Should United Cancel Its Order for 100 737 MAX 10s, & Order the A321neo?
Mar 22, 2019, 11:44 am
#16
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,122
I strongly suspect airlines are now rethinking their commitment to the MAX line in general. They all know it's a weird aircraft that's needed design compromises to allow successive generations. Will the MAX10 ever be commercialized? Maybe not as the FAA will surely be putting it under a stronger microscope. Even the MAX9 needs very high landing speeds due to the short gear necessitating a flat approach. Couple that with it only having four tires for braking and we'll see more sliding off the runway in poor traction conditions. Do airlines really want to fly a plane that will have ~200 passengers in the next version with all this going on? The A321 is fundamentally designed for this. The latest 737 versions are not.
Mar 22, 2019, 12:02 pm
#17
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
That's an extreme overreaction and wholly unnecessary.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
Is there a problem? Clearly, yes.
Has the root cause been identified? Yes.
Is a fix feasible and practical? Yes.
Will it be implemented quickly? Also, yes.
This is not a structural integrity issue; it's a software and wetware problem.
That said... the new MOM aircraft (i.e. 757X) can't get here quickly enough.
Mar 22, 2019, 12:09 pm
#19
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC, LON
Programs: *
Posts: 2,771
Maybe so but when it comes to public perception and satisfaction ''rational decisions" are not entirely based on facts of a matter, indeed some decisions are entirely not based on the facts -if they were the Max fleet would probably not be grounded at the current time. I am sure it is a major business decision being considered by any airline with big orders for this plane - and it doesn't matter what the facts turn out to be; the die has been cast and each airline has to decide today how to respond.
Mar 22, 2019, 12:26 pm
#20
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Sunny So Cal
Programs: SPG, HH, IHG, BA, DL
Posts: 192
I just prefer to fly on a plane that has lower altitude pressures (high cabin pressure) and higher humidity for long hauls.
Recently flew overseas on a 787 Dreamliner as well as the A350 and loved their lower altitude cabin for a very nice arrival feeling.
I just can't go on any more planes that are old fashioned 8000' pressured cabins...
Must be getting old....
Mar 22, 2019, 1:11 pm
#21
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
You know, the A32x family also had a lot of issues when it first came out. But most new airplanes do. The difference is were living in a hyper sensitive, quick judging world where information travels faster than ever before and outrage is considered noble, even if we are very uneducated about why we are outraged. Where one poorly written article by a journalist who has no real knowledge of the subject that therere writing about gets repeated millions of times in the span of a few days and becomes the facts.
Mar 22, 2019, 1:17 pm
#22
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
They're not as big and dramatic as hull losses, but it's a good demonstration of the fact that no plane is perfect.
Mar 22, 2019, 3:00 pm
#24
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,122
You know, the A32x family also had a lot of issues when it first came out. But most new airplanes do. The difference is we’re living in a hyper sensitive, quick judging world where information travels faster than ever before and outrage is considered noble, even if we are very uneducated about why we are outraged. Where one poorly written article by a journalist who has no real knowledge of the subject that there’re writing about gets repeated millions of times in the span of a few days and becomes the facts.
Mar 22, 2019, 3:03 pm
#25
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Mar 22, 2019, 3:20 pm
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,329
However, UA has a large fleet of 777-200 for replacement in the next decade. 777X is too big, 787-9 too small and 787-10 does not have the range yet. A350 is actually a really nice aircraft to fly for passengers. I go out of my way to fly the A350....ironically (for this thread) my most recent A350 experience was on Ethiopian Airway. It was a fantastic flight.
Mar 22, 2019, 8:55 pm
#27
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: UA LT 1K, AA EXP, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,658
Yes, UA should switch to the A321., I believe the Max is doomed. I think we will see more cancellations, and if that happens Boeing could be force to stop production. I can't see building 4,000 of this design for service over the next 45 years.
The aircraft design is flawed, I just don't see it being fully fixed with software, redundant sensors, extra alerts, more training. What you are training pilots for is how to avoid a crash when the plane tends to stall. Boeing is in a tough spot, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to stop production.
It would only take one more crash to doom it.
Boeing and others are blaming untrained foreign pilots - I disagree. These planes are supposed to fly on autopilot. Weather in both cases was good, so no external issue.
The aircraft design is flawed, I just don't see it being fully fixed with software, redundant sensors, extra alerts, more training. What you are training pilots for is how to avoid a crash when the plane tends to stall. Boeing is in a tough spot, but at the end of the day, they are going to have to stop production.
It would only take one more crash to doom it.
Boeing and others are blaming untrained foreign pilots - I disagree. These planes are supposed to fly on autopilot. Weather in both cases was good, so no external issue.
Mar 22, 2019, 9:18 pm
#28
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: USA
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,194
I already select my flights to avoid Airbus whenever possible. Doesn't mean I can always do it but whenever possible. As it stands, most trips I take do at least one leg on a CRJ or EJR with Boeings on the remaining leg. Haven't had to go on Airbus in years.
Mar 22, 2019, 9:46 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I do think this will hurt around the edges, especially if the FAA or some foreign agency requires a different type rating on the plane or simulator work on it. The main damage is reputational. Anyone who thinks Boeing is more careful, more airplane focused, at this point needs to have their heads examined.
What I do wonder about is if Airbus decides to kick Boeing while it is down, and announces a A322neo (further stretch of the A321) which would put Boeing into a really bad place. Were I Airbus I would do that ASAP, try to steal some of the MAX10 orders and the MOM space before Boeing has a chance to get off its heals.
Mar 22, 2019, 9:47 pm
#30
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The only place where we disagree is that I do think Boeing and/or the regulators have an interest in operating an aircraft even with faults, as long as they can rationalize the faults to minor or not dangerous or hazardous to people's lives. "What can possibly go wrong?" We've seen, twice in five months, what can possibly go wrong.
I want my manufacturers and regulators to be absolutely ruthless about safety, and in this case, I think the foot went ever so slightly off the gas.
Absolutely, the MAXes will be safer when they return to service. They damn well ought to be. And it shouldn't have taken stalling on the part of Boeing to ground 'em on the second crash, let alone the first. Abundance. of. caution. Not abundance of profits.
I want my manufacturers and regulators to be absolutely ruthless about safety, and in this case, I think the foot went ever so slightly off the gas.
Absolutely, the MAXes will be safer when they return to service. They damn well ought to be. And it shouldn't have taken stalling on the part of Boeing to ground 'em on the second crash, let alone the first. Abundance. of. caution. Not abundance of profits.
The entire point of the design, testing and certification process is to minimize risk. You cant eliminate risk, otherwise it would be uneconomical to build airplanes. All you can do is apply learnings to improvements. Unfortunately, some lessons come from fatal crashes.
What the investigations need to uncover is whether the contributors to the incidents were known risks, known unknowns or unknown unknowns.