User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5450
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:41 am

IWMBH wrote:
I don't think it is a step to far, but a new design from scratch definitely gave them the edge with the 787 over Airbus. Why not try the same trick with the 737?

Simple. When Airbus came out with the NEO Boeing had to answer quickly. Their customers were unwilling to wait for a new design.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:30 am

mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it. And the NG. As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront. But the MAX is extremely efficient, reliable, and predictable. The MCAS issue is, in my opinion, an error of omission, not some inherent flaw in the airplane.

On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.


If you prefer Airbus way more than Boeing then why would you switch to flying the 737? Just curious.
 
PacificWest
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 3:52 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:33 am

From an operational and technology standpoint, I think the MAX is fine.

That said, I think the the MAX program just says a lot about the kind of company Boeing has become. Boeing has made my favorite commercial airliners ever and has an enviable amounts of talent, but sadly it's just not the company it once was. While the mission of all companies is to make money for their shareholders... Boeing seems to have made that it's sole focus, especially when you compare their aircraft to Airbus.

~ The 737 MAX-Profit sucks for passengers, it sucks for the flight attendants, and the cockpit is still just as cramped/uncomfortable for the pilots as it was decades ago. Add the fact that there's constantly long lines at the back of economy as 150 pax share two lavatories that one can barely turn around in. Like the longer NG's, it's been stretched and modified to cram, cram, cram -- and my understanding is that's part of the reason for the existence of MCAS. It's also why you'll see a pole propping their tail's up at the gate. It's also why they seem to need so much damn runway for takeoff/landing.

~ The 787 is great, but Boeing marketed economy seating as a comfortable '8-across' to the public, but designed it knowing all Airline would jam in a 9th seat they left just enough room for. The A350 was actually designed for 9-across, which is why it's cabin is 5" wider than the 787.

From the perspective of passenger/crew comfort, Airbus makes far superior aircraft. I understand that Wall Street and all the bean-counters at the Airlines love Boeing -- but I'm not an Airline executive, I'm just a dude that mid-status flier that loves commercial aviation.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:00 am

PacificWest wrote:
From an operational and technology standpoint, I think the MAX is fine.

That said, I think the the MAX program just says a lot about the kind of company Boeing has become. Boeing has made my favorite commercial airliners ever and has an enviable amounts of talent, but sadly it's just not the company it once was. While the mission of all companies is to make money for their shareholders... Boeing seems to have made that it's sole focus, especially when you compare their aircraft to Airbus.

~ The 737 MAX-Profit sucks for passengers, it sucks for the flight attendants, and the cockpit is still just as cramped/uncomfortable for the pilots as it was decades ago. Add the fact that there's constantly long lines at the back of economy as 150 pax share two lavatories that one can barely turn around in. Like the longer NG's, it's been stretched and modified to cram, cram, cram -- and my understanding is that's part of the reason for the existence of MCAS. It's also why you'll see a pole propping their tail's up at the gate. It's also why they seem to need so much damn runway for takeoff/landing.

~ The 787 is great, but Boeing marketed economy seating as a comfortable '8-across' to the public, but designed it knowing all Airline would jam in a 9th seat they left just enough room for. The A350 was actually designed for 9-across, which is why it's cabin is 5" wider than the 787.

From the perspective of passenger/crew comfort, Airbus makes far superior aircraft. I understand that Wall Street and all the bean-counters at the Airlines love Boeing -- but I'm not an Airline executive, I'm just a dude that mid-status flier that loves commercial aviation.


United put the same seat on the 737-9 that they have on their A320. One of the big travel bloggers even mentioned it on the post for the inaugural flight. It can be done.
 
barney captain
Posts: 2212
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:01 am

zakelwe wrote:
mm320cap wrote:

On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.


??

So it did not crash?


The three previous flights with the bad AOA sensor were saved because of the crew.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
Waterbomber
Posts: 849
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:12 am

PacificWest wrote:
From an operational and technology standpoint, I think the MAX is fine.

That said, I think the the MAX program just says a lot about the kind of company Boeing has become. Boeing has made my favorite commercial airliners ever and has an enviable amounts of talent, but sadly it's just not the company it once was. While the mission of all companies is to make money for their shareholders... Boeing seems to have made that it's sole focus, especially when you compare their aircraft to Airbus.

~ The 737 MAX-Profit sucks for passengers, it sucks for the flight attendants, and the cockpit is still just as cramped/uncomfortable for the pilots as it was decades ago. Add the fact that there's constantly long lines at the back of economy as 150 pax share two lavatories that one can barely turn around in. Like the longer NG's, it's been stretched and modified to cram, cram, cram -- and my understanding is that's part of the reason for the existence of MCAS. It's also why you'll see a pole propping their tail's up at the gate. It's also why they seem to need so much damn runway for takeoff/landing.

~ The 787 is great, but Boeing marketed economy seating as a comfortable '8-across' to the public, but designed it knowing all Airline would jam in a 9th seat they left just enough room for. The A350 was actually designed for 9-across, which is why it's cabin is 5" wider than the 787.

From the perspective of passenger/crew comfort, Airbus makes far superior aircraft. I understand that Wall Street and all the bean-counters at the Airlines love Boeing -- but I'm not an Airline executive, I'm just a dude that mid-status flier that loves commercial aviation.


+1.
Boeing indeed went from a manufacturer that focussed on the quality of flight, to a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable, at least in economy class.

I don't agree with the many views that the Max will be the last iteration of the B737.
That's what everyone said about the NG, when they patched up the eyebrow windows of the Classics and stretched it to 189 seats, and offered the B739ER.
I think that Boeing could end up giving it another reengine and another stretch before a NSA is launched.

For the NSA, the engines are one potential point of development, but the B737MAX airframe is already very efficient as it is.
Even with active wings and new materials, it's difficult to make a tube with wings so much more efficient that it justifies a completely new design.
If they designed a completely new NSA today, with new lighter materials and all the possible aerodynamic improvements, the fuel efficiency gain from the airframe would only be between 3 and 10%. Would that small gain justify designing and certifying a brand new aircraft at a cost of dozens of billions?

As someone said, a lot will depend on how a step-up improvement in engine design will affect airframe requirements.
If they can install a 20% more efficient engine on a B737Ultra at the end of the 2020's, why bother launching a NSA for it?

A second question mark will be the market conditions.
A breakthrough in battery technology and global warming, high oil prices, "running out of oil" will become concerns of the past.
At that moment, aviation fuel will become so sustainably cheap that it won't make sense to pursue fuel efficiency gains and aircraft manufacturers will start to pursue putting that battery technology on their aircraft.
This is exactly what is happening with cars. We went from gas guzzlers to fuel efficient diesel, then gas-electric hybrids, then plug-in hybrids and now full-electric. No one is researching fuel efficient combustion engine anymore, the focus is clearly on full-electric now.
For aircraft, it will take a bigger leap in battery technology, but with time, it will come, no doubt about it.
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:25 am

MD80Ttail wrote:
Absolutely Boeing and Airbus have gone too far with their bathroom designs. Having just flown on a Max today and recently a new A321 both manufacturers have pushed the envelope on lavatory size. More accurately, the airlines have pushed the design too far to be fair. However, prices for flying have never been more affordable so it’s a fair trade off. Seat design and size has been pushed too far as well....but again you get what you pay for.

Safety wise we are talking about the bottom of the barrel airline in a bottom of the barrel regulatory environment that crashed a plane they should have never allowed to fly after four botched repair attempts. I don’t believe this accident would have happened with any major North American or European airlines.....or any reputable airline. (I have flown Lion Air btw and flying is Lion is MUCH safety by a factor of 100 taking a ferry or driving....assuming driving is even possible to where you are going in Indonesia.)


Was it the infamous AA max mini-lavatories? I think the airlines do have a choice in the matter... I really wish other passengers would rebel with me and choose flights on the standard amount of room and comfort a particular airline provides, not just cost. I scold my father for going for the cheapest possible flights and then complaining about shrinking spaces. I tell him he's a part of the problem by being a cheap-ass! It's okay to pay a little more to fly with the better airline.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:27 am

Anything is possible in the future.

The 737 airframe might get four big electric fan engines under the wing, pair the electric fans side by side on the one pylon like a B52. Fit a gas turbine generator inside the tail and fill the wings with batteries. 737-8 Hybrid. Battery only range is 500nm, the gas turbine range extender increases that to 1000nm.

Engine PIPs get replaced by battery PIPs. Each battery PIP the range increases and charging time decreases

Anything is possible in the future.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:36 am

I wouldn't say it's a step too far overall, but doing the MAX instead of an NSA left Boeing with a problem area: the space above the MAX 8. They've been deficient there for decades and only the correct execution of the MOM will alleviate it, but they have to get the business case/size/capability right, not something that is easy to achieve. That's bad news as Airbus has been able to command a big premium and offer a more competitive product in the broad category size overall.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here?

'The view from Boeing' can't really be taken to mean that much, what is basically says is that the MAX is more fuel-efficient than the NG... not exactly news, and that it's very reliable. Sure, but IIRC, 'the view from Boeing' was that the 737-900ER was the perfect 757 replacement, that the A320neo was just catching up to the NG, and so on so forth. Most of those claims were proven to be crudely false, and despite their issues with production I think it's a brave assertion to make that the MAX offering is more appealing overall to airlines than the neo family. I think that's where the issue is, at larger sizes the 737 is hamstrung a little, and for that reason Boeing has had to make changes and will have to launch an entirely new product to get ahead in that space.
 
catiii
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:39 am

fsabo wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
patches wrote:
Just a question, Do you think Boeing took the 737 one step too far when they built the Max? They seem to be having problems with the Max design. Thought ?


What kind of problems? Please cite them. One accident / one case study is not sufficient evidence to form the basis of proof.

The "Max is inherently unstable" is Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.

From a commercial perspective boeing had to do the MAX. They had no other conceivable response to the NEO. They later found out that this adversely effected stability, so they threw in a kludge in the flight control and kept quiet about it. Is that a step too far? IMO, yes.


Silent addition? Couldn’t have been too silent. UA trained on the system...
 
catiii
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:41 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it. And the NG. As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront. But the MAX is extremely efficient, reliable, and predictable. The MCAS issue is, in my opinion, an error of omission, not some inherent flaw in the airplane.

On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.


If you prefer Airbus way more than Boeing then why would you switch to flying the 737? Just curious.


Seniority...pay rates...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:50 am

I’m unclear on how a 70’s 737 Classic like the ones I regularly flew on were an example of “a manufacturer focused on the quality of flight” but a much improved 737 MAX is an example of “a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable”? If you are referring to seats, pitch, etc then blame the airlines as they are the ones who choose those things. I suppose you can blame Boeing for the bathrooms being smaller but then I guess you need to throw Airbus into that camp as well.

I think anyone who boards a brand new MAX today will find a brighter, more modern and refined interior than was found “back in the day”. Seats were klunky, bins were klunky, headphones (if you could call them that” were klunky - I wouldn’t look back to it as anything special. The aircraft is immensely quieter and more efficient and a much better neighbor to the communities it serves. The cockpit is night and day as well.

Maybe I’m missing something but perhaps people are confusing airline-chosen amenities with the actual aircraft design?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:59 am

lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft



Uniteds 757s across the Atlantic are perfectly comfortable in J and Y.
 
questions
Posts: 1989
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:07 am

fsabo wrote:
It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.


Please elaborate on this. What specifically do you mean by “less stable.”
 
questions
Posts: 1989
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:21 am

mm320cap wrote:
As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront.


Why is the cockpit so uncomfortable? I once heard it was like driving a 1970’s VW Beetle on a long road trip.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8767
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:27 am

Stitch wrote:
WIederling wrote:
Randy Boeing and his PR backoffice isn't really the source for any balanced or even god forbid neutral information. Try again.


And yet no outrage for all the Airbus PR charts posted by a certain Belgian with a Diptera infestation. :scratchchin: :rotfl:

Randy Boeing's stuff is much more "quantum leaps" removed from reality
than anything I've seen from Airbus up to now. "A320 just catching up."
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8767
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:37 am

questions wrote:
fsabo wrote:
It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.


Please elaborate on this. What specifically do you mean by “less stable.”


The MAX ( same as the less pronounced effect on the NG ) has positive aerodynamic feedback into pitch up
for larger pitch up angles.
Afaiu caused by the draggier ( larger and further forward, further up ) engine nacelles.
The rather anal workings of the MCAS wrapper try to prohibit any pitch up into that unstable region.
If this addition had been done to just come close to NG behavior Boeing would have PRed this to no end.
Afaics keeping mum about this indicates that this is a border line or beyond certification issue even in Boeing's understanding.
Murphy is an optimist
 
fsabo
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:41 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:51 am

questions wrote:
fsabo wrote:
It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.


Please elaborate on this. What specifically do you mean by “less stable.”


The engines are bigger and mounted further forward. At higher angles of attack the engines disrupt airflow over the wing. This is a bigger issue on the MAX than on the NG. The issue is serious enough that boeing concluded that the system that pushes the nose down on the MAX needs to be more aggressive than on the NG. As for specifics and numbers, I don't think boeing has released that; i could be wrong.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:55 am

MrHMSH wrote:
I wouldn't say it's a step too far overall, but doing the MAX instead of an NSA left Boeing with a problem area: the space above the MAX 8. They've been deficient there for decades and only the correct execution of the MOM will alleviate it, but they have to get the business case/size/capability right, not something that is easy to achieve. That's bad news as Airbus has been able to command a big premium and offer a more competitive product in the broad category size overall.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here?

'The view from Boeing' can't really be taken to mean that much, what is basically says is that the MAX is more fuel-efficient than the NG... not exactly news, and that it's very reliable. Sure, but IIRC, 'the view from Boeing' was that the 737-900ER was the perfect 757 replacement, that the A320neo was just catching up to the NG, and so on so forth. Most of those claims were proven to be crudely false, and despite their issues with production I think it's a brave assertion to make that the MAX offering is more appealing overall to airlines than the neo family. I think that's where the issue is, at larger sizes the 737 is hamstrung a little, and for that reason Boeing has had to make changes and will have to launch an entirely new product to get ahead in that space.


When do you think started B's product lineup really started showing deficiencies in that size? I thought the 739 only failed in the long range niche the 752 occupied, and the A321LR will take over?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 2280
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:45 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I’m unclear on how a 70’s 737 Classic like the ones I regularly flew on were an example of “a manufacturer focused on the quality of flight” but a much improved 737 MAX is an example of “a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable”? If you are referring to seats, pitch, etc then blame the airlines as they are the ones who choose those things. I suppose you can blame Boeing for the bathrooms being smaller but then I guess you need to throw Airbus into that camp as well.


Yeah, everything was paisly and uglier then. But there's a big thing you missed.

The 737s of the 1970s & 1980s were designed for their actual mission. Not to take on the jobs of 727s, 757s, 767s, A300s, & 10s. Even as awful as they've become in their current iterations, that's not an issue for DCA-BDL or SNA-SJC. It's a different story putting up with that from MIA-SEA. The problems paying customers have with them for longer, denser routes are valid however.




PlanesNTrains wrote:
The cockpit is night and day as well.


Twilight and overcast maybe. Shoe-horning modernized displays to replace about 45% of the instrumentation hardly makes it functionally different. It still has control yokes, a lack of a true dark cockpit, and about 30% less space to work with than anything else going. There are differences, to be sure, but it doesn't begin to compare to a 32X (NEO or otherwise), or anything else you can order new.

I would cop to it being comparable to slightly better than what you might find in most Corporate Jets or Helicopters though.
"Ya Can't Win, Rocky! There's no Oxygen on Mars!"
"Yeah? That means there's no Oxygen for him Neither..."
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:00 am

mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it. And the NG. As a pilot, I like the A320 WAYYYY more because it’s more comfortable upfront. But the MAX is extremely efficient, reliable, and predictable. The MCAS issue is, in my opinion, an error of omission, not some inherent flaw in the airplane.

On a side note, I hope that this puts to bed the issue of pilotless aircraft for a good long time. That a faulty sensor can trigger a system that, without human intervention, pitch the aircraft into a crash tells me all I need to know.

I hope posts like this put to rest the nonsense spewed by Airbus diehards that the MAX is fundamentally unstable despite that they offer no proof of such. It's an assertion with no foundation. So far, Boeing is guilty of just one thing: lack of full disclosure of MCAS to all MAX operators. That's plenty egregious in and of itself but a far different matter than claims of "poor design" or "fundamental instability" by non-MAX pilots. We need to see these hysterical, baseless posts come to an end.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:33 am

1989worstyear wrote:

When do you think started B's product lineup really started showing deficiencies in that size? I thought the 739 only failed in the long range niche the 752 occupied, and the A321LR will take over?


The initial 739 was very poor as a competitor and the market pretty much rejected it, the 737-900ER got some respectful sales totals but it just wasn't up to the task of competing with the A321 as an equal, especially once the A321's range increased. I wouldn't say the 737-900ER (or MAX 9) were failures, but the range in which they are competitive vs the A321 was/is quite narrow, and as such it weakens Boeing's overall position in that segment. the launch of the MAX 10 is an indirect admission of this, but the MAX 10 is still a compromise and doesn't compete as an equal. At a theoretical level the -900ER, MAX 9 and 10 compete as equals as long as the ranges are shorter and the runway requirements aren't extreme, but for some reason they just haven't been competitive enough, hence a sales ratio of around 3 to 1.

The simple answer to your question? They've never had a direct equal to the A321, so they've pretty much always been deficient in that size.
 
maint123
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:59 am

It's clear that for short term profit Boeing decided to quietly push a patch up in a modified plane and also took pains to ensure that it was certified, even though Boeing themselves had reservations.
If it was not a near monopoly, the Max would be grounded all over the world.
I hold the certifying body as much responsible for the tragedy as Boeing.
Certifying auto pitch down commands in MANUAL mode and hiding it from the pilots is criminal, no two views about it.
 
ewt340
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:32 am

No, BUT Airbus had 1,502 more orders for NEO compared to MAX.

MAX problem is the fact that A320neo and A321neo is a strong contender and a great combo. A321neo able to replace "most" B757-200 routes. MAX10 cannot do what A321neo could. Especially with A321LR and upcoming A321XLR.
Meanwhile MAX8 and MAX9 are too similar, it's no the best combo out there, that's why many airlines demand bigger MAX aircraft which resulted in MAX10.

Also, MAX design comes from an older design, dating back to B707, it became disadvantages for them now. While Airbus started with A320ceo. A much modern starting point.
Last edited by ewt340 on Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
ewt340
Posts: 792
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:35 am

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
patches wrote:
Just a question, Do you think Boeing took the 737 one step too far when they built the Max? They seem to be having problems with the Max design. Thought ?


What kind of problems? Please cite them. One accident / one case study is not sufficient evidence to form the basis of proof.

The "Max is inherently unstable" is Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


With due respect, economy class on Almost All (apart from some ANAs) B787 is extremely cramped and uncomfortable, just like 10-abreast B777 which is worse. This is just common sense, not a propaganda.

I don't think MAX unstable. But please don't mix things up with B787. It's 2 different aircraft. Calling facts propaganda is a propaganda on itself.
 
ELBOB
Posts: 295
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 6:56 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:10 am

JoeCanuck wrote:
Judging by sales alone, the customers think the MAX is a very good plane. Airlines have bought it by the droves, and in the real world, that's all the justification that matters.


The airlines don't care about the merit of the airframe, they care about efficiency. So long as it passes the ( rushed, commercially-pressured ) certification process they'll buy any junk if it saves a litre of kerosene over the competition.

What indicates merit of an aeroplane is what the pilots and mechanics think. I know pilots who still fly the MD-11 and they think it's a real stinker which will bite you if you make the slightest mistake, but their airlines keep flying them because they can haul 90 tonnes with decent efficiency. Does that make them good aircraft? Of course not, even though 446 of them were built which is more than any other non-A/B widebody.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8767
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:25 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
https://randy.newairplane.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/rjmaxroutes2Capture.jpg


I've looked around by way of various search tools.

The flight global source of this image could not be found.
neither a flight global article in that domain ( and window in time )
Are you sure this is not just a Randy fabrication?
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:03 pm

WIederling wrote:
I'e looked around by way of various search tools.

The flight global source of this image could not be found.
Are you sure this is not just a Randy fabrication?

Randy most likely used the Flightglobal Flight Dashboard as the source for the info on all the routes he put in the map. That's why you can't find this specific image on Flightglobal.

He made his post in May, but put in the routes for August. That could be a reason for any possible omissions of routes on the map from either 737 or A320, same goes for a couple routes that didn't materialize. Randy used the information to his own advantage, that's his job, you can't blame him. It's not the best source if you want to be objective, but that has never been to big of an issue for many people here on this forum anyway.....

At the end of the day, if you look at the current routes you will see more being operated by the 737 family then the A320 family. But that's without the A321neoLR of course.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:04 pm

LDRA wrote:
LDRA wrote:
*Certification problem*

To expand on that, when you are forced to use longitude control augmentation to meet Part25.203a, with associated implications from Part25.672, but your legacy avionic architecture does not support that well, you don't even have enough direct redundancy in AoA sensing


I haven't been following the crash too closely, as usually the wheat is buried under tons of A vs. B chest thumping chaff.

But this.... is surprising and not a little alarming.

(a) How did Boeing think it was an acceptable solution? (and have no doubt, they knew it would have been single-point-of-failure vulnerable - but proceeded anyway as the alternative was unpalatable).
(b) How did the FAA not pick up on it?


This is the kind of thing that you expect from... dare I say it... China - where engineering expertise *on safety matters* is either lacking or is over-ridden from above... and authorities are complicit with it.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:13 pm

AvObserver wrote:
mm320cap wrote:
No. It’s not an “unstable” airplane. I fly it.

I hope posts like this put to rest the nonsense spewed by Airbus diehards that the MAX is fundamentally unstable despite that they offer no proof of such.


If it does not return from a non-stalled and within envelope positive angle of attack then it is longitudinally statically unstable by standard definitions of flight dynamics.

That in itself is no problem. Airbus have had relaxed stability aircraft for years with their FBW.


But direct law is direct law - you simply cannot have the FCS adding its own take on things when the pilots believe they are in total control.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:02 pm

catiii wrote:
fsabo wrote:
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

What kind of problems? Please cite them. One accident / one case study is not sufficient evidence to form the basis of proof.

The "Max is inherently unstable" is Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.

From a commercial perspective boeing had to do the MAX. They had no other conceivable response to the NEO. They later found out that this adversely effected stability, so they threw in a kludge in the flight control and kept quiet about it. Is that a step too far? IMO, yes.


Silent addition? Couldn’t have been too silent. UA trained on the system...

UA ALPA seems to disagree: https://airlinerwatch.com/one-more-pilo ... -max-jets/ or https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3639
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:05 pm

1989worstyear wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
I wouldn't say it's a step too far overall, but doing the MAX instead of an NSA left Boeing with a problem area: the space above the MAX 8. They've been deficient there for decades and only the correct execution of the MOM will alleviate it, but they have to get the business case/size/capability right, not something that is easy to achieve. That's bad news as Airbus has been able to command a big premium and offer a more competitive product in the broad category size overall.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here?

'The view from Boeing' can't really be taken to mean that much, what is basically says is that the MAX is more fuel-efficient than the NG... not exactly news, and that it's very reliable. Sure, but IIRC, 'the view from Boeing' was that the 737-900ER was the perfect 757 replacement, that the A320neo was just catching up to the NG, and so on so forth. Most of those claims were proven to be crudely false, and despite their issues with production I think it's a brave assertion to make that the MAX offering is more appealing overall to airlines than the neo family. I think that's where the issue is, at larger sizes the 737 is hamstrung a little, and for that reason Boeing has had to make changes and will have to launch an entirely new product to get ahead in that space.


When do you think started B's product lineup really started showing deficiencies in that size? I thought the 739 only failed in the long range niche the 752 occupied, and the A321LR will take over?


The 737 isn’t deficient when it comes to longer range narrowbody routes. Airbus is the one trying to catch up.

Up until the 737-10, Airbus has a capacity advantage over the 737 with the bigger A321. Boeing is the one trying to catch up.

Both the 737 and 320 have evolved with time. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I knew some people would not like that chart since it shows an area where Airbus is trying to catch up.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2455
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:18 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:

The 737 isn’t deficient when it comes to longer range narrowbody routes. Airbus is the one trying to catch up.

Up until the 737-10, Airbus has a capacity advantage over the 737 with the bigger A321. Boeing is the one trying to catch up.

Both the 737 and 320 have evolved with time. Both have strengths and weaknesses. I knew some people would not like that chart since it shows an area where Airbus is trying to catch up.


Maybe not... but it is deficient in many areas, notably in the upper end, which is the point I made. Just throwing the chart out there (and not in response to a specific claim) is whataboutery that I would expect you to be above. Doesn't it also imply that more A320s are flying on shorter routes where the 737 is meant to be more efficient due to its lighter weight though? Swings and roundabouts

We'll see how that claim stacks up when there are more A321LRs flying around...
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:34 pm

ewt340 wrote:
No, BUT Airbus had 1,502 more orders for NEO compared to MAX.

MAX problem is the fact that A320neo and A321neo is a strong contender and a great combo. A321neo able to replace "most" B757-200 routes. MAX10 cannot do what A321neo could. Especially with A321LR and upcoming A321XLR.
Meanwhile MAX8 and MAX9 are too similar, it's no the best combo out there, that's why many airlines demand bigger MAX aircraft which resulted in MAX10.

Also, MAX design comes from an older design, dating back to B707, it became disadvantages for them now. While Airbus started with A320ceo. A much modern starting point.


The A320CEO isn't a spring chicken. It's from the 80's. However, the A320's produced today are not the same as the ones produced in the beginning, just as today's 737 is not the same 737 produced in the beginning.

Each have their strengths and weaknesses. There are many scenarios in which the 737 is better than the A320 and vice versa.
Whatever
 
User avatar
smithbs
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:42 pm

PacificWest wrote:
From an operational and technology standpoint, I think the MAX is fine.

That said, I think the the MAX program just says a lot about the kind of company Boeing has become. Boeing has made my favorite commercial airliners ever and has an enviable amounts of talent, but sadly it's just not the company it once was. While the mission of all companies is to make money for their shareholders... Boeing seems to have made that it's sole focus, especially when you compare their aircraft to Airbus.

~ The 737 MAX-Profit sucks for passengers, it sucks for the flight attendants, and the cockpit is still just as cramped/uncomfortable for the pilots as it was decades ago. Add the fact that there's constantly long lines at the back of economy as 150 pax share two lavatories that one can barely turn around in. Like the longer NG's, it's been stretched and modified to cram, cram, cram -- and my understanding is that's part of the reason for the existence of MCAS. It's also why you'll see a pole propping their tail's up at the gate. It's also why they seem to need so much damn runway for takeoff/landing.

~ The 787 is great, but Boeing marketed economy seating as a comfortable '8-across' to the public, but designed it knowing all Airline would jam in a 9th seat they left just enough room for. The A350 was actually designed for 9-across, which is why it's cabin is 5" wider than the 787.

From the perspective of passenger/crew comfort, Airbus makes far superior aircraft. I understand that Wall Street and all the bean-counters at the Airlines love Boeing -- but I'm not an Airline executive, I'm just a dude that mid-status flier that loves commercial aviation.


I agree about the experience, but I blame the airlines. Boeing sells to the airlines, not to passengers directly. Boeing is making what the airlines are asking...no, demanding. Airlines are free to choose a wider layout if passenger comfort still mattered, but do they? No, because they are in a vicious economic competition with each other. And Airbus is no different.

And I agree with the couple threads that said MAX may not be the end of 737. The moment a better engine comes out before MOM/797 does...say hi to MOREMAX.
 
catiii
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:43 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
catiii wrote:
fsabo wrote:

It is not the accident itself. It is the silent addition of MCAS because the MAX is _less_ stable than the NG.

From a commercial perspective boeing had to do the MAX. They had no other conceivable response to the NEO. They later found out that this adversely effected stability, so they threw in a kludge in the flight control and kept quiet about it. Is that a step too far? IMO, yes.


Silent addition? Couldn’t have been too silent. UA trained on the system...

UA ALPA seems to disagree: https://airlinerwatch.com/one-more-pilo ... -max-jets/ or https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html


That's ALPA National, who is speaking for all ALPA pilots. That's also poor journalism. The only ALPA carrier in the US right now flying the MAX is UA, so the writer, incorrectly, tried to make the correlation.

The UA MEC says otherwise: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/201 ... ffd87c7d5e
Last edited by catiii on Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:43 pm

Don't forget about the small lavatories!
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:00 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Don't forget about the small lavatories!



The lavatories aren't the 737's or Boeing's fault. It's the airline that configures it. Airbus has the same issues with bathrooms, by the way.
Whatever
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:01 pm

catiii wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
catiii wrote:

Silent addition? Couldn’t have been too silent. UA trained on the system...

UA ALPA seems to disagree: https://airlinerwatch.com/one-more-pilo ... -max-jets/ or https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html


That's ALPA National, who is speaking for all ALPA pilots. That's also poor journalism. The only ALPA carrier in the US right now flying the MAX is UA, so the writer, incorrectly, tried to make the correlation.

The UA MEC says otherwise: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/201 ... ffd87c7d5e

OK, only ALPA pilots flying MAX is UA; how about SW Southwest Airlines Pilots Association:
Jon Weaks, president of the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, said Monday the airline and the pilots “were kept in the dark.”

and AA Allied Pilots Association
Early Saturday morning, Capt. Mike Michaelis, chairman of the safety committee of the Allied Pilots Association (APA) at American Airlines, sent out a message to pilots informing them of details Boeing had shared with the airline about this new 737 MAX system — called MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System).

“This is the first description you, as 737 pilots, have seen,” the message from the pilots association at American reads. “It is not in the American Airlines 737 Flight Manual … nor is there a description in the Boeing FCOM (Flight Crew Operations Manual). It will be soon.”

??? All quotes from https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... air-crash/
It doesn't matter whether it's coming from ALPA, SAPA, APA, or whatever pilot union worldwide: some pilots flying the MAX were not informed.

Bottom line: it appears to be hit-or-miss, which is unacceptable.
 
superjeff
Posts: 1248
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 2:14 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:22 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Don't forget about the small lavatories!



The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.
 
Ziyulu
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2016 10:35 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:45 pm

superjeff wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Don't forget about the small lavatories!



The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.


Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:48 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I’m unclear on how a 70’s 737 Classic like the ones I regularly flew on were an example of “a manufacturer focused on the quality of flight” but a much improved 737 MAX is an example of “a manufacturer that made flying uncomfortable”? If you are referring to seats, pitch, etc then blame the airlines as they are the ones who choose those things. I suppose you can blame Boeing for the bathrooms being smaller but then I guess you need to throw Airbus into that camp as well.


Yeah, everything was paisly and uglier then. But there's a big thing you missed.

The 737s of the 1970s & 1980s were designed for their actual mission. Not to take on the jobs of 727s, 757s, 767s, A300s, & 10s. Even as awful as they've become in their current iterations, that's not an issue for DCA-BDL or SNA-SJC. It's a different story putting up with that from MIA-SEA. The problems paying customers have with them for longer, denser routes are valid however.




PlanesNTrains wrote:
The cockpit is night and day as well.


Twilight and overcast maybe. Shoe-horning modernized displays to replace about 45% of the instrumentation hardly makes it functionally different. It still has control yokes, a lack of a true dark cockpit, and about 30% less space to work with than anything else going. There are differences, to be sure, but it doesn't begin to compare to a 32X (NEO or otherwise), or anything else you can order new.

I would cop to it being comparable to slightly better than what you might find in most Corporate Jets or Helicopters though.


To be fair, there’s one big thing you missed: The aircraft has improved, which is the opposite of the claim I was replying to. If an airline chooses to put in cheap seats at 30” pitch and connect two continents, that’s their choice. I’m not clear how we make the leap from “makes good planes” to “makes bad planes” (so to speak)?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9527
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Don't forget about the small lavatories!



The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.


Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
catiii
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:06 pm

WayexTDI wrote:

OK, only ALPA pilots flying MAX is UA; how about SW Southwest Airlines Pilots Association:

Bottom line: it appears to be hit-or-miss, which is unacceptable.


No, bottom line is that you didn't read the context of the thread. The post I was responding to called the MCAS a "silent addition." I said it couldn't have been too silent, as UA trained on it (thusly they knew about it). You then said "UA ALPA seems to disagree" to which I pointed out the inaccuracy of your assertion.

Not sure what WN or AA have to do with any of the above but okay, unless you're trying to show that they didn't put in place the appropriate training? Have to wonder how UA and other carriers knew about it...
Last edited by catiii on Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:06 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
superjeff wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
Don't forget about the small lavatories!



The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.


Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Ridiculous statement. You don't understand economics. If they didn't offer it, someone else would. Boeing should offer whatever option the customer (airlines) are willing to purchase.
Whatever
 
catiii
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:07 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Ziyulu wrote:
superjeff wrote:


The "Space Flex" lavs are miserable, but they're (a) chosen as an option by the airlines, not by Boeing or Airbus, and (b) they are, unfortunately, the wave of the future, except for a few airlines (Hawaiian, for example) that have decided they are not good for their brand image.


Boeing should not offer it as an option. Just like offering 3-3-3 economy on a 787. I choose my flights based on aircraft type now.


Exactly! Boeing shouldn’t sell customers what they are asking for and willing to pay for. It makes no sense.


The nerve of Boeing, trying to meet customer demand.

How dare they!
 
amcnd
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:19 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:20 pm

I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...
 
FriscoHeavy
Posts: 1595
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 4:31 pm

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:24 pm

amcnd wrote:
I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...


??

What is that supposed to mean?
Whatever
 
LDRA
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:01 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:29 pm

amcnd wrote:
I can only imagine where Boeing would be with a rewing/eng 757.... wowza... sad. So sad...


Ditto, at least would cover 737-9/10
 
User avatar
767333ER
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:14 am

Re: Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:32 pm

The problem for me is how many times they have given the 737 a makeover, but how they had to cut so many corners (almost all not serious but frustrating) to keep the same type certificate. In that respect it has gone too far. I don’t care if it’s reliable, efficient, or a workhorse if the working conditions on that thing are worse to just about anything else built currently that even remotely competes with it or is agree than it. It obviously doesn’t work this way, but I were working on a 737 as a pilot,cabin crew, maintenance tech I’d feel like I should be getting paid more than doing an equal job on the A320 just because it’s so poorly set up in some respects that it makes the job a lot more complicated and/or fatiguing.
Been on: 732 733 734 73G 738 752 763 A319 A320 A321 CRJ CR7 CRA/CR9 E145 E175 E190 F28 MD-82 MD-83 C172R C172S P2006T

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos