slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Sounds like WN made some timeline estimates on what they know and they didn't like what they heard. Being the largest customer , I expect Boeing gave them honest answers. Of all airlines boeing wants to keep happy it's WN.

As I said from the get go when the Boeing defenders on here Insisted this would be super short duration, airlines are keeping all options open. No one know a timeline , all options must be on the table.

crack pot....

Boeing is lying to small customers but not to WN

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

lightsaber wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Doesn't WN have 737 Classics stored which they can return to service while the MAX situation is resolved?

Who would fly them? The pilots are all now MAX/NG certified. Since the FAA didn't approve a classic/NG/MAX cert, the pilots had to give up the classic cert to fly the MAX. Once given up, it as if it never was...

Lightsaber

How hard would it be for the FAA to give an emergency order to allow the pilots to fly 737-300's?

Wouldn't a bigger problem be that lots of the 737-300's WN parked have been scrapped already? They had pretty high cycles on them.

DDR wrote:

I'm fairly confident that WN will not be paying a single dime to Boeing until these planes are released and in revenue service. Still not convinced that the MAX will ever be allowed to fly again in certain regions/countries.

2 737s were lost to rudder hardovers in quick succession, and a third nearly crashed. 2 757s were lost in similar circumstances related to pitot tubes in quick succession. those planes continued to fly for years to come. the 787 was grounded for like 3 months, and it's probably the most successful plane of this era. nothing is gonna happen to the max longterm.

LDRA wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

Most airline passengers can’t figure out which airline they’re flying. As long as it is a jet I’d say 3/4 or more of people will have no idea what type of plane they’re getting on and would know no difference between 738 and a MAX8. For Southwest their site doesn’t even tell you which type of 737 you’ll be on. Most folks aren’t savvy or interested enough to use Flightradar24.

This isn’t a pro-Boeing thing. It just seems a little too much knowledge is being credited to the flying public. They’ll forget about this as soon as the headlines go away. Especially since these incidents weren’t American carriers. If they were passengers would still likely associate the accident with the airline rather than the plane.

LDRA wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

I know it’s asking a lot, but is it possible to keep on topic in a thread? We having two crash threads, a grounding thread, a thread about accelerating a 797, etc etc etc. You want to talk about WN moving the MAX to VCV, this is the place.

Revelation wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

I wonder how these flights went for the pilots... without a hiccup most likely

Classy!

It's not impossible that there might be such an issue on these flights, unless you think it's a third-worll phenomenon only.

wetpantsmcgee wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

Where were all their planes scattered? I know United has a couple at LAX, a couple at IAH, and the rest at HOU. What does the used 738 market look like right now? And one poster asked why accept planes they can't fly? The 737 Max isn't grounded forever...

I know we had 5 or 6 in PHX. I’ll have to drive by this morning and see if I can catch any leaving.

There were five in the west hold bay and one in T-3 North Spot 1. However, there was one at the hangar overnight; may have been prepping it for relocation.

Yep, just the 4+1 here now.

LDRA wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

It would take years to get it certified. By that time, it's time to start developing a narrow body based on the 787 technology. I don't see how a new nose helps. It's the landing gear that is causing the problems. If the landing gear had been a couple of feet higher off the ground, the engines could have gone almost directly underneath the wings. The center of gravity would be in the right place. There would be no need for an MCAS system. BTW a different nose was proposed by Boeing for the NG. It was the same nose already used by Boeing for the 757. Southwest nixed that idea, because of they would have to buy lots of new spares and have duplicate spares at most of the airports they fly to. It's too bad the 737 didn't just reuse the 707 or KC-135 landing gear.

I was searching to book a flight on United just now - I see flights that were formally 737 Max9 showing up as 'Boeing 737'

flyingclrs727 wrote:

LDRA wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

It would take years to get it certified. By that time, it's time to start developing a narrow body based on the 787 technology. I don't see how a new nose helps. It's the landing gear that is causing the problems. If the landing gear had been a couple of feet higher off the ground, the engines could have gone almost directly underneath the wings. The center of gravity would be in the right place. There would be no need for an MCAS system. BTW a different nose was proposed by Boeing for the NG. It was the same nose already used by Boeing for the 757. Southwest nixed that idea, because of they would have to buy lots of new spares and have duplicate spares at most of the airports they fly to. It's too bad the 737 didn't just reuse the 727 landing gear.

Damn I would love a 737 with 757 nose!

flyingclrs727 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Doesn't WN have 737 Classics stored which they can return to service while the MAX situation is resolved?

Who would fly them? The pilots are all now MAX/NG certified. Since the FAA didn't approve a classic/NG/MAX cert, the pilots had to give up the classic cert to fly the MAX. Once given up, it as if it never was...

Lightsaber

How hard would it be for the FAA to give an emergency order to allow the pilots to fly 737-300's?

Wouldn't a bigger problem be that lots of the 737-300's WN parked have been scrapped already? They had pretty high cycles on them.

Most of the last 733s that WN operated were some of the last off the line, a few younger than the earliest 73Gs. They are finding new operators in Europe and South America, as well as with US charter operations.

Sounds like WN strategy is having all the MAX8 located in one place with a reliable 3ed party vendor it uses for Heavy D checks. They have the capability to streamline resources once a fix is determined for the MAX8.
This will keep it's own MX staff available to keep the NG 700s and NG 800s fixed and flying in a All hands on deck operation to limit the impact on the Daily operations.
Impact to the Daily schedule is down to 2% vs 5% when the MAX8 grounding started.

Flyguy

LAXBUR wrote:

LDRA wrote:

DL747400 wrote:

Sounds like WN (and perhaps other airlines?) know something that they are not saying publicly. Reading between the lines, it certainly is looking increasingly likely that the 737MAX is going to remain grounded for far longer than anyone first imaged.

The grounding should not be lifted until everyone is convinced that the MAX's problems are completely resolved. At the same time, the longer the MAX remains grounded, the deeper the damage. Boeing's pricing power for the MAX and their negotiating position with airlines and leasing companies must be declining by the day.

Makes one wonder at what point would the name and reputation of the MAX be considered to be damaged beyond repair? Will airlines begin removing the 737MAX name from the exteriors of the aircraft? Will airline customers begin insisting that Boeing not add the MAX titles on their planes prior to delivery?

I remember reading about AA's decision to scrub the DC-10 name from their fleet, choosing instead to generically call them American Airlines LuxuryLiners. Does anyone recall how quickly that happened after the 1979 crash at O'Hare?

Agree, 737 branding will take a hit

I think Boeing should launch a new 797 model, based on 737 Max(still goes on 737 Type certificate), redesign the 737 nose section so that public can't tell easily it is 737

Most airline passengers can’t figure out which airline they’re flying. As long as it is a jet I’d say 3/4 or more of people will have no idea what type of plane they’re getting on and would know no difference between 738 and a MAX8. For Southwest their site doesn’t even tell you which type of 737 you’ll be on. Most folks aren’t savvy or interested enough to use Flightradar24.

This isn’t a pro-Boeing thing. It just seems a little too much knowledge is being credited to the flying public. They’ll forget about this as soon as the headlines go away. Especially since these incidents weren’t American carriers. If they were passengers would still likely associate the accident with the airline rather than the plane.

Southwest’s website does tell you what type you will be on if you click the flight number. That said not many people know to do that. And most don’t care anyway. Some might care more now, but i doubt it is that many.

ikolkyo wrote:

A said above l, much easier to consolidate a fleet in one airport for storage and fixing.

I guess that this is not like Tesla, where they can upgrade the cars remotely. Or do we think that the fix will be more than just a software update e.g. changing wiring for AOA sensors ?

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:

It sounds to me - from what WN knows - this won't be a quick fix or a quick process.

WN sending all of their 737 MAX aircraft to Victorville might signal that the MAX fleet may not even be flying passengers this summer, maybe not even this year. It’s going to be an interesting year for Boeing to say the least.

RobertPhoenix wrote:

I guess that this is not like Tesla, where they can upgrade the cars remotely. Or do we think that the fix will be more than just a software update e.g. changing wiring for AOA sensors ?

This situation is so fluid today according to Reuters while WN is storing their MAX8s they along with AA and UA sent teams to Boeing's Renton factor to review software upgrades. Also the acting FAA administrator according to Reuters told lawmakers in D.C. they expect Boeing to complete the software updates by March 25th and start the certification and/or approval process although it seems as if everyone is in agreement that no one can say for sure how long that process will take or how long the MAX fleet will be grounded. APA is sending a delegation of safety experts to Renton and I would think if APA is sending a delegation ALPA will be sending a delegation as well seeing they represent more pilots than APA so they can oversee and test Boeing's updates to which again according to Reuters are meant to change how much authority is given to MCAS.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKCN1R40OK

From this article and other article it seems as if the FAA and Boeing are suggesting this could be a software but only time will tell if this is indeed just a software problem or if Boeing has a even larger problem on their hands which would require changing wiring for the AOA sensors. With the FAA expecting test to begin at some point this week perhaps by next week or whenever lawmakers are updated again the public will have more concrete information on how Boeing intends to fix this problem.

I would be surprised if they aren't flying by May. If the software fix is done this week, I can't imagine it would take more than a month to get them going again.

It could be:

1. Move aircraft to VCV as that’s what VCV is good for.
2. Have them in one spot to facilitate a fix.
3. Boeing gets approval for an interim software fix, allowing relatively quick return to service.
4. Aircraft are cycled in to get whatever permanent fix is required, provided it’s done prior to a certain date.

For airlines that want to get their MAX fleet back in the air soon (WN?), it allows them to do so while managing the impact of a permanent fix (if needed) on their day to day operations.

For airlines that refuse to put them back into service with an “interim” software solution, Boeing could arguably deny additional compensation.

We’ll see what ultimately happens, though

I wonder if Southwest will now consider bringing N772SW out permanent storage? That is the aircraft that threw a blade landed in Philadelphia and killed one passenger.

I flew out of BWI last night and saw four parked on the ramp.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

I wonder if Southwest will now consider bringing N772SW out permanent storage? That is the aircraft that threw a blade landed in Philadelphia and killed one passenger.

They need to bring it out and it has been repaired for many months and no reason to not reactivate it. The accident was an engine issue—not a frame issue.

LDRA wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Elshad wrote:

Good sign. Means the authorities won’t accept a quick software patch or other half-assed fix.

Help me with “good sign.” There is zero evidence that aircraft like WN’s with three AoA sensors are unsafe.

Three AoA sensors? No such thing. There is an optional AoA disagree warning lamp

There’s been some reporting that that was an option and WN took it. I’ve not seen primary sources to confirm. What we can say with reasonable confidence, I think, is that WN took all AoA options available (as did AA) and that there is no evidence that aircraft that are so equipped are at all unsafe.

rbavfan wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

I am pretty sure that Boeing would compensate for all the lost revenue.

Personally I can't imagine Boeing will pay Southwest Airlines a few million dollars daily for weeks on end.

They will have to as it is not WN's fault they cannot fly, It's on Boeing.

A contract between the two companies will probably outline what Boeing must pay.

Elshad wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Elshad wrote:

Good sign. Means the authorities won’t accept a quick software patch or other half-assed fix.

Not sure how you tie all that together, but here's what we have:

Teams from the three U.S. airlines that own 737 MAX jets were heading to Boeing Co’s factory in Renton, Washington, to review a software upgrade on Saturday, even as Southwest Airlines Co began parking its 34 MAXs near the California desert.

The factory visits indicate Boeing may be nearing completion of a planned software patch for its newest 737 following a fatal Lion Air crash in Indonesia last October, but the timing for a resumption of passenger flights on the jets remains uncertain.

And:

“The planes being in one place will be more efficient for performing the repetitive maintenance necessary for stationary aircraft, as well as any future software enhancements that need to take place,” spokeswoman Brandy King said.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKCN1R40OK

Maybe I should have said “I hope this means the authorities won’t accept...”

What do you think the fix should be?

Boeing is not conducting Customer acceptance flights. Therefore no aircraft are leaving Boeing’s hands until this is all sorted out.

I suspect the parking of WN's 737MAX fleet at lower-cost like Victorville is part of a deal of Boeing as will have to pay until fixes are tested, installed, tried out to make sure it is right and pilots trained. This could save Boeing a millions as many of us suspect that these 737MAX's won't be in the air until the Summer or even later depending how things work out. Having most of them in a few locations will also save Boeing millions in costs until changes are done.
I bet Boeing will have other airlines in the USA and Canada park their MAX's in Victorville or other popular and lower cost 'parking lot' locations in the dessert southwest USA. For non-USA/Canadian aircraft, likely some of their preferred 'parking places' will be used.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

How hard would it be for the FAA to give an emergency order to allow the pilots to fly 737-300's?

Wouldn't a bigger problem be that lots of the 737-300's WN parked have been scrapped already? They had pretty high cycles on them.

Im going to guess the FAA isn’t in a position do be cutting any corners at this point in time.

This thread is about Southwest parking 737 MAX aircraft in Victorville. Any posts deviating from the topic will be removed. We have other more appropriate threads for general 737 MAX discussion.

Keep the thread on topic or it will be locked.

✈️ atcsundevil

ltbewr wrote:

I suspect the parking of WN's 737MAX fleet at lower-cost like Victorville is part of a deal of Boeing as will have to pay until fixes are tested, installed, tried out to make sure it is right and pilots trained. This could save Boeing a millions as many of us suspect that these 737MAX's won't be in the air until the Summer or even later depending how things work out. Having most of them in a few locations will also save Boeing millions in costs until changes are done.
I bet Boeing will have other airlines in the USA and Canada park their MAX's in Victorville or other popular and lower cost 'parking lot' locations in the dessert southwest USA. For non-USA/Canadian aircraft, likely some of their preferred 'parking places' will be used.

Boeing is parking some in Moses Lake and Calgary.

Dutchy wrote:

Why are they accepting aircraft they cannot use?

Accepting aircrafts now means once the issue is cleared,
They can have more flyable 737Max on hand immediately,
especially when it is summer peak season some months later.

At that time Boeing will probably experiencing delivery jam and further delay the new planes to MAX.

What is the cost differential between parking at VCV and elsewhere? My understanding, the cost of parking an aircraft at an airport isn't that expensive, and planes would have to be grounded for an extended period to justify the cost of ferrying them to VCV and wait out a fix. Perhaps Southwest has other plans for these aircraft, just like both Air Canada and WestJet have parked some of their aircraft at maintenance bases to perform maintenance/modifications that would have happened in the near future anyway.

The answer will come in part in how many planes Southwest sends to VCV probably. If it is truly about parking costs, I would guess they would send all the planes from the most expensive airport to VCV first. Granted it's been only one day, but so far it has been one of several aircraft from multiple airports, rather than a concentrated exodus from one or two presumably expensive airports.

blueflyer wrote:

What is the cost differential between parking at VCV and elsewhere? My understanding, the cost of parking an aircraft at an airport isn't that expensive, and planes would have to be grounded for an extended period to justify the cost of ferrying them to VCV and wait out a fix. Perhaps Southwest has other plans for these aircraft, just like both Air Canada and WestJet have parked some of their aircraft at maintenance bases to perform maintenance/modifications that would have happened in the near future anyway.

The answer will come in part in how many planes Southwest sends to VCV probably. If it is truly about parking costs, I would guess they would send all the planes from the most expensive airport to VCV first. Granted it's been only one day, but so far it has been one of several aircraft from multiple airports, rather than a concentrated exodus from one or two presumably expensive airports.

All 34 are planned to go to VCV. Only check airman are flying them so that might be the reason why there isn't a mad dash of WN 7M8s into VCV

It makes sense to store in this manner. All planes are in one area so it’s easier to do the upgrades. The desert heat is like slowing down time on aging of the airframe vrs storing at any one of their maintenance facilities and it’s probably cheaper overall. I feel like this has turned into something way bigger than just simple logic.

There are frequent tasks that need to be run on every MAX that is parked. The company at Victorville is skilled in caring for temporarily parked aircraft and it frees up Southwest maintenance personal to return to caring for their in-service fleet.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

VS11 wrote:

Doesn't WN have 737 Classics stored which they can return to service while the MAX situation is resolved?

Who would fly them? The pilots are all now MAX/NG certified. Since the FAA didn't approve a classic/NG/MAX cert, the pilots had to give up the classic cert to fly the MAX. Once given up, it as if it never was...

Lightsaber

How hard would it be for the FAA to give an emergency order to allow the pilots to fly 737-300's?

Wouldn't a bigger problem be that lots of the 737-300's WN parked have been scrapped already? They had pretty high cycles on them.

You do realize the pilots have a contract that has to be followed?

FAA can’t do that.

INFINITI329 wrote:

All 34 are planned to go to VCV. Only check airman are flying them so that might be the reason why there isn't a mad dash of WN 7M8s into VCV

Interesting. Why only check airmen? Is it a condition of the FAA's authorization or an internal decision?

I wonder what Air Canada's 737 pilots are doing now? Forced vacation?

When the 787 was grounded after the battery fire at BOS, airlines had 787s scattered everywhere. LOT had a 787 parked on the ramp, east of Terminal 5 at ORD for some time.

It will be interesting to see if AA and UA decide to locate their 737 MAX aircraft at one location, and if they will continue to take delivery of additional aircraft. I remember reading this week that Boeing has some concerns as to where to park 737s, as they come off the line in Renton. There isn't a tremendous amount of space. My guess is that Boeing and Southwest worked with the FAA to get permission to ferry aircraft to VCV, in part, because there is only so much space at Renton, as well as Boeing Field.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

drerx7 wrote:

Where were all their planes scattered? I know United has a couple at LAX, a couple at IAH, and the rest at HOU. What does the used 738 market look like right now? And one poster asked why accept planes they can't fly? The 737 Max isn't grounded forever...

I know we had 5 or 6 in PHX. I’ll have to drive by this morning and see if I can catch any leaving.

I know at least one is at DAL; I didn't catch the number, since I was on a DART train heading into Downtown Dallas, but I'd suspect there's quite a few.

if you have a Gold level subscription to FR24 (I only have Silver and can only go back seven days), you might be able to figure out which 3M8s are at DAL from this list:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/airports/dal/ground

Per FR24, the following WN 3M8s are at VCV as of 0013 CDT Sunday:

N8703J
N8714Q
N8715Q
N8717M
N8719Q
N8725L
N8735L

Also, AC C-GEKX is at VCV.

It makes sense to store the aircraft there even for a grounding that just lasts a few weeks.
The parking charges are one thing, the other is maintenance.
As long as an aircraft is parked at a ramp somewhere, you would need to carry out the daily checks, weekly checks and the clock keeps ticking for all A-check and C-check items that have calendar day intervals.
It messes up your entire maintenance planning as everytging goes out of phase.

Storage allows many (not all) calendar day interval items to be frozen. Putting them back in service is also an entire process, but not as bad.
After a few weeks, it starts to make sense, so we can't conclude from that that the grounding will last too long.

The only reason Boeing is inviting big US customers is to wine and dine them and make them feel like they are part of the process and reassure them. Part of it out of a commercial attitude, part of it to avoid legal issues.
It's just good sense.

Interim lift can only be decided upon once it's known that the grounding will last more than a several months. You don't buy planes to fill a need of a couple of months, you reschedule what you can and the rest you either cancel or hire ACMI, depending on what makes most sense.

WN positioning the aircraft into VCV is a very smart move - cheap storage is available there, plus good maintenance is available on site for the upgrades/fixes whenever Boeing gets their act together and gets something certified. Keeping the MAXs parked at major airports incurs expensive parking fees - I would be willing to bet that the fuel cost to ferry them to VCV is less than the parking fees incurred so far at some of the airports, so strictly from a financial perspective it makes sense - even if maintenance was not available or easily accessible on site.

Now, the thing to watch out for: are they going to tape them up - with engine covers, covers over the windows, etc? Will they be properly prepared for long term storage - as in the type of storage you see when a plane is expected to be sitting for a year or more... it will be quite telling to see the preparations made. It will be indicative of how long the expected storage time will be... and I'm very much looking forward to the photos of the MAXs like these:



If the MAX's end up prepared like those aircraft, I think we can safely expect that the grounding will end up being measured in quarters.

Siren wrote:

.. and I'm very much looking forward to the photos of the MAXs like these:

Why are you looking forward to it?

When engines are installed, a major milestone payment is payable to the engine OEM.

Some volume 737 buyers purchase engines direct from the engine OEM, while others from Boeing.

If aircraft fly to storage and retain engines, it's likely the customer or Boeing, have made the milestone payment to the engine OEM, and the expectation is of a short grounding.

If engines are removed and fitted to other 737's to make storage flights, it's an indication the grounding will be longer.

SFOtoORD wrote:

Siren wrote:

.. and I'm very much looking forward to the photos of the MAXs like these:

Why are you looking forward to it?

It's photogenic. The Southwest livery looks great against a desert backdrop. The photos of the aircraft in storage will be beautiful. I might go out to VCV myself to try to take some photos. Also, I think of it as a glimpse into the future - looking ahead to 2035 or 2040 or so, when MAX's start getting retired. We'd be getting a sneak peek of what it'll ultimately look like.

tjcab wrote:

I wonder what Air Canada's 737 pilots are doing now? Forced vacation?

Per their contract, they are paid what the monthly minimum was forcast to be. "vacation" is only taken if it was already planned.

Technically, they are still on reserve so must be (reasonably) reachable. It's sad though, with this time off, its hard to get away as everything is full. Probably a lot of chores getting done at home!

It's curious though that C-GEKX is at VCV. I wonder what it's doing there. A lot of the fleet has been ferried to YQG for wifi installation.

grbauc wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why are they accepting aircraft they cannot use?

because they know that this is a process and that it will be figured out.. and unlike us chicken little's of the internet they know that they will be flying them again.

Or They know they will be financially compensated for storing and maintaining the planes and will be covered financially by Boeing if they aren't made safe to fly again. Provided Boeing don't go bust.

Boeing will be running out of places to store all the planes they make that aren't allowed to fly?

Hopefully there’s enough DC9 to ferry the max pilots back home joking aside, hopefully we’ll see a quick return to service

Elshad wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Elshad wrote:

Good sign. Means the authorities won’t accept a quick software patch or other half-assed fix.

Not sure how you tie all that together, but here's what we have:

Teams from the three U.S. airlines that own 737 MAX jets were heading to Boeing Co’s factory in Renton, Washington, to review a software upgrade on Saturday, even as Southwest Airlines Co began parking its 34 MAXs near the California desert.

The factory visits indicate Boeing may be nearing completion of a planned software patch for its newest 737 following a fatal Lion Air crash in Indonesia last October, but the timing for a resumption of passenger flights on the jets remains uncertain.

And:

“The planes being in one place will be more efficient for performing the repetitive maintenance necessary for stationary aircraft, as well as any future software enhancements that need to take place,” spokeswoman Brandy King said.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethi ... SKCN1R40OK

Maybe I should have said “I hope this means the authorities won’t accept...”

It's ok, most people on here understood exactly what you meant, and I completely agree with your original statement. It's just a few people on here taking the situation personally, with a point to prove, splitting hairs.