

born sleepy

<off-topic material removed by moderator>

2. I wouldn't be too sure about that. The publicity over the plane's defects and grounding is far greater than any other save maybe the Screamliner, but far fewer people fly on those vs domestic narrow-bodies. The stink will linger for a long time.

If it does fly again and gets swapped for something else I guess most people won't notice, but I would. Would I refuse to fly and take a later one? Hard to say; depends on what my schedule was like and what the carrier's ideas on me doing that were. $250 change fee? Or maybe I just fall asleep in the AC and miss the flight?

ft101

You won't get mistakes lke that any more. The programmer for that left and went to work for Boeing on some fiddly software they need to hide a design flaw.

84fiero

I feel that the extent to which the public wants to avoid the MAX, and the length of time that they do so, will depend on the details of what transpires by the time it's re-cleared for commercial flights. There are still investigations pending the release of their final reports, including a Dept of Justice criminal inquiry. It remains to be seen whether or not there are disagreements among certifying agencies in different countries about suitability for returning to service - and requirements such as training. Additional revelations could surface that could increase or decrease confidence in the aircraft, Boeing, or the FAA. How much the news media continues to report. Probably other things. All of which will be factors in the public's mind.

edgewood49

It would be nice if all concerning agencies world wide could come up with a set standard for recertification so this can get on with it, not saying I will be boarding one anytime soon.

deniah

So why wouldn't they utter "clap clap" , instead of something so far removed from the onomatopoeia?

DenverBrian

Not that far removed - "hear hear" is a version of "I hear you."

Supersonic Swinger

As a statistically insignificant sample of the flying public of one (being myself), I will adopt a similar approach to the MAX as I did with the 787:

If Boeing says that there is now effective software to safely overcome the issues arising from putting larger engines further forward on a wing than they were originally engineered to be, I will wait until I have observed about 5 years of incident free flying and then I'll be happy to book flights on a MAX.

lhrsfo

I have no doubt that the great majority of people continue to pay no attention to the aircraft type when they book or fly. Of all my family and acquaintances with whom I've flown in my life, I cannot think of one who had the first idea what type of plane they were on. Anyhow, I suspect that the MAX will be rebranded in some way, such as 737 Xtra, or some such. If there's any name recognition, it will be with the MAX, rather than the 737 part, so lose the MAX name and the problem goes away.

Global321

Spot on. I know of several frequent flyers who don't know which planes are which.

MAX versions become something like 737-808, 737-809, 737-810 (or whatever) and, from a consumer POV, it all goes away. (i.e. Agent: "No, this is not a 737-MAX")

84fiero

The phrase "hear, hear" is a short form of the original phrase "hear him, hear him" - i.e., empasizing agreement with the speaker and urging others to pay attention to what the person is saying.

As a general rule, yes, most people don't know or care about aircraft type. But there's never been a precedent for an aircraft type that has had accidents, and then been grounded and remained in the news & social media for this long...with ongoing issues and concerns about the FAA's & other agencies' oversight processes, as well. So it has the potential to remain more prominent in the public's mind than normal, and possibly for a longer period of time. As I've said before, I think it depends especially on what transpires between now and any return to commercial service. Only time will tell for certain, though, whatever our current guesses might be.

USA_flyer

I disagree. Whatever Boeing renames the Max, will do fine in the medium and long run.

84fiero

Disagree with what? You may wish to read more carefully. I didn't say that it wouldn't, merely that the situation is unprecedented so past comparisons are somewhat inapt and moreover, only time will tell for certain whatever our current guesses might be. As I said, again, it depends on what happens between now and any return to service - any number of hypotheticals could occur that could potentially shift public perception one way or the other. Potential =/= certainty.

tmorse6570

I was wondering when or if SWA would sue Boeing for the losses they're taking because of the groundings.

EmailKid

Methinks they will try hard for a negotiated settlement @:-)