Visconti

People around me generally have no idea what sort of plane they're on. I'm not even sure they really know the difference between Boeing or Airbus, or whether it's a 777, 757, A330, etc, let alone differentiating between various 737s, etc......however, almost everyone around me has expressed concerns on flying on the Max and would rather avoid it, if at all possible. Personally, while I have no strong views one way or the other, I would not fly nor would I allow family to fly on the Max, until after a period of time where we'd have enough time and sample size to be assured of its air worthiness.

While I may find BA attractive at current valuations (relatively speaking, of course) and will bet the public will either forget or be unaware, I'd personally avoid the Max, at least for the time being.

dilanesp

Whenever MAX comes back on line, if it ever does, it will receive enormous publicity, and I bet you will immediately see travelers demanding that airlines allow them off of MAX flights.

ExplorerWannabe

Perhaps. I don't have a crystal ball, I have current observations and analysis of past public behavior. How many people were aware of the runaway acceleration problems Toyota had 10 years ago or 5 years ago after they were charged by the FBI? How many people decided they weren't buying Toyotas because of them?

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyot...ry?id=22972214
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E...ehicle_recalls
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/trans...ation-is-serio
https://www.bestattorney.com/auto-de...eleration.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...tion/15477263/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...572_story.html

DenverBrian

Weak analogy. A car doesn't kill 150 people in one fell swoop.

cmd320

People also view air travel and ground transportation very differently.

HNLbasedFlyer

How many people kept flying 747's after the TWA plane blew up after taking off from JFK? And still have a fascination with it.

cmd320

The aircraft involved was a 747-100 and to my knowledge the remainder of that passenger fleet didn't last much more than 3-5 years after that accident. In fact, TWA didn't last much more than 5 years after that accident.

JimInOhio

No doubt you’re right. The question becomes whether it’s 0.1%, 1%, 10%, or more. I’m guessing it will be on the lower side of that scale.

spin88

Re-upping this thought from a week ago in light of UA ordering 50 A321xlr aircraft (delivery in 2024). That is far more than the current fleet of 16 J equipped 757s. United has long suggested that it was going to use the MAX10 on similar routes, and I wonder what this does for UA long term. For example, do they really want a fleet of MAX10s for ex-PS routes (equipped with J) and then a fleet of longer range but similarly sized A321s? The A321neo is a more comfortable aircraft than the MAX (7" wider cabin, more spacious feel even beyond the cabin width due to larger cross section) and the A321neo is a more capable aircraft than the so far untried MAX10 with its jury rigged telescoping landing great.

Were I United I would be looking really carefully at the MAX10, asking if it was an aircraft I really wanted to take and then have long term. Seems like ordering some more A321neos (not xlr version, just regular) and equipping them for the PS routes is a much better idea than taking on the MAX10 with its possible issue.

Again, the A321 line is a gate way drug for Airbus....

Again these exchanges were before UA's order of 50 a321xlr, but I think is highly suggests that airlines have lost some faith in Boeing. Question is if the other shoe drops and airlines (specifically UA with the MAX10) decide to bail on the MAX10 at least, or to a lesser degree the MAX9. Even before the current issues there was a big gap in orders. 82 MAX7s (it is being killed by the A220 and other large RJs), 3221 MAX8s, but only 474 MAX9s, and 521 MAX10s. No reputable airline has ordered large numbers of MAX10s except UA's order for 100. The other big orders are 80 for VietJet and 50 for Lion Air (which I am 110% sure will be eventually cancelled), and 50 for flydubai.

The contrast with the 2844 orders for the a321neo is quite sharp. And Airbus' orders are with major airlines 120 with AA, 25 with Asiana, 32 with CX, 100 with DL, 85 Jet Blue, 30 KAL, 40 LH, 64 Quantas, 50 Qatar, 92 Turkish.

The bottom line is that the MAX9/10 being sucky aircraft were already causing Boeing problems prior to the MCAS issues. Having more airlines (see UA) go with the A321neo - in regular or xlr range - as Boeing dithers is not long term good for Boeing.

I always flock to the airplane where a design flaw two brand new planes into the ground in the first two years of operations, and that has seats in Y which are 1" narrower and those super special slim line bathrooms that are 24" wide where you can't wash your hands without getting water all over yourselves. Better yet, lets fly on this bird for 6+ hours.

The fleet size however grew from 1 to 350+ over that two years. Your figure is about right if conservative (the in flight time for a narrow body is greater than 10 hours, and the plane is off a few days a year). But to round it, lets just say 2MM/year per frame. Assume 200 frames for two years then the MAX will have flown about 800MM. Cars over that amount of mileage would have had under 10 fatalities. The MAX had 36 times that. So the MAX is roughly 3600% more dangerous than driving your car...

I agree, another MAX crash that is related in any way to a design flaw in the plane would bankrupt Boeing. It would not only kill off narrowbody sales, but likely force Boeing to pay such large compensation or even buy back and scrap the plane, and it would damage the brand with airlines so as to impact wide body sales as well given the problems Boeing also had with the 787. But as noted in italics, I think ANY issue would kill Boeing. E.g. problem with the jury rigged landing gear on the MAX10, some other flight control problem? Same result, it does not need to be just a MCAS issue.

The problem I have with your theory is one "inconvenient" fact. Boeing rushed forward, announced they had a fix, MAX was going to fly this summer. So we all should be really happy, best airframer in the world (rah! rah!) they are on the case. Well on June 26, 2019 it came out that the FAA found another flaw in the control system. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...4ad_story.html

Boeing did not find this - THE FAA FOUND IT. I gotta say, it is laughable to me to suggest that Boeing is so careful, and the plane will be so fly specked by Boeing, that the current delay (from this summer to it looks like this spring) is not the result of a flaw that Boeing's engineers discovered, but rather something some FAA test pilots found.

What this suggests to me is that Boeing has not learned it's lessons in any respect, and even after two crashes was driven by profits (get it back in the air, asap) NOT SAFETY. It appears that the "fly specking" of the MAX is whatever the FAA and other regulatory agencies manage to catch. One assumes that the manufacter puts safety first, and would care about bankruptcy inducing events repeating themselves, alas Boeing has not - so far - acted like it got that message. And that the CEO was touting publically a return to service this December, and that the head of the FAA has to send out a memo to staff saying they were not to feel or respond to pressure to clear the MAX, suggests that Boeing is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form.

So given the choice of flying on an aircraft manufactured by a company that puts safety as the primary and secondary principle, over profit (airbus, Bombardier) and a manufacturer that thinks that getting to market quickly and maximizing profit - aided by regulatory capture to reduce the need for careful and expensive design and testing (Boeing, Comac, Irkut) I am going with the first every time.

Sorry to say it, but this is what Boeing has come to. And that United has bailed on Boeing (ordering 50 a321xlr) show that even companies long loyal to Boeing are having second thoughts....

st3

I think some people are MASSIVELY over-estimating the awareness of the general public in which aircraft they fly on. I am a leader in a local ski club and we have about 700-800 travelers per year. Very few people have asked if our flights would be on a MAX and it is usually phrased as "are we flying on the plane that had all those problems?" They don't know the difference between a NG, MAX or A320. Outside of avgeeks and FT most people simply aren't aware.

When the MAX is recertified and enters service it will be in the news cycle for sure....until it is surpassed by the next winter storm, Trump tweet or celebrity breakup. The news cycle moves fast and some plane returning to service isn't exactly breaking news.

Aussienarelle

Well when the MAX goes back into service I will not be flying it as you well know. I will also be asking my family when they fly what aircraft is scheduled. The lives of my family members are too precious to me and I would never, ever forgive myself if something happened to them on a MAX and I had not voiced my concerns.

I do not believe Boeing is watching out for the flying pax, I believe the management at Boeing are looking out for the quarterly results. I believe Boeing makes a cost/benefit analysis (as do other OEMs) else you would have every safety feature known and an aircraft no one could afford. I believe Boeing made a decision in regard to the aircraft that was the cost/benefit of developing a new aircraft from scratch vs reengineering an existing frame.

ExplorerWannabe

Not at all. Toyotas were far more prevalent in the general population, use, and buying habits in 2009-2011 (and later) than 737MAX flights and therefore FAR more likely to be a permanent presence in the minds of the general populace. There were more accidents and incidents and they had a much stronger connection to people's everyday lives. How many people then or now even now of, much less think about, the uncontrolled acceleration problems Toyota had? The fact is the general population simply doesn't remember things like this for a long time without being continually reminded and prodded.

FT is an uncommon audience with an uncommon awareness of this aircraft. Here's a simple experiment: next time you're at the airport, just casually wonder aloud (away from airline personnel) what aircraft you're going to get and see if anyone even mentions the MAX. Alternatively, wonder aloud when the 737MAX will be flying (without mentioning why it's currently not) and see if anyone even mentions the current situation, how many confuse the 737-800 or -900 with the MAX, or how many even pay attention.

moondog

Business travelers don't pay a whole lot more than leisure travelers to fly these days, but their airplane knowledge tends to be solid, and airlines still value them.

spin88

Another fine by the faa....$3.9m for knowingly installing defective wing parts on max and ng 737 planes and lying to the faa about it...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...2b1_story.html

somehow I think the faa is tired of looking like lap dogs for Boeing....may not make it easy to get it back in the air... Kinda makes me wonder what other shoes are left to fall...

but hey, I’m sure Boeing is putting safety over profit....

fly18725

Some context for the headline accusations are needed. By signing quality paperwork at delivery, an OEM certifies all aspects of the plane meet its standards. If, at some point, it becomes known that a part is deficient, the regulator can claim that the OEM lied about the quality of the aircraft. Any lawyer should be able to understand the difference between and act of omission and the government’s skill at catching errors in disclosures.

The relatively small size of the penalty for the large number of occurrences would indicate the FAA did not determine Boeing’s action to be willful.

Boeing paid $12M in 2015.

Southwest has been fined $10M+ on several occasions for a handful of deficiencies.