The ugly reality (talk to any Boeing old-timers) is that Boeing was taken over by MickyD. It is McDonald Douglas (dba Boeing). The management approach - buy off the government with lobbying and soft landings, don't invest, fight the unions - is straight out of the McDonald Douglas Play book. Everything that happened with the MAX - and the 15 years of delays on a new narrow body A/C before the current problems - are a direct result of the McDonald Douglas approach taking over Boeing.

The success of the pre Mad MAX 737 depends on how you measure success. If there was a safety trade-off then that reduces true success. If it is true the. 737 800/900s have a higher landing speed and more runway overruns that seems less safe detracting from true success.

:) I wonder if the unspoken selling point would turn out to be - "To fly a Boeing 737MAX you need to be a West Point graduate with XXX hrs flight experience with the US Armed forces; to fly an Airbus 32x's you dont need any of that." Majority of the 737MAX purchasers are from Asia and Africa so for Airbus it would be a stronger selling point than Boeing's selling point of a 737MAX is the same as 737NG and requires no additional training. ;)

I am curious to know how the FAA is going to package the approval process as being complete and the MCAS to be error proof as one goes through endless software patches and releases as all conditions were never considered in the first version of any software release. This is going to be the best written piece of code in history as Boeing cannot afford even one more incident with the MAX. :confused:

Some sections of the media are reporting that the 737MAX may be presented to the FAA for re-certification as early as May 2019, with the aircraft being un-grounded by July 2019. From what I read, in the past, most developed and developing countries would follow the FAA's lead in certifying an aircraft for their airspaces. But that may not be so straightforward now.

I am wondering how the dynamic in today's environment affect the certification/re-certification of the 737MAX, or indeed any other Boeing aircraft by the aviation authorities of Europe, China, Canada, Brazil or anyone else?

I hope we don't end up with a scenario like in the auto industry where cars are built for regulatory standards of a myriad of countries, thus increasing complexity and cost.

I'm guessing UA is counting on certification in May, and since they were flying them to Hawaii, that does not involve certification by any other country @:-)

Though they may think about flying that that long a distance over water, and just sub them in for 739 routes and have the 739s fly to Hawaii. Or consider that problems seems to be primarily during takeoff and not as so much during the flight.

If UA isn't certain the frames can make it from Hawaii to California, they won't fly them at all (nor would the FAA re-certify them). It would be absolutely asinine to swap them onto other routes due to a fear that they're unsafe for travel over water.

“ 'It’s important that when we return this aircraft to flight, that we do it in relative unison and lockstep around not just the U.S. but the world. So we’ll have to monitor and engage that,' Munoz said."


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/unit...fly-again.html


Until all regulators are in general agreement, passengers may be reluctant to fly United.

MSNBC has a photo of Jose Munoz on the article.

What tragedy resulting in ~350 deaths won't spur an emotional reaction?

True. But we seem to be rapidly heading towards a world where the FAA has less of an influence in how other countries' aviation authorities make decisions. Which could mean higher costs and greater manufacturing complexity for Boeing. Or, I hope not, for Bell Textron, Cessna, Spirit etc.

Well, the FAA (and Boeing) did not help their case with their "expedited" approval of the 737MAX nor their reluctance to ground it after every other aviation authority in the world grounded it. FAA and Boeing brought it onto themselves this loss of credibility. Whether other aircraft manufacturers will also pay the price is to be seen. Maybe Embraer is now tainted with being associated with Boeing?