Back to Squawk list
  • 40

Boeing downgraded by Barclays on survey showing flyers will avoid 737 Max

Survey of airline passengers says many people will avoid the 737 Max “for an extended period” once the aircraft is flying again. ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

The ill fated DC-10 , was a real case to study . But that was back when . This mess with the Max-8 and Max-9 is a situation that should not have happened . We have such a belief that tech can solve everything . But it was a tech system MCAS , that didn't work , to correct for a physical balance problem , that should not exists . And with all our Flight crews relying on automation to save the day , when the s... hits the fan , the crews can't fly the aircraft . Of course , this is just my humble opinion , but i wouldn't get on a Max for a long while to see if any other people are used as test samples .
The idea that the airplane can make uncommanded control movements without essentially providing any feedback - and that Boeing did not care to properly document this feature (slash bug) is what should be unsettling to most. This is beyond automation - more like autonomy.

Par for the course though; Boeing is most certainly "too big to fail." They'll get a blank check from Washington to continue screwing up at will and the US taxpayer will be more than happy to foot the bill.
Another example of public opinion affecting an aircraft type is the Lockheed Electra. Pilots loved this aircraft, but shortly after its introduction in 1958, there were two horrific crashes. In the first crash in 1959, the initial investigation was hampered by the disintegrated state of the wreckage, but it was clear that the left wing had detached in otherwise nominal conditions at cruising altitude. Then on March 17, 1960, a second Electra lost BOTH wings at 18,000 feet, sending the fuselage into the ground like a missile, impacting at 600 plus mph. Unlike most aircraft accidents, there were no bodies and little debris on the ground, just a crater 40 by 30 feet. The crater made by the fuselage was so gruesome that local health, religious, and coroner officials tried to bar its excavation. It took 5 days to dig up the fuselage, compressed to a solid smoking mass 1/3 its length. Out of 63 souls on board, only the remains of 7 could be identified. And of course the press was reporting every sickening detail for days. The Electras were grounded, and the investigation finally identified the root cause: high-amplitude harmonic wing flutter caused by insufficient vibration dampening by the outboard engines motor mounts. The harmonic vibrations, under certain circumstances encountered in normal cruising flight, literally shook the wings off the aircraft. Every Electra was retrofitted with the motor mount fix, and the Electras returned to service. But the damage to public opinion could not be repaired. Production ended a year later. The Electras flew passengers on smaller regional airlines well into the 80s, and several Electra tankers are still fighting forest fires to this day. The Electra's design was the basis for the workhorse P-3 Orion, which saw naval duty for more than 50 years. Probably lots of P3 veteran pilots out there with Orion love stories. But the flying public could not get over the images of that smoking crater.
I was wrong about "grounding". The Electra was put under operational restrictions, including a speed restriction. It was not grounded.
Came back as the Electra II. If you can find it, "The Electra Story", by Rod Serling's brother, Robert. A great read.
Thanks, Ed. "The Electra Story" was one of my sources. I still have my old paperback. Just saw it is available as a Kindle book on Amazon.
Warren, do you have the paperback "Loud and Clear" by him which incorporates "The Electra Story" in it. I'm lucky to have that and the hardcover of the latter.

People will forget about the Max crashes in time and it will go on to be a big seller.
I have a 1991 Bantam Air & Space Series reprint of the (c)1963 "The Electra Story".

I think you're right about the Max recovering, assuming that the multiple root causes of the two accidents are all fixed. Chapter 4 of "The Electra Story" is titled "If Another One Goes Down ...". It is an apt comment for the current situation, as Jamar Jackson noted below.
My Grandfather's first cousin, Max Miller, was aboard the Electra that crashed in March 1960.

Takes time for wounds to heal. Just don’t let another one take a nose dive automatically. 3 strikes and Boeing will be out for life.
Wingrat 5
Does going beyond its design capability have any relevance here. The information I’ve read in the “Bloomberg Business News” is a excellent read about Boeing’s push for shareholder over engineering status. I don’t think I would fly in this 737. Max or other recent Boeing aircraft designs. Just saying. It’s a much different company than it used to be.
OTOH, I'll ask for one, and enjoy the extra room and better service -- for a while at least.
Here's some input from the Transportation and Infrastructure committee that sheds some light on the 737 MAX issue. The first that I've seen regarding the initial accident reports from Indonesia and Ethiopia.
To me it sheds no light and is very very biased! "For me, the accident reports reaffirm my belief that pilots trained in the United States would have successfully handled the situation. The reports compound my concerns about quality training standards in other countries." What a pompous remark to make..The US is the only country with quality training??? The first "member" does not state what he flies and squarely blames both accidents as pilot error, while seemingly "protecting" Boeing.
The first member dumb ass also failed to see where both accidents occurred, and I fault Boeing SOLELY on this 1, because it was right from their own words! "The larger 737 variants cannot be used at what are referred to has ‘high and/or hot’ airports” The crashes occurred with those types of craft AT those types of airports! SO, WTH did Boeing sell that aircraft to those airlines KNOWING what airports they fly out of??
All fair points but does pilot error have nothing to do with these crashes? Even though the software was designed to mitigate issues that had a structural basis, the failures were not of the structural kind referred to elsewhere in these posts e.g. wings falling off. Can the point be made that an experienced, well-trained pilot could have avoided the fatal accident? If so, then whatever measures are taken must keep that in mind.
I did not say pilot error may not have been the cause of both accidents. I stated the board member places blame for both accidents squarely on the pilots, and no one else. He does not have the final reports so, as a representative, should not make statements to such. If he had formed an off committee "opinion", that would be a different story, but still biased and pompous making it seem the US is the only place with well-trained pilots.
Also the member should have noted and researched more.."well-trained pilots" did several simulator runs of the Ethiopian crash and did not have a good outcome. So no, the point cannot be made.

I stand by my reply(s)
bbabis 0
Due to its highlighted scrutiny the max will be the safest one to fly.
Not for nothing, but they said that also after AAL191...

.. Look at where the DC10 is now.
bbabis 1
The DC-10 was simply supplanted by the 2 crew MD-11.
The MD-11 was, in essence, a completely different craft...unlike the 737MAX, it had to go through complete certification, not just an augment of another craft, in this case the DC-10.
What about the 747!?
That was an innovation that went through extensive certification as did the B777.
Boeing lost the plot with the 737 max because of a paranoia about Airbus. Airbus was, and has proven to be, the winner because of this.
The 747 and triple 7 did not have to go through a complete certification with the newer models..the 777X hopefully will as it is not a "just stretched" original 777
bbabis 0
It could have just easily been the DC-10-50. MD decided to go with MD-11 to better indicate significant upgrades, the biggest being the FE station removal and EFIS. That necessitated recertification. Later, operators of DC-10s could do the upgrades and call their planes MD-10s and cross qualify crews.
It would have been the DC-10-61..MD went with MD-11 after many delays and stoppages, and after MD board oked it...they scrapped the DC-10 idea earlier.
Not only was the cockpit now all glass so the FE station could be eliminated, slightly bigger and better powerplants, composite structure parts et all...yes later, operators of DC-10's could retrofit the cockpit, but no structural changes were made or they could not swap out fuselage parts, move engines and revamp wings.
Again I state, the MD-11 had to go through a complete certification process because of fuselage changes...not a re-certification.
bbabis 0
Thanks rapidwolve, I truly enjoy your knowledgeable comments but I guess we need to stay on topic. Any day I don’t learn something is a day wasted. Blue skies!
The American Airlines referred to the MD-11 as "The Scud" after the missiles used by Iraq in the Gulf War because of the idea, when it left the ground, you did not know where or when it was going to come down. So many MD-11 left DFW for Japan only to have to land in California. When AA first got the MD-11 you would be surprised at the number of hand tools left in the fuel cells and dry bays in the wings.
Yes, but that even makes for the bigger case, as neither aircraft are flying passengers commercially today. Freight, yes, but not as a full revenue generating Part 121 ops aircraft.
Have to remember, Brad...last MD-11 was built way back in 2000, 3 yrs after Boeing bought MD...KLM flew it's last PAX revenue flight in late 2014..

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Brazilian regulatory agency called for specific MAX training despite FAA certification. GOL, the only Brazilian MAX operator, had all pilots trained long before the first accident.
WOW..what an idiotic comment...Please show me all the US airlines that even have a MAX Simulator? Here, to fly the MAX again, all MAX pilots will require additional training as well as complete Simulator times.
Ahh, the bigotry strikes again. What an idiotic comment
Jeff K -5
What bigotry? Certain airlines DO have poor records. There is nothing bigoted about avoiding problematic airlines. What an idiotic typical left wing comment that boils everything to race.
djames225 14
Maybe you should learn to read! Certain was not mentioned...all was! "will avoid any carriers other than main line US ones due to poor pilot training on all the others." In plain english, only the US carriers provide proper training...which is a load of BS!!

[This poster has been suspended.]

Oh but it was bigot..he and his opinions, are intolerant towards all other airlines, other than mainline US carriers, and that could also be considered prejudice towards ALL other non US carriers.
Bigotry does not have 1 or 2 simple meanings.
None of the airlines that had these crashes were due to poor pilot training. In fact, there are airlines in the world that have better performance records than all of the mainline US carriers. Basing a preference off of that and blaming it on their "poor pilot training" reeks of bigotry.

CPA, QFA, ANA, JAL, and others have much better performance records than UAL, AAL, and a few others, but according to the above logic, their pilot training is "poor".
Additionally Bigotry != racism.
Let's not make this as hostile as
Mike Monk -2
The preliminary report on the Indonesian accident pointed fingers at airline management, training and engineering departments.
It was apparent that certain crew had not being trained properly or were inadequately trained because the crew of the earlier flight, even though they had problems, were able to successfully resolve and to report on them.
It was management, training and engineering that failed to make the necessary repairs or notify the requisite actions.
It was an off duty pilot who helped in the previous flight and if not for his help. it may have gone down before any repairs were made! I agree the pilots were not properly trained and that Lion Air may not have a great record etc, but at same time it IS up to Boeing to notify any and all pilots, and airlines. of certain systems and their characteristics AND to not sell to airlines that, in it's own words, “The larger 737 variants cannot be used at what are referred to has ‘high and/or hot’ airports,” Both crashes occurred at those 2 types of airports!
Ed Becker -1
Look at the Lockheed Electra. It survived beyond the horrific crashes that were of unknown cause initially. At least with the Max the cause is pretty much known.

I'd say it's mostly pilot training and lack of disclosure from Boeing. I met an AA pilot recently. When I asked what he flew he told me 737NGs and the Max, to which I asked him what he thought of the latter. He said he hadn't actually flown one yet. WTF?
Ummm..the causes were known fairly soon after the 2 crashes...bad engine mount designs, causing
harmonic vibrations bad enough to literally vibrate the wings off. And the Electra II, as it was known after, only survived in smaller numbers with smaller airlines.
Worked at the Long Beach plant. If you would have seen the people building the aircraft there you'd never fly on any of them.
David Carr -7
I have passengered in the MAX8 twice and have no problem and will certainly use it in the future.
In the hands of a competent Air Canada crew, who know how to problems.
...until the incompetent computer overrides the competent crew.

"It's sunny outside my window, therefore the weather is pleasant everywhere."
lol just can't land visual on 28R at SFO
Mark Ebben -1
True. 1st sign of stab trim problem, cut out switches. Left off and land. Air Canada, AA, UAL, SW,,,all trained that since day one. Great training here in North America
The FIRST thing you have to do is determine it is a stab trim problem by going through a checklist..that is how training goes...nothing to do with just North America!
Memory item, I believe?
If runaway trim is determined, and you have done by the book corrections first. Memory item 1 is consultation of that checklist by both captain and first officer.
indy2001 -1
The vast majority of passengers have no idea what type of aircraft they are on -- I don't see that changing much. Also, flights are so full that there won't be much alternative to flying on a MAX when they return. And the huge number of other 737 models that are flying will provide some 'cover' for the MAX when it returns, although it wouldn't surprise me if the airlines removed the MAX designation on the fuselage (or at least made it much smaller).
The majority of passengers do know what craft they are suppose to be on use to be only about 25-40% did but that number has increased substantially in last number of years...
That and I am willing to bet, after all this, Im betting if they see anything at all to do with what looks like a 737 on their papers, they will be asking.


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..