Your advice to Boeing for the upcoming Paris Air Show ?

BravoOne · Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:07 pm

How about announcing a Senior Management shake up for starters. One that was not focused on the next round of bonuses. A common saying Boeing is that "there never seems to be enough money and time to do something right the 1st time, yet always enough time and money to it the next time." That concept has to chnage before Boeing moves forward.

DrPaul · Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:52 pm

MYT332 wrote:
I would seriously rebrand the MAX's as the B737-8, B737-9 etc. Get away from the MAX name completely.

That's the classic British government solution. Trouble at Windscale nuclear power station? Rename it Sellafield. Trouble at Long Kesh prison camp in Northern Ireland? Rename it The Maze. It didn't fool anyone.

Perzeus · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:10 am

mjoelnir wrote:
One advise, stop doing this: Boeing’s public messaging on 737 MAX crisis criticized as bureaucratic, legalistic, and slow

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -and-slow/

I wholeheartedly agree. Every news from the media has covered topics from lack of optional safety features, pilots "training" on an iPad, and MCAS causes stalls. Most of what is reported is generally a lack of understanding and distortion by the media on how things work. Nevertheless, Boeing has let the media dictate the headlines and further harmed their reputation. I get that they have to watch what they say so that their lawyers won't go ballistic, but nothing Boeing has done from a PR standpoint has instill confidence among the public.

musman9853 · Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:15 am

scbriml wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
Point no 3 is crucial, giving off the image (we really care) will help heel the wounds.
I do hope they can explain to the public the ins and outs of the fix and why it was needed in a transparent way.. For Joe public to understand

Heeling a wound sounds like it might hurt more!

The question I would have is, why should Boeing wait until Paris to do this? They should be doing it now! Do it now, get it all out in the open, do your public mea culpa and then go to Paris with as clean a slate as possible.

Agreed. The news cycle is just about finished on the 737, and hardly anyone is talking about it now. Get the mcas fix out, and put this whole mess behind them.

Yossarian22 · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:29 am

Perzeus wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
One advise, stop doing this: Boeing’s public messaging on 737 MAX crisis criticized as bureaucratic, legalistic, and slow

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -and-slow/

I wholeheartedly agree. Every news from the media has covered topics from lack of optional safety features, pilots "training" on an iPad, and MCAS causes stalls. Most of what is reported is generally a lack of understanding and distortion by the media on how things work. Nevertheless, Boeing has let the media dictate the headlines and further harmed their reputation. I get that they have to watch what they say so that their lawyers won't go ballistic, but nothing Boeing has done from a PR standpoint has instill confidence among the public.

Two planes fall out of the sky within months of each other, due to the same engineering flaw is what has “done nothing to instill confidence among the public”. This isn’t a PR problem, this is an engineering and greed problem.

ewt340 · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:31 am

Yossarian22 wrote:
Perzeus wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
One advise, stop doing this: Boeing’s public messaging on 737 MAX crisis criticized as bureaucratic, legalistic, and slow

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -and-slow/

I wholeheartedly agree. Every news from the media has covered topics from lack of optional safety features, pilots "training" on an iPad, and MCAS causes stalls. Most of what is reported is generally a lack of understanding and distortion by the media on how things work. Nevertheless, Boeing has let the media dictate the headlines and further harmed their reputation. I get that they have to watch what they say so that their lawyers won't go ballistic, but nothing Boeing has done from a PR standpoint has instill confidence among the public.

Two planes fall out of the sky within months of each other, due to the same engineering flaw is what has “done nothing to instill confidence among the public”. This isn’t a PR problem, this is an engineering and greed problem.

It's fake news, no MAX plane ever crashed at all.

TTailedTiger · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:43 am

scbriml wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
Point no 3 is crucial, giving off the image (we really care) will help heel the wounds.
I do hope they can explain to the public the ins and outs of the fix and why it was needed in a transparent way.. For Joe public to understand

Heeling a wound sounds like it might hurt more!

The question I would have is, why should Boeing wait until Paris to do this? They should be doing it now! Do it now, get it all out in the open, do your public mea culpa and then go to Paris with as clean a slate as possible.

Admit fault before the investigations have concluded? That would be incredibly foolish.

TTailedTiger · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:45 am

Yossarian22 wrote:
Perzeus wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
One advise, stop doing this: Boeing’s public messaging on 737 MAX crisis criticized as bureaucratic, legalistic, and slow

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -and-slow/

I wholeheartedly agree. Every news from the media has covered topics from lack of optional safety features, pilots "training" on an iPad, and MCAS causes stalls. Most of what is reported is generally a lack of understanding and distortion by the media on how things work. Nevertheless, Boeing has let the media dictate the headlines and further harmed their reputation. I get that they have to watch what they say so that their lawyers won't go ballistic, but nothing Boeing has done from a PR standpoint has instill confidence among the public.

Two planes fall out of the sky within months of each other, due to the same engineering flaw is what has

You don't know that. How can you possibly spread such false information? You are not on the investigation team and no conclusions have been reached. Just stop it.

Noshow · Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:09 am

Without any sarcasm, flying in the company VIPs onboard some MAX to prove it's safe and then detail the changes might not be a bad idea to the public. Or even do some media demo flights with the VIPs onboard. I'd take some big customer pilots like Southwest, Ryanair and AA or UA to talk about it. Plus FAA and EASA.

DaCubbyBearBar · Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:30 am

If I was Boeing, I would simply release a statement that said something along the lines of....out of respect to the 357 people killed in 2 crashes, we will not attend and act like everything is okay.

scbriml · Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:32 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
Admit fault before the investigations have concluded? That would be incredibly foolish.

Of course you'd think that, your tireless efforts to exonerate Boeing and blame anything or anyone else has been impressive in the three threads.

Even the most diehard Boeing fan cannot deny that the absolutely horrid implementation of MCAS and not telling pilots about it were massive errors on the part of Boeing. Regardless of whether MCAS was totally or partially involved in the deaths of 350 people, it's implementation and certification were horrendously flawed. That's why it's being fixed and why the certification process is under investigation.

Stand up and man up. Do the right thing instead of what the lawyers tell you to do (like trying to get victims' families to accept cheap payoffs and sign their rights away).

Faro wrote:
zoom321 wrote:
Faro wrote:
Be pro-active...don’t muck around...make LH an offer they really really can’t refuse for their 100 narrowbody requirement NOW...and announce the MAX order in Paris...just do it for God’s sake...ACT!...

Faro

You mean like offering LH US$100 milion for each Max they take ?

I mean doing a Ryanair/738 re-edition with LH...those were desperate times in 2001-2003...these are equally desperate times for B now...

Faro

LH said the order would be next year. LH ordering 100 MAX at Paris is a dream.

crimsonchin · Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:36 am

What advice? The MAX is obviously being handled by people with better facts than Anet (whether it's handled satisfactorily or if shortcuts are taken again is a different matter). It's not like Boeing have been getting orders slashed left and right.

My only "advice" would be don't include a new system in your planes and forget to thoroughly brief pilots on it. But that has nothing to do with Paris, and if Boeing themselves haven't learnt that lesson by now, then maybe they shouldn't be building planes.

Noshow · Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:45 am

LH will order more narrow bodies for the group airlines next year. From A220 to MAXs everything is possible but not everything is likely. They wanted to be polite to Boeing this is why they included the MAX.

VSMUT · Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:49 am

IMO, keep the 737MAX away. Bring the 737-800BCF instead, and bring the Embraer E2 and do a relaunch and rebranding of that as the 797.

Edit: The West Atlantic 737-800F in FedEx colours is absolutely stunning. It would also help distract from the passengers killed by being a freighter, and showcase how old 737s are still reliably flying around.

Noshow wrote:
LH will order more narrow bodies for the group airlines next year. From A220 to MAXs everything is possible but not everything is likely. They wanted to be polite to Boeing this is why they included the MAX.

Lufthansa doesn't want Airbus to extort them with high prices. That's why, nothing to do with being "polite".

Noshow · Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:30 am

It has absolutely to do with it to say this on a day when Boeing is in hot water for the MAX.

Noshow · Sat Mar 30, 2019 9:43 am

Maybe it is better to leave out all this crude ideology and conspiracy until we have some final results?

BrianWilkes · Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:02 am

Bring a red pen!

Yossarian22 · Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:25 am

Noshow wrote:
Maybe it is better to leave out all this crude ideology and conspiracy until we have some final results?

There are plenty of facts already.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/busi ... crash.html

Months behind Airbus, Boeing had to play catch-up. The pace of the work on the 737 Max was frenetic, according to current and former employees who spoke with The New York Times.

Engineers were pushed to submit technical drawings and designs at roughly double the normal pace, former employees said.

A former senior Boeing official said the company opted to build the Max because it would be far quicker, easier and cheaper than starting from scratch, and would provide almost as much fuel savings for airlines.

A technician who assembles wiring on the Max said that in the first months of development, rushed designers were delivering sloppy blueprints to him. He was told that the instructions for the wiring would be cleaned up later in the process, he said.

His internal assembly designs for the Max, he said, still include omissions today, like not specifying which tools to use to install a certain wire, a situation that could lead to a faulty connection.

“This program was a much more intense pressure cooker than I’ve ever been in,” he added. “The company was trying to avoid costs and trying to contain the level of change. They wanted the minimum change to simplify the training differences, minimum change to reduce costs, and to get it done quickly.”

Rather than crude conspiracy theories, this seems like a crudely designed plane. All of this is pretty damning.

oslmgm · Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:22 am

Rebrand as Böing

Faro · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:03 pm

scbriml wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
Admit fault before the investigations have concluded? That would be incredibly foolish.

Of course you'd think that, your tireless efforts to exonerate Boeing and blame anything or anyone else has been impressive in the three threads.

Even the most diehard Boeing fan cannot deny that the absolutely horrid implementation of MCAS and not telling pilots about it were massive errors on the part of Boeing. Regardless of whether MCAS was totally or partially involved in the deaths of 350 people, it's implementation and certification were horrendously flawed. That's why it's being fixed and why the certification process is under investigation.

Stand up and man up. Do the right thing instead of what the lawyers tell you to do (like trying to get victims' families to accept cheap payoffs and sign their rights away).

Faro wrote:
zoom321 wrote:

You mean like offering LH US$100 milion for each Max they take ?

I mean doing a Ryanair/738 re-edition with LH...those were desperate times in 2001-2003...these are equally desperate times for B now...

Faro

LH said the order would be next year. LH ordering 100 MAX at Paris is a dream.

Yes, I know it’s due next year...hence the NOW in capital lettering...LH’s nominal deadline in 2020 is just that, nominal...if one manufacturer comes up to them and makes them an offer they can’t refuse...with the condition that they announce in Paris 2019, I believe LH would bite...

Being pro-active also means pushing things as far as is humanly possible...nothing is set in stone, nothing is mystical in commerce...

Faro

Noshow · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:30 pm

If there is any airline that does it's own thing it's LH that is known to do things after their own needs and schedule.

keesje · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:46 pm

Noshow wrote:
Maybe it is better to leave out all this crude ideology and conspiracy until we have some final results?

That's what happened. Meanwhile a second aircraft crashed.. Sometimes waiting for proof serves other goals and is highly irresponsible.

flyingturtle · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:46 pm

Airbus should offer Boeing a licence to build A320neos. :fluffy:

It's a win-win solution.

Revelation · Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:56 pm

Noshow wrote:
Maybe it is better to leave out all this crude ideology and conspiracy until we have some final results?

Some find the current tragedy irresistible.

Yossarian22 wrote:
There are plenty of facts already.

Personally, I treat media quotes from unnamed sources as hearsay, not facts. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I am saying we can't know if they are right since no one can question the accuser.

Yet (back to the topic) Boeing does have the fact that they are making meaningful changes to MCAS after two tragic accidents strongly linked to MCAS which IMHO is a tacit admission that the initial MCAS implementation was found wanting, and a world wide fleet of new airplanes unable to operate.

It's too early to tell how far the change will be in terms of acceptance by July.

IMHO by July at least some if not most regulatory agencies will have accepted the change and some of the worldwide fleet will be flying again, so Boeing should go to Paris and use it to try to communicate with its customer base about the fix and its implications on training, etc.

If I am wrong about the fix having some degree of acceptance then I personally feel a no-show or a minimal presence is appropriate. It'd be a message that the company is working hard to get the fix accepted and the planes flying again.

BaconButty · Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:00 pm

smokeybandit wrote:
"For now, the MAX is radioactive. No airlines will want to see their brand associated to it until the general population forgets."

Most of the general population doesn't even know what the MAX is or would have any idea they're flying one

This article came up in my feed yesterday:

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 45081.html

BOOKING WITH BRITISH AIRWAYS COULD MEAN FLYING ON BOEING 737 MAX

The Boeing 737 Max is likely to go back into service in the US before the rest of the world – which could mean British Airways’ flight code is applied to a type of plane that UK safety regulators have grounded.
...

We can argue whether the reputation is deserved or not, but the MAX is news, and probably has the most negative public image of any aircraft since the DC-10 back when I was a kid, at least over here.

Revelation · Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:17 pm

BaconButty wrote:
smokeybandit wrote:
"For now, the MAX is radioactive. No airlines will want to see their brand associated to it until the general population forgets."

We can argue whether the reputation is deserved or not, but the MAX is news, and probably has the most negative public image of any aircraft since the DC-10 back when I was a kid, at least over here.

Maybe I'm mixing the metaphors a bit heavily, but maybe we should talk about the half-life of said radioactivity.

Some people are going to resolutely avoid MAX for the rest of their lives.

Some people would fly one tomorrow.

Some people will be very concerned right now, but over time their concern will probably follow something like the exponential decay curve that radioactivity follows.

The real unknown is what is the half-life of such decay?

Personally I think it'll be short since the world's attention span has dropped and something else will arise to fill their consciousness.

I was here on a.net for the sh*t show that was the 787 battery box issue, and lots of people swore they'd never fly on a 787.

Odds are high IMHO that not only would they now fly a 787, but the battery box issue won't even arise for them during their selection process nor the actual flight.

And again, as above, there will be some that will still never fly a 787 or a MAX, just like the radioactivity will never drop to zero, it'll just keep decaying exponentially.

chunhimlai · Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:26 pm

To start double deck b777X

BaconButty · Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:32 pm

Revelation wrote:
I was here on a.net for the sh*t show that was the 787 battery box issue, and lots of people swore they'd never fly on a 787.

Odds are high IMHO that not only would they now fly a 787, but the battery box issue won't even arise for them during their selection process nor the actual flight.

And again, as above, there will be some that will still never fly a 787 or a MAX, just like the radioactivity will never drop to zero, it'll just keep decaying exponentially.

I'm not talking a.net or pprune or whatever. Nobody (miraculously) died due to the 787 battery issues. The difference is, people outside of communities like ours are aware of this. Rightly or wrongly the Max has a reputation similar to the DC-10 in the 70's and that lingered. Maybe things are different in the States, I don't know, but when I google "737 max" and click the News tab, it's not FlightGlobal and AIN I'm seeing, but BBC, USA Today, Bangkok Post etc etc. There's a PR issue and they probably need to address it.

Incidentally, the above search did yield this interesting article. PR lessons from Boeing’s poor handling of the 737 MAX crisis.

Aesma · Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:05 pm

Barrel roll a 737 MAX at the show. It would definitely improve my perception of the aircraft.

bennett123 · Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:13 pm

BaconButty

I think that the chance of flying a B737MAX with BA is pretty low.

Revelation · Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:19 pm

BaconButty wrote:
There's a PR issue and they probably need to address it.

There's no doubt there is a PR issue.

The doubt is around the question "if you address it, will you make it better or worse?"

And, as above, how long will it be before the outrage culture focuses on something else?

BaconButty wrote:
Incidentally, the above search did yield this interesting article. PR lessons from Boeing’s poor handling of the 737 MAX crisis.

The "Founder & CEO of Byte Media Group" sure has a lot of strong opinions.

Unfortunately, like the old saying goes, opinions are like bums: everyone's got one, and they all stink!

Here we are in the aftermath of #dieselgate and https://www.google.com/search?q=pr+less ... gen+diesel shows as many opinions as you care to read, including that VW should have done a better job of cheating!

markno · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:26 pm

Research economic bio fuel.

WIederling · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:39 pm

Revelation wrote:
BaconButty wrote:
There's a PR issue and they probably need to address it.

There's no doubt there is a PR issue.

You have PR issues when your RR is broken ( as in Reality Relations. :-)

funny thing:
back when ?Bush43? was on his job someone in the US noted that Europe had lots soft power
and the US should start PR work to also have soft power at hand.
( Issue: you don't create softpower via PR. you need real life action for that.)

goosebayguy · Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:58 pm

One more crash and Boeing is history. Boeing have to get the fix right and so far I doubt they are going the right way about it.

Redd · Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:31 pm

bgm wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
giving off the image (we really care).

I didn't realize that the Paris Air Show was a stand up comedy thing.

I'd like to see the people responsible for making the catastrophic decisions leading to the death of 300+ people resign from or lose their jobs. If Boeing is to be trusted by the general public they have to show they're worthy of people's trust and won't allow for a corporate culture unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes.

markno · Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:46 am

There's another point that I'd find good to see in the "how we reacted" gallery. Boeing could somehow expand their documentation review process. I'll just write my personal, average joe view as good as I can:

My idea would be that they create two new jobs.

Employee 1 creates an additional copy, for documentation only, of every source code file involved in the plane control, adding extra documentation, embedded as code comments. Don't go under 1 comment per 20 lines. Each comment is a link to the plane operation manual, with page and paragraph and a few words why the reference is there. His former job was software architect at the plane manufacturer.

Employee 2 has not much contact to employee 1, and his job is to find what's missing in the manual. He receives the documentation version of the source code where he starts looking for what is missig in the manual and what is not. He must be an outsider to the plane development and has average programming skills, e.g. a pilot.

Yossarian22 · Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:51 am

Redd wrote:
bgm wrote:
cc2314 wrote:
giving off the image (we really care).

I didn't realize that the Paris Air Show was a stand up comedy thing.

I'd like to see the people responsible for making the catastrophic decisions leading to the death of 300+ people resign from or lose their jobs. If Boeing is to be trusted by the general public they have to show they're worthy of people's trust and won't allow for a corporate culture unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes.

Or prison. Prison for man slaughter sounds good. Time to put executives on notice and end American corporate corruption.

Babyshark · Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:06 am

Silence will be golden for Boeing in June.

Airbus doesnt have to do anything but watch. But if they offer the 322 while the 797 is tied up then they'll draw blood.

spinotter · Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:00 pm

flyingturtle wrote:
Airbus should offer Boeing a licence to build A320neos.

It's a win-win solution.

Love that idea. There would be multiple explosions in the heads of people on this site if Boeing accepted and ditched their old and moldy 737 (just kidding!).

Boof02671 · Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:02 pm

imthedreamliner wrote:
2019 Paris Air Show is on June 23, approximately 3 months away. It is a big opportunity to restore trust in MAX and in Boeing as well. What can they do at the Paris Air Show to make things better ?

My Advices :

1-) Complete the necessary fix of the MCAS system and other modifications. If possible, bring a MAX-8 to the show to explain the modifications and try to persuade people and media it is perfectly safe to fly the plane. If possible, try to get as many orders for MAX to restore trust as well.

2-) Is it a golden opportunity to launch 797 ? If it possible, launching 797 at Paris Air Show with hundreds of commitments could be a big sign of " I am strong ". Maybe Boeing can go into details why 797 is safe to fly ( the systems like MCAS is not in this plane or it is in this plane and safe ).

3-) Full attendance of the Board of Boeing ? This could answer all the questions coming from media and people at the heighest level and restore trust in Boeing. This could be important.

4-) Joint conferances with some ally Airliners ( USA airliners + others if possible ) to talk about the fixes on MAX and why it is safe to fly ?

I am sure more can be done but I see it as a big opportunity for Boeing. But first of all, Boeing has to do the homework and make MAX safer.

I doubt Boeing needs advice from armchair CEOs.

Boof02671 · Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:09 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
I would also drop the Max

Not sure why a word was put into the name anyway...but that word is done...even if the plane has a long life ahead of it

And you would single handily put Boeing out of business. There are 5,000 Max’s on order and is Boeing’s number one produced airplane, 52 a month, 624 a year.

rbavfan · Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:45 pm

MYT332 wrote:
I would seriously rebrand the MAX's as the B737-8, B737-9 etc. Get away from the MAX name completely. People aren't shying away from flying on current B737-800's so the 737 name is good still but when they see the word 'MAX' in the future, well, there's your problem. MAX is just too easy a name to remember.

Obviously the rebranding would be public knowledge but it surely wouldn't be as wide spread as the reporting of the crashes. It would alleviate potential issues with the 'majority' of joe public you'd think.

So make it harder to see the type so passengers cannot make a proactive decision based on available facts. That would be no different than the High Fructose Corn Syrup companies wanting to change the product name to corn sugar so people will not notice it's in the product. That would make them look unsafe & unethical. That is not whet they need.

rbavfan · Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:29 pm

GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:
Like VW, Boeing's PR face throughout has been abysmal. Muilenburg comes off with as much empathy and tact as a sleezy lobbyist for used car salesmen.

If I were Boeing's BOD, I'd fire Muilenburg before Paris (and maybe others).

I would do whatever I could, without appearing pushy, to showcase front and center what the EASA is doing to review and (re)certify that MAX, MCAS, etc.

Dropping the MAX name slowly over time by Paris 2020 is not a bad idea.

I would provide two very comfortable and detailed info booths/pavilions about each crash with the latest investigation updates. Each should have a wall of names / memorial for the dead as well as special thanks to investigators and first responders.

I would have a third info booth / pavilion all about MCAS. 100% transparency and disclosure.

I would hold one press conference every day:

Day 1: What we're doing for the families of the victims (aid package). Day 2: How we're compensating MAX customers (aid package). Day 3: How we're bolstering the independence, strength, and authority of regulatory agencies all over the world. Etc.

I would give ATO to the NMA.

I would put the 78X and 77X combo front and center as the ultimate 1-2 punch for the best WB strategy.

Problems with this are:
1: You should not do 2 information booths about the crash at a trade show While the investigations are still on going.
2: You cannot say what your doing for the families as that is currently being handled via lawyers and it's not the appropriate venue.
Both these would give the appearance off pandering because of the venue type. These issues should be at press conferences well clear of any trade show.

Heinkel · Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:44 pm

Faro wrote:
Be pro-active...don’t muck around...make LH an offer they really really can’t refuse for their 100 narrowbody requirement NOW...and announce the MAX order in Paris..

I don't hink, that LH will be so stupid. If they would do so at the moment, it suggests to the flying public: We don't know, if the MAX is as safe as other modern airliners now but we got them dirt cheap from Boeing, so we couldn't refuse. Now our pax and crew have to find out, if the faults are fixed...

Not what I would expect from LH... (Knowing, that they were launch customer of the jurassic 737)

jfklganyc · Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:02 am

Boof02671 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
I would also drop the Max

Not sure why a word was put into the name anyway...but that word is done...even if the plane has a long life ahead of it

And you would single handily put Boeing out of business. There are 5,000 Max’s on order and is Boeing’s number one produced airplane, 52 a month, 624 a year.

Just the name, not the plane. Rebrand it

MYT332 · Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:49 am

DrPaul wrote:
MYT332 wrote:
I would seriously rebrand the MAX's as the B737-8, B737-9 etc. Get away from the MAX name completely.

That's the classic British government solution. Trouble at Windscale nuclear power station? Rename it Sellafield. Trouble at Long Kesh prison camp in Northern Ireland? Rename it The Maze. It didn't fool anyone.

I get your point but brand relaunches and refreshes do work.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net