B737MAX [Grounded as of 13 March 2019]

    Hide Wikipost
Old Jun 19, 19, 1:24 am   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: DenverBrian
Wiki Link
United does not fly the 737 MAX 8 that has been involved in two recent crashes, but it does operate the 737 MAX 9.

How to tell if your flight is scheduled to be operated by the MAX 9:

View your reservation or flight status page, either on the web or on the app. United lists the entire aircraft type. Every flight that is scheduled to be on the 737 MAX will say "Boeing 737 MAX 9." If you see anything else -- for example, "Boeing 737-900," it is not scheduled to be a MAX at this time.

The same is true in search results and anywhere else on the United site.

For advanced users: UA uses the three letter IATA identifier 7M9 for the 737 MAX 9.

All 737 MAX aircraft worldwide (MAX 8, MAX 9, and MAX 10) are currently grounded.
Print Wikipost

Reply

Old Jun 14, 19, 12:22 pm
  #1756  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,348
Originally Posted by J.Edward View Post
The take I get is both the carriers and Boeing want the MAX back in the air.
I'm quite sure that they do.

And my point is that an independent regulatory agency should feel no pressure from that, because they do not work for the airlines or for Boeing. Their responsibility is to the safety of the flying public, not the bottom lines of the companies involved. This is exactly why we have independent regulatory bodies -- so that these decisions can be made independently from such pressures.
VegasGambler is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 12:25 pm
  #1757  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
The bulk of the design work for the A320 series occurred in the 1980s. And only recently Airbus added the NEO. Outside of that and the dozen A320-100s that were retired years ago, a 1990 A320 is about the same thing as a 2009 A320. To say it has changed as much as the 737 which has gone through now four very significant redesigns (five if you want to include the 737-400) is quite naive.
I think thereís a fundamental misunderstanding here. A fuselage is nothing more than a tube and it doesnít really matter when it was designed. Wings are the most important aerodynamic feature and it is correct that the A320 has the original wing while the 737ís originated with the NG. Both airplanes have seen relatively consistent investment in systems and other, smaller aerodynamic improvements. Ultimately, whatís most important is how all pieces of the airplane work together.

Thereís also a fallacy that new = better = safer. While new designs can have better economics, safety and reliability improve as technology is proven. Both the A320 and 737 are relatively equivalent in this regard. Trying to argue one is better than the other is more indicative of emotional attachments than a sound understanding of facts.
fly18725 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 12:28 pm
  #1758  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
The bulk of the design work for the A320 series occurred in the 1980s. And only recently Airbus added the NEO. Outside of that and the dozen A320-100s that were retired years ago, a 1990 A320 is about the same thing as a 2009 A320. To say it has changed as much as the 737 which has gone through now four very significant redesigns (five if you want to include the 737-400) is quite naive.
So, what you are saying is that the Max is nothing like the original 737.


Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 19 at 12:42 pm Reason: discuss the issues; not the poster(s)
Newman55 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 12:34 pm
  #1759  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, RC/MR/SPG Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 6,041
Originally Posted by fly18725 View Post
There’s also a fallacy that new = better = safer. While new designs can have better economics, safety and reliability improve as technology is proven. Both the A320 and 737 are relatively equivalent in this regard. Trying to argue one is better than the other is more indicative of emotional attachments than a sound understanding of facts.
I absolutely do not believe that new = better = safer. I would happily fly on a 60 year old 727 today, I wouldn't set foot on a 3 month old 737MAX. What I do believe is that Boeing has stretched an aircraft originally designed to fly 100 people 500-750 miles for far too many years without properly investing in a new product. Now, people are paying the price with their lives.
DenverBrian and Aussienarelle like this.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 19 at 12:43 pm Reason: removed response to deleted content
cmd320 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 12:59 pm
  #1760  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,066
Originally Posted by J.Edward View Post
Compared to the planes involved in accidents with the most fatalities since 1966, the 737 Max 8 has had more fatalities in its first years in service than any of the other.
This graph is misleading; The correct number to use would be the number of hull-loss incidents per hundred thousand flights, or something like that. This graph penalizes the MAX for high load factors, high-utilization schedules, and Boeing's ability to deliver them efficiently.
nnn, ajGoes, chrisl137 and 1 others like this.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jun 14, 19 at 1:04 pm Reason: Unneeded comment removed
jsloan is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 1:12 pm
  #1761  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
I absolutely do not believe that new = better = safer. I would happily fly on a 60 year old 727 today, I wouldn't set foot on a 3 month old 737MAX. What I do believe is that Boeing has stretched an aircraft originally designed to fly 100 people 500-750 miles for far too many years without properly investing in a new product. Now, people are paying the price with their lives.
Again, youíre trying to equate the size of a tube with the effectiveness of an aircraft. Thatís like saying a 4-cylinder engine was designed for a subcompact and has no business being used in an SUV. Focusing on a superficial quality, such as the number of cylinders, has no basis on the engines capability.
fly18725 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 1:33 pm
  #1762  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: SAN
Programs: 1K, *G, 1MM
Posts: 1,653
Originally Posted by Newman55 View Post
"Bahrami (FAA) was reluctant to provide a timeline, but asked whether the plane would resume service this year or next, he said remarks by Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg projecting a return by the end of 2019 sounded correct."

A return by the end of the year could mean next week or it could mean December 31. Neither you or anyone else outside of the regulatory agencies know exactly (even they probably don't know). This is a political question as much of a technical one at this point.

I'm confused why it matters so much to people who never want to fly on the plane. <shrugs>
Originally Posted by Weatherboy View Post
The FAA today said it'll be unlikely the MAX will be able to fly before December now.

It wouldn't shock me if UA dropped the equipment from their '19 schedules completely now.
I was quite excited to read this as I have one leg scheduled in early September on a 737MAX with UA. Still scheduled ☹

As someone who does not want to fly on the plane, removing it from one of my scheduled flights before the end of the year would be very welcomed by me.
Aussienarelle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 2:36 pm
  #1763  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,214
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
The bulk of the design work for the A320 series occurred in the 1980s. And only recently Airbus added the NEO. Outside of that and the dozen A320-100s that were retired years ago, a 1990 A320 is about the same thing as a 2009 A320. To say it has changed as much as the 737 which has gone through now four very significant redesigns (five if you want to include the 737-400) is quite naive.
Actually, the companies have very different design approaches. Boeing has kept each generation nearly unchanged. So all 737-400s are nearly identical, same with the 737-800. Early, late build, practically carbon copies. Airbus in contrast has kept the model designation unchanged from launch (first flight in 1987) until A320E program in 2006, and then another big change with the neo. In contrast with Boeing, Airbus made incremental improvements/changes in the aircraft (the biggest ones being the A320E program and then neo) so that say a 1990 build is less efficient, with higher fuel burn, than a say 2000 or 2010 build. Airbus has more of a Japanese approach of incremental design improvement.

That said, the fundamental architecture of the Airbus plane is unchanged, while that of the MAX has little resemblance to the original 737-100. The main reason for this is two fold. First, the original A320 has a much more modern design that was not low to the ground, and second the A320 was the maximized base design. The A321 is a stretch, and the A319 is a shrink. In sharp contrast the original 737-100 model was a short range (1500 nm) aircraft seating 74. The 737-200 (seating 110) was a stretch for UA, and then the 737-300/700 was a double stretch, and the 737-400/800 was a triple stretch, and the 737-900 was a quadruple stretch, and the Max10 is a quintuple stretch.

To give some idea of the contrast, the originally designed 737-100 was 93' long, the MAX 10 is 143.7' long. In contrast the A320 is 123' long, with the A319 shrink being 12' shorter, and the A321 stretch being 23' longer. So far less change from the base model.
spin88 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 4:08 pm
  #1764  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2,802
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
Actually, the companies have very different design approaches. Boeing has kept each generation nearly unchanged. So all 737-400s are nearly identical, same with the 737-800. Early, late build, practically carbon copies. Airbus in contrast has kept the model designation unchanged from launch (first flight in 1987) until A320E program in 2006, and then another big change with the neo. In contrast with Boeing, Airbus made incremental improvements/changes in the aircraft (the biggest ones being the A320E program and then neo) so that say a 1990 build is less efficient, with higher fuel burn, than a say 2000 or 2010 build. Airbus has more of a Japanese approach of incremental design improvement.

That said, the fundamental architecture of the Airbus plane is unchanged, while that of the MAX has little resemblance to the original 737-100. The main reason for this is two fold. First, the original A320 has a much more modern design that was not low to the ground, and second the A320 was the maximized base design. The A321 is a stretch, and the A319 is a shrink. In sharp contrast the original 737-100 model was a short range (1500 nm) aircraft seating 74. The 737-200 (seating 110) was a stretch for UA, and then the 737-300/700 was a double stretch, and the 737-400/800 was a triple stretch, and the 737-900 was a quadruple stretch, and the Max10 is a quintuple stretch.

To give some idea of the contrast, the originally designed 737-100 was 93' long, the MAX 10 is 143.7' long. In contrast the A320 is 123' long, with the A319 shrink being 12' shorter, and the A321 stretch being 23' longer. So far less change from the base model.
Boeing has made continuous improvements in the 737 as well. The last NGs are almost 10% more fuel efficient than the first.

Both Airbus and Boeing do this with all airplanes. It is a stupid distraction to go down this path and try to portray them differently.
ExplorerWannabe and Newman55 like this.
fly18725 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 4:33 pm
  #1765  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, RC/MR/SPG Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 6,041
Originally Posted by fly18725 View Post
Again, you’re trying to equate the size of a tube with the effectiveness of an aircraft. That’s like saying a 4-cylinder engine was designed for a subcompact and has no business being used in an SUV. Focusing on a superficial quality, such as the number of cylinders, has no basis on the engines capability.
Not really. This entire problem stems from the fact that the original 737 was an aircraft designed to compete with the DC-9 and was built low to the ground to service small regional airports which lacked boarding bridges. The fuselage is not the relevant component in question here (although from a passenger comfort perspective, the lower floor of the 757 vs the 737 makes the cabin feel much roomier and doesn't place the windows at one's hip like a CRJ), it's the configuration of the landing gear, wing design, flight characteristics, etc. Now many of these have been altered over the numerous generations of the 737, however they are still severely limited with the airframe. The last model of 737 realistically should have been the 737-500, the NG should have been a completely new aircraft if Boeing had really wanted to outpace Airbus. The NG was where the 737 really started to be pushed far beyond anything it was really even envisioned to be.

Oh, and on a side note, a four cylinder engine really doesn't have any business being in a true SUV.
DenverBrian likes this.
cmd320 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 19, 5:44 pm
  #1766  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/LAX/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, United 1K, SPG LT Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 33,138
Originally Posted by cmd320 View Post
I absolutely do not believe that new = better = safer. I would happily fly on a 60 year old 727 today, I wouldn't set foot on a 3 month old 737MAX. What I do believe is that Boeing has stretched an aircraft originally designed to fly 100 people 500-750 miles for far too many years without properly investing in a new product. Now, people are paying the price with their lives.
Quite a few 727s met their demise with catastrophic results - let's face it, both Boeing and Airbus have lost aircraft with a significant loss of lives, although the Airbus losses were more mysterious in nature vs the Boeing losses which have had useful explanations.

Boeing's problem here isn't the 737, it's arrogance. Knowingly approving a design that for safety reasons requires another component, which is sold as a separate upgrade. Knowingly releasing an aircraft to customers with an existing defect without sufficient training. Knowingly hiding the details and pertinent facts of the aircraft's operational status and condition from regulators in every country where it operated.

The 737 is the most successful aircraft ever released to market - only arrogance, hubris, greed and stupidity from a company I highly respected has tarnished the image of what is really a good, solid reliable aircraft. If I had to levy any criticism against the 737, it's the failure of the fuselage design getting a sideways stretch just barely enough to allow for 6 19" wide seats with a little extra aisle space.
bocastephen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 19, 1:23 am
  #1767  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,856
Untied, American and Southwest also share the blame for the MAX disaster. They should have known you can only stretch a 50 year old airplane so far. The airlines are as much to blame as Boeing, if not more so.
BF263533 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 19, 7:56 am
  #1768  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: MCO
Programs: AA, B6, DL, EK, EY, QR, SQ, UA, Amex Plat, RC/MR/SPG Plat, HHonors Gold
Posts: 6,041
Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
Quite a few 727s met their demise with catastrophic results - let's face it, both Boeing and Airbus have lost aircraft with a significant loss of lives, although the Airbus losses were more mysterious in nature vs the Boeing losses which have had useful explanations.

Boeing's problem here isn't the 737, it's arrogance. Knowingly approving a design that for safety reasons requires another component, which is sold as a separate upgrade. Knowingly releasing an aircraft to customers with an existing defect without sufficient training. Knowingly hiding the details and pertinent facts of the aircraft's operational status and condition from regulators in every country where it operated.

The 737 is the most successful aircraft ever released to market - only arrogance, hubris, greed and stupidity from a company I highly respected has tarnished the image of what is really a good, solid reliable aircraft. If I had to levy any criticism against the 737, it's the failure of the fuselage design getting a sideways stretch just barely enough to allow for 6 19" wide seats with a little extra aisle space.
Plenty of aircraft have met their own demise. That isn't really the issue here. The point is that I absolutely do not believe that newer = better = safer. In some cases sure, however when you have a series of completely avoidable disasters like this caused by the production company cutting corners, that raises a lot of red flags.

I'm not sure which mysterious accidents you're referring to, however there are only a few accidents that are really unsolved today, the most mysterious of which is probably actually MH370.

While I agree that the Boeing's problem here is arrogance, I also have plenty of issues with the 737 as a passenger. I avoided the NGs even long before the MAX existed. Sure flying on a 737-400 from Jacksonville to Charlotte was one thing. Flying on a 737-800 from Miami to San Francisco is torture.

Originally Posted by BF263533 View Post
Untied, American and Southwest also share the blame for the MAX disaster. They should have known you can only stretch a 50 year old airplane so far. The airlines are as much to blame as Boeing, if not more so.
It's mainly AA. After all, they were the ones who were too cheap to train their pilots on a new aircraft and backed Boeing into a corner to produce this aircraft.
cmd320 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 19, 8:49 am
  #1769  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 37
This is absurd, exactly why I don't usually read threads like this

Originally Posted by BF263533 View Post
Untied, American and Southwest also share the blame for the MAX disaster. They should have known you can only stretch a 50 year old airplane so far. The airlines are as much to blame as Boeing, if not more so.
Are you seriously saying customers of Boeing are responsible for two crashes of a product they did not own or were responsible for? With all due respect this is crazy talk, and sadly there is a lot of crazy talk on this plane. I've even read threads that say Boeing cares more about short-term profit than human lives, and everyone in the US government and Boeing is corrupt for letting the MAX fly. It is enough to make someone ill reading this stuff. How should they have known that Max is unsafe? They are airlines, not manufacturers, for goodness sake. That's like saying it's my fault if someone's Windows 7 computer blows up because I use Windows 7 and not Windows 10.

All that is known is there is some kind of problem with the plane, and it is grounded until the problem is fixed. The crash investigations of both flights have not been completed, or the results made public by the government agencies responsible for the reports. There is a lot of hate, political posturing, accusations, and even attacks on countries and innocent people over this. Media is having a field day over this, with lots of articles and speculation that earns them a lot of clicks and eyeballs, whether these things are true or not is a whole different story.

The one thing we know beyond any shadow of doubt is that a machine built by imperfect human beings is imperfect, and two tragedies happened as a result of it. Humans fail, human systems fail, and it is an awful thing to see. But to say such things as three US airlines are part of the blame for two crashes of planes they did not own, where their planes did not fly, and they did not train the crews demonstrates human failure and weakness as well.
jsloan, ajGoes, Newman55 and 1 others like this.
jkumpire is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 19, 9:04 am
  #1770  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BNA
Programs: HH Gold. (Former) UA PP, DL PM, PC Plat
Posts: 6,513
Originally Posted by BF263533 View Post
Untied, American and Southwest also share the blame for the MAX disaster. They should have known you can only stretch a 50 year old airplane so far. The airlines are as much to blame as Boeing, if not more so.
The Max -7/-8/-9 are not stretches. The cabin of the 737-8 MAX is the same size as the 737-800; 737-9 MAX is the same size as the 737-900; and 737-7 MAX will be the same size as the 737-700.

The small difference in overall length is from the redesigned tailcone, not an increase in cabin size.

It won't be until the upcoming 737-10 MAX that there will be a longer cabin than the previous models. It will add about two economy rows over the -900/-9.
ajGoes and gmt4 like this.
LarryJ is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread