Back to Squawk list
  • 11

US regulators order new fix for grounded Boeing 737 Max planes

Potential problem is in addition to flight-control system malfunction that resulted in 2 deadly crashes ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

For the cost of all this, Boeing could have just spun up a re-jigged, re-engined, re-winged B-757 with new avionics suite and given away 5 free baggage belt loaders with every sale and still be be ahead of the game?
Too Much Pride
Too much 'we can cut costs by turning the 737 into a 757', than actually using the 757 as a base for an amazing plane.
Wish it was that easy, 757 was always my favorite Boeing jet. Geniuses there destroyed all the tooling so they'd basically be starting from scratch, no doubt more expensive than a "new" 737. There was/is supposed to be a NMA 757 type replacement but between the Max debacle and now wu-tang flu who knows if it will ever happen.
bbabis 0
It probably would have needed MCAS to fly like the original and then they'd be in the same hole. I'm sure they wish they had done something else though.
yes, although with the higher stance they could kept the engines more under the wing. Guess Honda Jet was right LOL.
Whatchu talkin bout Willis? The 757 never needed MCAS or anything like it.
It's the 737 type-rating issue that bbabis is referring to, I believe.
Which is daft! They could have shortened the 757 easier than turning the 737 into a 757 lite.

It would have flown fine! The 757 didn't have the 737's 'legacy problems'. That's why they had to raise the engines. If they raised the fuselage with longer gear, they would have created a 'new' plane. Using the 757 cert, they could have fixed the issues that killed so many in the new 737. Think about it. It already had the taller gear to clear the asphalt.

So, all so the engines didn't suck tarmac in, they broke the design. Finding out the design was crap, they hid the 'fix' that killed over 300 people. BTW, why aren't the past president, and board not rotting it prison? Hmm...
Totally agree, but llike i said, it's about the type-rating. A physically different airplane with a different height off the ground (among so many other physical and flight characteristics) would force a new type rating. The 757 and 767 were big winners for the airlines because they had the same type rating and required minimal training for transition. Airbus learned from Boeing, on the smaller end of their lineup, but Boeing didn't learn from Boeing. (Used MCAS on a 737 instead. An eery repetition of its corporate/DoD decision which resulted in a similar situation with the KC 135R. History repeated itself.) But I digress..
Sadly, the 737 Max has been a disaster for Boeing.
Boeing has been a disaster for Boeing.

An FAA that trusts the regulated manufacturers has been a disaster for Boeing. They can't be trusted! But let's have more of this. Regulated industries doing self regulation. What could go wrong?
The 757 was born to fly!
ADXbear 2
Well at least the engine covers wont come off in the next nose dive..

The plane is comical anymore, what's next? Blinker fluid..
They want more money? 'Contributions'?

They really should have just done a damn 757 clone. Sometimes committees make really bad decisions.

Actually, they shouldn't have tried to squeak this one through on the 737 cert to save money after radically changing the engines and flying physics. A real engineer would have known that. Not a pencil pushing dope with a paycheck and 'profit sharing' to figure out how to spend. (Blood money?)
Never mind the engineer, I still can’t believe Boeing “test pilots” let this thing out the door for every country in the world to fly (from the best to the not so best trained) and didn’t demand dual MCAS AOA inputs and AOA disagreement light “as well as “MCAS Activation“ in big annunciators as standard equipment? There are lot of drivers out there that would have played the birdstrike/iced up probe/mechanical or electrical malfunction or ground damage scenario and said “wait a minute” how do I turn this sucker off? As far as not knowing about the system, again far too many drivers around who live to tear a new flight manual apart to find interesting's called a type rating for a reason?


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..