Page 1 of 5

Did the 737 MAX go one step too far?

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:56 pm
by patches
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 ?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 2:59 pm
by Newbiepilot
Nope.

The 737NG had 400 orders at first flight. The 737MAX has 4,000. Its the fastest selling airplane in the history of Boeing and is performing with very high reliability.

The view from Boeing

https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/

RELIABILITY

With the 737 MAX, we added new functions and capabilities to make it the best single-aisle airplane in the market. When you put in all that new technology, you’re bound to have some teething in the beginning. But after working those out, the MAX is sitting at 99.4% schedule reliability. That’s the highest reliability of any new airplane entering service, and exactly where we expected to be 12 months into service.

Now, we’re driving toward even better numbers, targeting 99.7% reliability by the end of this year. All indicators show we’re right on track to get there as we work closely with our customers.



Looks pretty good

FUEL EFFICIENCY

One of the biggest promises we made about the MAX was the advantage it would give our customers over Next-Generation 737s. We designed the airplane to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than today’s most efficient NGs. Our customers are proving that on a daily basis.

flydubai recently said it has seen 15% more efficiency with the MAX, along with less disruption and lower maintenance costs.

Hainan Airlines tells us they’ve seen fuel efficiency increase significantly with the MAXs compared to the NG, especially for flights longer than three hours.

And China Southern says its fuel consumption rate for the MAX has made it the most cost-saving type of any 737 model and the best fit for flights around seven hours.

Before putting the MAX into service, one customer told us they sometimes had to reduce the payload on its 737NG routes covering more than five hours. The MAX has made that a moot point.


People can argue anecdotally about technology and pushing a design too far, but reliability is where proven established designs shine

Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:10 pm
by PlanesNTrains
Newbiepilot, clearly the 800-lb gorilla in the room is JT610. IMHO, I don’t see that as “one step too far” as much as I see it as poor design.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:19 pm
by GEUltraFan9XGTF
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."

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:22 pm
by 32andBelow
What problem? some Indonesians crashed there 50th brand new 737 into the ocean?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:36 pm
by KICT
patches wrote:
They seem to be having problems with the Max design.

Yes I agree. Lion Air appears to be having problems with the Max design.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:38 pm
by fsabo
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.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:02 pm
by LDRA
*Certification problem*

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:04 pm
by WIederling
Newbiepilot wrote:
https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/22/737-max-a-year-of-serving-the-globe/


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

Then it is not sales but (no) crashes that counts.
Whoever caused the Lion Air crash the backstory that unfolds
has got a life on its own and it is not pretty.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:13 pm
by SunsetLimited
Nope. It was a natural progression, imo, though this will be the final version of the venerable 737.

The MAX is a great aircraft - everyone I know at WN from pilots to F/As love the plane. It’s already proven to be a reliable, fuel efficient workhorse.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:21 pm
by Strato2
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
Airbus fanboy propaganda along the lines of, "the 787 is cramped and uncomfortable."


Are you disputing the publicised cabin and seat widths of 787? Fake news? :lol:

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:27 pm
by mm320cap
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.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:28 pm
by FlyHossD
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 makes you say or ask that? The Lion Air crash? Based on the information I've seen, the invalid alpha input to the ADIRU should not have resulted in an accident. Indeed, the aircraft's last prior flight was completed despite issues. But we still need to let the investigation run it's course.

I do think that Boeing made a huge mistake in not disclosing the the MCAS. However, prior 737s already had a Speed Trim System (STS) that added pitch down trim when the aircraft was too slow; the MCAS was apparently a necessary addition to the STS as the Max's engines are larger and heavier, thus affecting the stability of the aircraft at slow speeds.

I expect the 737 Max family to be a big success as it's delivering the fuel burns that were promised.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 4:59 pm
by MaksFly
The fact that the mcas got Data from only one AoA sensor and had no redundancy IS an issue.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:09 pm
by Polot
MaksFly wrote:
The fact that the mcas got Data from only one AoA sensor and had no redundancy IS an issue.

Nobody said there were zero issues. But it points to a certification issue, and a design issue in the sense that redundancy was not concerned, not an issue with taking an old frame and trying to modernize it (“one step too far”). Any modern plane with computer controls will gladly crash itself if there is no system in place to make sure the computer controls deactivate (giving direct control to pilots that is) when the computer detects potentionally faulty information. Boeing, for whatever reason (rushed?), omitted that.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:40 pm
by Jouhou
It's still selling like hotcakes. There's strong demand for fuel efficient narrowbodies. It's not like it's a failure.

I think most of us agree though, this should be the last major update to the 737. It's replacement should be a clean sheet design. The inclusion of MCAS is an indication they've reached the limits of the 737s design.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:49 pm
by Heinkel
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.


This event shows, that even with the intervention of two people on the flight deck, the result was fatal. The "human intervention" sometimes doesn't help.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:45 pm
by SEPilot
Jouhou wrote:
It's still selling like hotcakes. There's strong demand for fuel efficient narrowbodies. It's not like it's a failure.

I think most of us agree though, this should be the last major update to the 737. It's replacement should be a clean sheet design. The inclusion of MCAS is an indication they've reached the limits of the 737s design.

Boeing did not want to do the MAX; they wanted to do the NSA. But they could not afford to lose the narrow body market completely to the A320NEO, which they would have had they not done the MAX because the customers were not willing to wait. I assume they are doing work on a new design now, but a lot will depend on what the next generation of engines is like, so they cannot go too far at this point. It all comes down to timing and what Airbus does. If eight years from now there is a new engine available that offers 15% or more fuel burn improvement and Airbus bolts it on to the A320, unless Boeing is far enough along to bring out the NSA in a timely manner they will be forced to find a way to slap it on to the 737. And they will. As to MCAS, as I understand it its purpose was to make the MAX handle like the NG. Boeing did make a big mistake by not explaining it to pilots, but to say that it is proof that the MAX was a step too far is a gross exaggeration. The fact that the airline with the worst safety record of any currently flying was unable to properly repair it and then one of their crews could not figure out how to disable it when three previous crews had again speaks to Boeing’s omission in explanation and the airline’s likely poor training, but not the design. The simple fact of the matter is that their are not massive gains in efficiency to be had in redesigning the airframe; the gains are to be had in the engines. And if the new engines will bolt on to the old airframe it becomes very hard to justify the billions required to design a new airframe. And this applies to Airbus as well as Boeing. So unless an advancement comes along that gives a compelling economic advantage to a new design airframe, or Boeing manages to get one designed in their spare time before the next engine generation is ready, it is likely we will see the A320NNEO and the 737ULTRAMAX.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:18 pm
by seabosdca
JT 610 is a bit reminiscent of some of the issues with the MD-11, although much more had to go wrong for JT 610 to happen than occurred in some of the MD-11 accidents and incidents. But it reinforces one more time that incremental changes to a proven design have to be thought through very carefully, including how they will affect the aircraft in the edgiest of edge cases. I expect Boeing is going to adjust some internal procedures as a result of the crash. Certainly the documentation of future changes in a similar vein will look very different.

But that doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with incremental changes to a proven design. A brand-new design has its own risks, as we've seen on nearly every type to come into service from both Boeing and Airbus. The MAX is not the product Boeing really wanted to design, but it's proven to be a very good performer in service so far, and actually does address some key 737NG weaknesses to some extent. It's not "too far," it's clever engineering under enormous business pressure, and there's a reason it's sold in numbers.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:31 pm
by LDRA
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

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:38 pm
by StTim
32andBelow wrote:
What problem? some Indonesians crashed there 50th brand new 737 into the ocean?


That is in poor taste sir.

The topic is pointless IMHO.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:52 pm
by ElroyJetson
A trolling thread imho based on one negative incident. The 737 Max is an excellent aircraft as is the A320 Neo.

But hey, if people want to bash I guess why not...right?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:04 pm
by lightsaber
ElroyJetson wrote:
A trolling thread imho based on one negative incident. The 737 Max is an excellent aircraft as is the A320 Neo.

But hey, if people want to bash I guess why not...right?

My opinion too.

It is like saying FBW is bad because if the Paris airshow crash decades ago.

I'd fly a MAX any day. Just not into BUR. :duck:

Has anyone calculated how many MAX flights happened pre-crash? If it is more than a million, then it meets criteria.

Lightsaber

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:08 pm
by airzona11
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 ?


The operational metrics seem to be meeting or exceeding all targets.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:16 pm
by Slash787
[quote="Newbiepilot"Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image[/quote]

Btw when is Qatar Airways planning to take the B737Max? have they committed to the order yet?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:28 pm
by kalvado
lightsaber wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
A trolling thread imho based on one negative incident. The 737 Max is an excellent aircraft as is the A320 Neo.

But hey, if people want to bash I guess why not...right?

My opinion too.

It is like saying FBW is bad because if the Paris airshow crash decades ago.

I'd fly a MAX any day. Just not into BUR. :duck:

Has anyone calculated how many MAX flights happened pre-crash? If it is more than a million, then it meets criteria.

Lightsaber

My estimate is between 100 and 200k flights so far.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:31 pm
by musman9853
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.



they didnt keep quiet about it. multiple airlines have said boeing told them about mcas

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:43 pm
by WayexTDI
musman9853 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.



they didnt keep quiet about it. multiple airlines have said boeing told them about mcas

From what was revealed by some airlines, it seems it was hit-or-miss; which is unacceptable.
If MCAS is that critical to flight, and its failure can bring down an airplane as is suspected, MCAS, how it works, how to react in case of failure, etc must be part of the training curriculum; no questions asked.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:45 pm
by zakelwe
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?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:56 pm
by XT6Wagon
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 ?


by this theory, the A330NEO should also be viewed as going too far.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:58 pm
by george77300
Slash787 wrote:
[quote="Newbiepilot"Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


Btw when is Qatar Airways planning to take the B737Max? have they committed to the order yet?[/quote]

They have ordered 30 firm. Now going to be leased to Air Italy however but QR are the owner and purchaser.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:02 pm
by lhrnue
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:17 pm
by rbavfan
Newbiepilot wrote:
Nope.

The 737NG had 400 orders at first flight. The 737MAX has 4,000. Its the fastest selling airplane in the history of Boeing and is performing with very high reliability.

The view from Boeing

https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/

RELIABILITY

With the 737 MAX, we added new functions and capabilities to make it the best single-aisle airplane in the market. When you put in all that new technology, you’re bound to have some teething in the beginning. But after working those out, the MAX is sitting at 99.4% schedule reliability. That’s the highest reliability of any new airplane entering service, and exactly where we expected to be 12 months into service.

Now, we’re driving toward even better numbers, targeting 99.7% reliability by the end of this year. All indicators show we’re right on track to get there as we work closely with our customers.



Looks pretty good

FUEL EFFICIENCY

One of the biggest promises we made about the MAX was the advantage it would give our customers over Next-Generation 737s. We designed the airplane to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than today’s most efficient NGs. Our customers are proving that on a daily basis.

flydubai recently said it has seen 15% more efficiency with the MAX, along with less disruption and lower maintenance costs.

Hainan Airlines tells us they’ve seen fuel efficiency increase significantly with the MAXs compared to the NG, especially for flights longer than three hours.

And China Southern says its fuel consumption rate for the MAX has made it the most cost-saving type of any 737 model and the best fit for flights around seven hours.

Before putting the MAX into service, one customer told us they sometimes had to reduce the payload on its 737NG routes covering more than five hours. The MAX has made that a moot point.


People can argue anecdotally about technology and pushing a design too far, but reliability is where proven established designs shine

Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


Sound impressive on that map until you take out all the 757's in service. Talk about fudging numbers to make it look better.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:41 pm
by Polot
rbavfan wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Nope.

The 737NG had 400 orders at first flight. The 737MAX has 4,000. Its the fastest selling airplane in the history of Boeing and is performing with very high reliability.

The view from Boeing

https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/

RELIABILITY

With the 737 MAX, we added new functions and capabilities to make it the best single-aisle airplane in the market. When you put in all that new technology, you’re bound to have some teething in the beginning. But after working those out, the MAX is sitting at 99.4% schedule reliability. That’s the highest reliability of any new airplane entering service, and exactly where we expected to be 12 months into service.

Now, we’re driving toward even better numbers, targeting 99.7% reliability by the end of this year. All indicators show we’re right on track to get there as we work closely with our customers.



Looks pretty good

FUEL EFFICIENCY

One of the biggest promises we made about the MAX was the advantage it would give our customers over Next-Generation 737s. We designed the airplane to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than today’s most efficient NGs. Our customers are proving that on a daily basis.

flydubai recently said it has seen 15% more efficiency with the MAX, along with less disruption and lower maintenance costs.

Hainan Airlines tells us they’ve seen fuel efficiency increase significantly with the MAXs compared to the NG, especially for flights longer than three hours.

And China Southern says its fuel consumption rate for the MAX has made it the most cost-saving type of any 737 model and the best fit for flights around seven hours.

Before putting the MAX into service, one customer told us they sometimes had to reduce the payload on its 737NG routes covering more than five hours. The MAX has made that a moot point.


People can argue anecdotally about technology and pushing a design too far, but reliability is where proven established designs shine

Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


Sound impressive on that map until you take out all the 757's in service. Talk about fudging numbers to make it look better.

Nowhere on that map or in that blog post are 757s included or talked about. In fact only one airline included on the map even operates 757 (Tui).

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:41 pm
by WIederling
kalvado wrote:
My estimate is between 100 and 200k flights so far.


241 delivered over 18month.
deliveries increased over time.
so average availability is backloaded: ?4 month? or less?
4 month 241 frames, -> 30k "plane days"
average of 2 flights per day -> 60k movements.
( 3 flights per day -> 90k movements.)
more like two going by that "NG, MAX provide for the majority of longer routes" posted elsewhere.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:48 pm
by IWMBH
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?

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:53 pm
by seabosdca
That map will change significantly as more neos are delivered. The 737's advantage on those routes pretty much disappeared when sharklets for the A320/A321 came out, but it will take operators and networks a bit of time to catch up.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 9:54 pm
by PlanesNTrains
Polot wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
Nope.

The 737NG had 400 orders at first flight. The 737MAX has 4,000. Its the fastest selling airplane in the history of Boeing and is performing with very high reliability.

The view from Boeing

https://randy.newairplane.com/2018/05/2 ... the-globe/

RELIABILITY

With the 737 MAX, we added new functions and capabilities to make it the best single-aisle airplane in the market. When you put in all that new technology, you’re bound to have some teething in the beginning. But after working those out, the MAX is sitting at 99.4% schedule reliability. That’s the highest reliability of any new airplane entering service, and exactly where we expected to be 12 months into service.

Now, we’re driving toward even better numbers, targeting 99.7% reliability by the end of this year. All indicators show we’re right on track to get there as we work closely with our customers.



Looks pretty good

FUEL EFFICIENCY

One of the biggest promises we made about the MAX was the advantage it would give our customers over Next-Generation 737s. We designed the airplane to be 14 percent more fuel-efficient than today’s most efficient NGs. Our customers are proving that on a daily basis.

flydubai recently said it has seen 15% more efficiency with the MAX, along with less disruption and lower maintenance costs.

Hainan Airlines tells us they’ve seen fuel efficiency increase significantly with the MAXs compared to the NG, especially for flights longer than three hours.

And China Southern says its fuel consumption rate for the MAX has made it the most cost-saving type of any 737 model and the best fit for flights around seven hours.

Before putting the MAX into service, one customer told us they sometimes had to reduce the payload on its 737NG routes covering more than five hours. The MAX has made that a moot point.


People can argue anecdotally about technology and pushing a design too far, but reliability is where proven established designs shine

Range: 737 dominates the longer distance narrowbody routes
Image


Sound impressive on that map until you take out all the 757's in service. Talk about fudging numbers to make it look better.

Nowhere on that map or in that blog post are 757s included or talked about. In fact only one airline included on the map even operates 757 (Tui).


The fine print says "...excluding 757...", which is another way of saying "Other than XYZ....". I think his point in his post is that Boeing is trying to make the 737 look more dominant by excluding the existing 757 from the narrowbody totals.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:02 pm
by WayexTDI
PlanesNTrains wrote:
Polot wrote:
rbavfan wrote:

Sound impressive on that map until you take out all the 757's in service. Talk about fudging numbers to make it look better.

Nowhere on that map or in that blog post are 757s included or talked about. In fact only one airline included on the map even operates 757 (Tui).


The fine print says "...excluding 757...", which is another way of saying "Other than XYZ....". I think his point in his post is that Boeing is trying to make the 737 look more dominant by excluding the existing 757 from the narrowbody totals.

The fine print also says the BA LCY-SNN-JFK in A318 is included; one wonders why...

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:19 pm
by MD80Ttail
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.)

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:28 pm
by kalvado
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.

And we have a winner!

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:32 pm
by MD80Ttail
lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft


I don’t understand this sentiment. Your “personal space” on the newest gen narrow body vs the newest gen wide body is the same. I prefer long haul on narrow bodies bc boarding and deplaning are much quicker..less people. Getting bags much faster....less bags. Better service...less people. Less chance for screaming kids or less screaming kids...less people. Customs is faster...less people. I will never again take an A380 flight if I can help it!!! When given a choice I choose a narrow body before a wide.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:53 pm
by lightsaber
MD80Ttail wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
My biggest nightmare ... longhaul in a narrowbody aircraft


I don’t understand this sentiment. Your “personal space” on the newest gen narrow body vs the newest gen wide body is the same. I prefer long haul on narrow bodies bc boarding and deplaning are much quicker..less people. Getting bags much faster....less bags. Better service...less people. Less chance for screaming kids or less screaming kids...less people. Customs is faster...less people. I will never again take an A380 flight if I can help it!!! When given a choice I choose a narrow body before a wide.

I too choose a narrowbody over a widebody. However, it is on flight time (schedule) more often than not.

I like widebodies, but not the extra 20 minutes to load and 20+ more minutes for the bags. I want fragmentation! I pay a premium for direct flights. In particular, with kids hubbing to fill a widebody is a hassle.

Lightsaber

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:04 pm
by DL757NYC
I think they had to in order to compensate for the lack of a A321 competitor.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:14 pm
by musman9853
WayexTDI wrote:
musman9853 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.



they didnt keep quiet about it. multiple airlines have said boeing told them about mcas

From what was revealed by some airlines, it seems it was hit-or-miss; which is unacceptable.
If MCAS is that critical to flight, and its failure can bring down an airplane as is suspected, MCAS, how it works, how to react in case of failure, etc must be part of the training curriculum; no questions asked.



you're absolutely right. its just that at this point we don't know if its boeings fault for not pushing it harder in training or the airlines fault for not including it. i'm just saying we should hold off on accusations for the time being

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:19 pm
by FriscoHeavy
No, the 737MAX is not one step too far.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:45 pm
by TTailedTiger
I'm sure Boeing is building the new MOM/797 with every intent of using as much of the design as possible on the NSA. They have to beat Airbus to market on a new narrowbody.

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

Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:47 pm
by MD80Ttail
What can be accomplished with a clean sheet design at at what cost without a leap in engine technology. Probably not much to justify the investment of a clean sheet design. How do I know this? The fact Boeing and Airbus have not produced a clean sheet narrowbody design. The benefits without a leap in engine tech doesn’t justify it at this time or the near future.

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

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:08 am
by Stitch
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:

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

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:43 am
by JoeCanuck
Nope. They made the right decision by evolving the NG into the MAX.

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.

From a customer standpoint, it's the same as the NG. In fact I doubt most customers can tell the difference between a 737 and a 777. They don't know and they don't care. The fuel savings that the airlines get from flying the MAX can go towards cheaper fares and/or longer, thinner routes that otherwise wouldn't be available to passengers.

It seems that Boeing dropped the ball with their documentation and redundancy of the MCAS systems, but there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the basic design.

I have no doubt this will be the last iteration of the 737, but the MAX is the right plane at the right time for Boeing and its customers.