737 MAX crisis prompts Southwest pilots to question its all-Boeing fleet

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ing-fleet/

Southwest pilots seem to get cold feet about the 737MAX
How heavy could the influence of the pilots or their union on future investment decisions be.

The meetings with FAA and Boeing and other USA stakeholders, with the pilots included, seemed not to have cleared the air. The tops of two plot unions seem to be rather dissatisfied with Boeing´s or FAA handling of the crisis and the events leading up to it.

I write this a second time, as I can not find the topic I started first. The removal is also rather unusual, as the normal way is closing a thread if somebody started a similar one and pointing to the thread were the SAME information is available.

Interesting. Probably won't matter in the business operations of WN, which will probably fly exclusively 737s until Boeing develops its NSA. But it would be interesting to see A320s in WN livery

If the pilots were to push WN to buy from another manufacturer....... I wonder what would be the best direction? Gary says the fleet will probably be 60% Max 7 as 73Gs start retiring in 2022. I'm curious to see what the economics of the A220-300 are against the Max 7 and whether a Max 8/A223 combo would be more beneficial to the bottom line than the current plan?

Yes, I get that the upfront costs of inducting a new type into the fleet will be high(spare parts, training, etc) and Airbus might cover a lot of those costs as it would be a greater achievement than getting AA to buy A32X.


We have seen disgruntled unions bring down others in the past and the relationship between union groups and management is far from the glory days. What is Gary going to do to nip this in the bud?

E2

mjoelnir wrote:

I write this a second time, as I can not find the topic I started first. The removal is also rather unusual, as the normal way is closing a thread if somebody started a similar one and pointing to the thread were the SAME information is available.

Discussion was already started right where we'd expect to find it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417545&start=5000#p21275487

Content from your first thread is now merged into that thread, making this one redundant, so should be locked.

I don't think it will change a thing for southwest. They have a business model that works for them and unless somehow decide to stop the max (zero chance) they will go on as usual.

And bury that in a thread with 5000 post is hiding

From what I read, and heard, WN management really likes the A220. As we'd all know it would make a much better 700 replacement than the MAX7. I hate to put it like this, however when the MAX dust parts away and settles, WN will be one of the airlines reaping the benefits especially as its highly likely the leasing companies will be looking to place those cancelled frames with SWA.. SWA will likely eventually have a large MAX8 Fleet at a heavily discounted price.. The ONLY issue I’d see SWA having to do something different is if there ends up being an issue of certifying the -7 or -8.

I also HATE HATE HATE to be this blunt, however this MAX paranoia will be around until the next crash occurs, or when something else major happens in the news to take the bad press away. You would have never thought there was a plane crash before the ET 737MAX.

TWA772LR wrote:

I've had WN pilots tell me the contrary, they think the MAX is a great plane and even dont understand the grounding.

To err is human. I just hope, I won't have the pleasure to fly with one of your buddies.

Between this and the Wall Street shareholder - hole suing, I'm not sure which story is more ironic regarding the MAX.

Is there the possibility that WN prompts Boeing to keep the NG line running? Buy used units from other airlines?

Topic already being discussed.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1417545&start=5000#p21275487

Due to requests we will keep this thread open since the other thread is so many pages. Enjoy and stay on topic...thanks guys.

TWA772LR wrote:

I've had WN pilots tell me the contrary, they think the MAX is a great plane and even dont understand the grounding.

Wow, its almost like different people have different opinions. I am concerned though about any pilot who thinks they know better than the entire world's aviation authorities, and the manufacturer, about whether a plane is airworthy.

SXDFC wrote:

From what I read, and heard, WN management really likes the A220. As we'd all know it would make a much better 700 replacement than the MAX7. I hate to put it like this, however when the MAX dust parts away and settles, WN will be one of the airlines reaping the benefits especially as its highly likely the leasing companies will be looking to place those cancelled frames with SWA.. SWA will likely eventually have a large MAX8 Fleet at a heavily discounted price.. The ONLY issue I’d see SWA having to do something different is if there ends up being an issue of certifying the -7 or -8.

I also HATE HATE HATE to be this blunt, however this MAX paranoia will be around until the next crash occurs, or when something else major happens in the news to take the bad press away. You would have never thought there was a plane crash before the ET 737MAX.

This is just laughable. And tell us, just what kind of data does WN have that could lead them to "really like" the A220? You need to list references.

jetmechanicdave wrote:

Due to requests we will keep this thread open since the other thread is so many pages. Enjoy and stay on topic...thanks guys.

good decision, you don't wanto drown everything in 1 mega thread.

This is a comment from the Seattle Times forum discussing the article. If this is indeed true and Boeing has made lots of 737 decision because of Southwest, it is somewhat disloyal if Southwest does not stand by Boeing and pivots to another type.

"user361772
6 hours ago

I believe that it was because of SWA that the 737 still exists in the first place: Back in the 90s, Boeing was considering a 737 replacement. It was SWA who killed that idea because of the need of a common pilot rating for all their airplanes. Thus, the 737NG was built instead. The MAX was then created because Boeing didn’t have the time to counter the Airbus NEO in time to be competitive. If not for SWA then, Boeing would be building a narrow body on a newer, taller platform that could house these newer, bigger engines without troubles."

Sancho99504 wrote:

If the pilots were to push WN to buy from another manufacturer....... I wonder what would be the best direction? Gary says the fleet will probably be 60% Max 7 as 73Gs start retiring in 2022. I'm curious to see what the economics of the A220-300 are against the Max 7 and whether a Max 8/A223 combo would be more beneficial to the bottom line than the current plan?

Yes, I get that the upfront costs of inducting a new type into the fleet will be high(spare parts, training, etc) and Airbus might cover a lot of those costs as it would be a greater achievement than getting AA to buy A32X.


We have seen disgruntled unions bring down others in the past and the relationship between union groups and management is far from the glory days. What is Gary going to do to nip this in the bud?

I wonder why so many of the -7? I thought they kept saying the -800 only cost a tiny amount more per hour vs the -700, which is why they had converted the remaining -700 orders to -800s?

TTailedTiger wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

From what I read, and heard, WN management really likes the A220. As we'd all know it would make a much better 700 replacement than the MAX7. I hate to put it like this, however when the MAX dust parts away and settles, WN will be one of the airlines reaping the benefits especially as its highly likely the leasing companies will be looking to place those cancelled frames with SWA.. SWA will likely eventually have a large MAX8 Fleet at a heavily discounted price.. The ONLY issue I’d see SWA having to do something different is if there ends up being an issue of certifying the -7 or -8.

I also HATE HATE HATE to be this blunt, however this MAX paranoia will be around until the next crash occurs, or when something else major happens in the news to take the bad press away. You would have never thought there was a plane crash before the ET 737MAX.

This is just laughable. And tell us, just what kind of data does WN have that could lead them to "really like" the A220? You need to list references.

Without any inside knowledge, I would imagine that WN management would not only being doing themselves a disservice by not being in tune with what else is out there, but their shareholders as well. While the A319 may have its benefits over the 73G and the A320 a slight fuel burn advantage on the longest stage lengths, the cost to add either to the fleet has never been worth the minute savings. The A220 is in a completely different ballpark than the tired 737 vs A320 talk. While the order book isn't huge yet, the opening of a second FAL and an increase in production will make the airplane more popular as airlines will be able to build economies of scale. They can't do that right now when Boeing is delivering more 787s a month than Airbus is A220s. On the other hand, it could be all hearsay.

VS11 wrote:

This is a comment from the Seattle Times forum discussing the article. If this is indeed true and Boeing has made lots of 737 decision because of Southwest, it is somewhat disloyal if Southwest does not stand by Boeing and pivots to another type.

"user361772
6 hours ago

I believe that it was because of SWA that the 737 still exists in the first place: Back in the 90s, Boeing was considering a 737 replacement. It was SWA who killed that idea because of the need of a common pilot rating for all their airplanes. Thus, the 737NG was built instead. The MAX was then created because Boeing didn’t have the time to counter the Airbus NEO in time to be competitive. If not for SWA then, Boeing would be building a narrow body on a newer, taller platform that could house these newer, bigger engines without troubles."

I personally disagree that it was a problem to do the NG. It worked out fabulously for Boeing and of course WN. If a 2011 clean-sheet would have struggled competing against a re-engined A320neo, I'm not sure that a 1997 clean-sheet would have been all that spectacular against the existing A320ceo. They would have spent a lot more and had to charge a lot more, and it's not clear to me that the financial payoff for the airlines at the time would have made up the difference.

People like to somehow "blame" WN for where we are today. WN did what WN needed to do for their shareholders. Boeing did what Boeing needed to do for their shareholders. Either way, it was (and is) up to Boeing, Airbus, etc to design, build, and sell planes that the market wants. Boeing could have done anything they wanted - capitulating to arguably their biggest, most important customer is not necessarily crazy, but it is entirely on them.

Now off to read all the threads about all-A320 airline's getting beat up for being single fleet.....

PlanesNTrains wrote:

People like to somehow "blame" WN for where we are today. WN did what WN needed to do for their shareholders. Boeing did what Boeing needed to do for their shareholders.

If that's the be-all-and-end-all of the argument, then that's about the strongest cast against the mantra of "maximizing shareholder value" that I can think of.

keesje wrote:

jetmechanicdave wrote:

Due to requests we will keep this thread open since the other thread is so many pages. Enjoy and stay on topic...thanks guys.

good decision, you don't wanto drown everything in 1 mega thread.

yeah, after like 10 pages the megathread gets really difficult to follow. and that thread has what, 5k comments now?

Southwest requirements for (no) additional training, including significant penalties seem to have played a role in Boeing not including MCAS in MAX training and manuals.

SurlyBonds wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

People like to somehow "blame" WN for where we are today. WN did what WN needed to do for their shareholders. Boeing did what Boeing needed to do for their shareholders.

If that's the be-all-and-end-all of the argument, then that's about the strongest cast against the mantra of "maximizing shareholder value" that I can think of.

You think the NG was a bad idea?

PlanesNTrains wrote:

VS11 wrote:

This is a comment from the Seattle Times forum discussing the article. If this is indeed true and Boeing has made lots of 737 decision because of Southwest, it is somewhat disloyal if Southwest does not stand by Boeing and pivots to another type.

"user361772
6 hours ago

I believe that it was because of SWA that the 737 still exists in the first place: Back in the 90s, Boeing was considering a 737 replacement. It was SWA who killed that idea because of the need of a common pilot rating for all their airplanes. Thus, the 737NG was built instead. The MAX was then created because Boeing didn’t have the time to counter the Airbus NEO in time to be competitive. If not for SWA then, Boeing would be building a narrow body on a newer, taller platform that could house these newer, bigger engines without troubles."

I personally disagree that it was a problem to do the NG. It worked out fabulously for Boeing and of course WN. If a 2011 clean-sheet would have struggled competing against a re-engined A320neo, I'm not sure that a 1997 clean-sheet would have been all that spectacular against the existing A320ceo. They would have spent a lot more and had to charge a lot more, and it's not clear to me that the financial payoff for the airlines at the time would have made up the difference.

It's not that a 2011 clean sheet woud have struggled against the A320neo, it's that at that time Boeing didn't have time to develop a clean sheet design whilst Airbus was marketing the neo - Had a Clean sheet been started then, it would likely only be going through Flight testing now, and all those Max orders in the backlog would have gone to the neo, as the only alternative in a 'reasonable' delivery timeframe would have been the ageing, 1 and a half tech generations behind, NG design.

Had the clean sheet been developed in the 90s, with 737 classics (80s tech) effectively being just up against the 320ceo (80s tech), there was much less of a generational difference, and Boeing could theoretically have stolen a big march on Airbus in the 150-200 seat market segment.

A220-100 or e190e2,e195e2 in exchange for 737-500
A220-300 or e195e2 in exchange for 737-300,700
A220-500(possibly) for 737-800

Boeing people will kill me!!!

How ironic as the Boeing 737 MAX Chief Technical pilot left Boeing and joined SWA just before this MCAS debacle was discovered. Not saying this is his fault, but it damn well happened on his watch.

TTailedTiger wrote:

SXDFC wrote:

From what I read, and heard, WN management really likes the A220. As we'd all know it would make a much better 700 replacement than the MAX7. I hate to put it like this, however when the MAX dust parts away and settles, WN will be one of the airlines reaping the benefits especially as its highly likely the leasing companies will be looking to place those cancelled frames with SWA.. SWA will likely eventually have a large MAX8 Fleet at a heavily discounted price.. The ONLY issue I’d see SWA having to do something different is if there ends up being an issue of certifying the -7 or -8.

I also HATE HATE HATE to be this blunt, however this MAX paranoia will be around until the next crash occurs, or when something else major happens in the news to take the bad press away. You would have never thought there was a plane crash before the ET 737MAX.

This is just laughable. And tell us, just what kind of data does WN have that could lead them to "really like" the A220? You need to list references.

Gary Kelly said at the DAL Rally that WN likes the A220...something to the effect of its different from everything else and a damn good airplane. So maybe get off your high horse saying something is "laughable".

WN has always and continues to look at all options on paper and in person.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

[...]You think the NG was a bad idea?

You didn`t ask me but that question really matters a lot and I can`t see any clear answer. The short-legged 737NG would never bave been possible without CFM building those very special oval engines with their blown-up cheeks. This way the ground clearance problem had been solved and the NG had been a 99% CFM achievement. From Boeing`s perspective the NG series had been a lazy and very cheap compromise. And the „still good enough“ approach had been extremely profitable back than.

Whatever Boeing spent on the MAX was a drop in the bucket. They could and can keep the 737 alive for whomever wants it and still launch an A321/757 size new aircraft. But, they designed the MAX for the 9, which I believe was not necessary, a bridge to far, and ignoring the obvious design constraint on engine diameter size. A state of the art 65" fan on the 7 and 8 would have been fine for WN and other 737 loylalists.
E195E2 would be a nice addition as a WN passenger.

Bhoy wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

VS11 wrote:

This is a comment from the Seattle Times forum discussing the article. If this is indeed true and Boeing has made lots of 737 decision because of Southwest, it is somewhat disloyal if Southwest does not stand by Boeing and pivots to another type.

"user361772
6 hours ago

I believe that it was because of SWA that the 737 still exists in the first place: Back in the 90s, Boeing was considering a 737 replacement. It was SWA who killed that idea because of the need of a common pilot rating for all their airplanes. Thus, the 737NG was built instead. The MAX was then created because Boeing didn’t have the time to counter the Airbus NEO in time to be competitive. If not for SWA then, Boeing would be building a narrow body on a newer, taller platform that could house these newer, bigger engines without troubles."

I personally disagree that it was a problem to do the NG. It worked out fabulously for Boeing and of course WN. If a 2011 clean-sheet would have struggled competing against a re-engined A320neo, I'm not sure that a 1997 clean-sheet would have been all that spectacular against the existing A320ceo. They would have spent a lot more and had to charge a lot more, and it's not clear to me that the financial payoff for the airlines at the time would have made up the difference.

It's not that a 2011 clean sheet woud have struggled against the A320neo, it's that at that time Boeing didn't have time to develop a clean sheet design whilst Airbus was marketing the neo - Had a Clean sheet been started then, it would likely only be going through Flight testing now, and all those Max orders in the backlog would have gone to the neo, as the only alternative in a 'reasonable' delivery timeframe would have been the ageing, 1 and a half tech generations behind, NG design.

Had the clean sheet been developed in the 90s, with 737 classics (80s tech) effectively being just up against the 320ceo (80s tech), there was much less of a generational difference, and Boeing could theoretically have stolen a big march on Airbus in the 150-200 seat market segment.

I doubt Boeing could see ahead to 2019 and anticipate where we’d be. The conventional wisdom in the 2005-2008 period seemed to be that a clean sheet narrowbody was next in the agenda after the 787 was wrapped up. The NG was going to be a roughly 20 year program and then a clean sheet would take over. That seems like a very logical progression and certainly was likely what everyone was expecting (generally speaking) back in the early 90’s.

Just a clarification. I don't think this F/O was 200 TT pilot, but rather 200 TT in the MAX?

keesje wrote:

Southwest requirements for (no) additional training, including significant penalties seem to have played a role in Boeing not including MCAS in MAX training and manuals.

It was just a miss. Remember that Jim McSlimeball moved the Technical Pubs group to Long Beach a few years ago to a bunch of inexperienced people. After all, experienced employees are just replaceable cogs in his view.

MCAS is intended to be transparent to the pilots, so it wasn’t believed that training was required.

Right or wrong, there were misses and perhaps mistakes, but MCAS was not intentionally hid from the customers due to the no training requirements.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

People like to somehow "blame" WN for where we are today. WN did what WN needed to do for their shareholders. Boeing did what Boeing needed to do for their shareholders.

If that's the be-all-and-end-all of the argument, then that's about the strongest cast against the mantra of "maximizing shareholder value" that I can think of.

You think the NG was a bad idea?

NG was a reasonably good idea.
Going for a "fresh" design would have been better.
One should listen to ones customers but should not fall for them.

BravoOne wrote:

Just a clarification. I don't think this F/O was 200 TT pilot, but rather 200 TT in the MAX?

200+ hours on the 737.

Looks better on the A319 anyway

Southwest Inspects 737 MAX Jet Engines After March Malfunction

https://www.wsj.com/articles/southwest- ... _lead_pos4

I put it here because it has nothing to do with accident or grounding, but it has to do with the 737MAX at Southwest.

quote: The inspections were recommended by the engine’s manufacturer, according to Southwest spokeswoman Brandy King. They came after a Southwest MAX developed engine trouble and was forced to make an emergency landing in Orlando, Fla., on March 26. The plane, which wasn’t carrying passengers, had just taken off and was en route to an aircraft-storage area in Southern California.

I imagine it is not to big bother, as the frames are grounded anyway. It is not a given that there is a problem.

BoeingGuy wrote:

keesje wrote:

Southwest requirements for (no) additional training, including significant penalties seem to have played a role in Boeing not including MCAS in MAX training and manuals.

It was just a miss. Remember that Jim McSlimeball moved the Technical Pubs group to Long Beach a few years ago to a bunch of inexperienced people. After all, experienced employees are just replaceable cogs in his view.

MCAS is intended to be transparent to the pilots, so it wasn’t believed that training was required.

Right or wrong, there were misses and perhaps mistakes, but MCAS was not intentionally hid from the customers due to the no training requirements.

I would say thanks for the laugh but with over 300 people dead that'd be pretty callous.

'Intended to be transparent'? Are you actually serious? You have a very different definition of transparent to the one most of us are familiar with. Even one of Boeing's test pilots has been quoted saying he wasn't briefed on it.

It was completely necessary for it not to be transparent to achieve their goal of no additional type rating requirement. I hope to god there aren't people at Boeing hoping they can still pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but their last statement regarding MCAS doesn't give me much hope they have learned anything.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

keesje wrote:

Southwest requirements for (no) additional training, including significant penalties seem to have played a role in Boeing not including MCAS in MAX training and manuals.

It was just a miss. Remember that Jim McSlimeball moved the Technical Pubs group to Long Beach a few years ago to a bunch of inexperienced people. After all, experienced employees are just replaceable cogs in his view.

MCAS is intended to be transparent to the pilots, so it wasn’t believed that training was required.

Right or wrong, there were misses and perhaps mistakes, but MCAS was not intentionally hid from the customers due to the no training requirements.

I would say thanks for the laugh but with over 300 people dead that'd be pretty callous.

'Intended to be transparent'? Are you actually serious? You have a very different definition of transparent to the one most of us are familiar with. Even one of Boeing's test pilots has been quoted saying he wasn't briefed on it.

It was completely necessary for it not to be transparent to achieve their goal of no additional type rating requirement. I hope to god there aren't people at Boeing hoping they can still pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but their last statement regarding MCAS doesn't give me much hope they have learned anything.

Not sure what your point is. I know a bit more about the system and its history and intent than “experts” like you do.

I stated it as it is. It was not intentionally hid because it wasn’t believe to be a big issue.

Apparently you haven’t bothered to read to media before making pointless emotional statements. MCAS is being significant redesigned (I’m well familiar with the changes) and it’s being added to the FCOM age training.

LAX772LR wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

I would imagine that WN management would not only being doing themselves a disservice by not being in tune with what else is out there

You ARE imagining it... seeing as WN holds meetings with non-Boeing OEMs all the time.

John Leahy used to joke about how often Airbus would visit WN with proposals, saying that (paraphrasing) WN would need to order 100 planes just to cover the cost of all the trips and meetings we've had with them.

Just because they haven't ordered another product, doesn't mean they aren't well versed on (1) what's out there and (2) what the numbers would be if they did or didn't add it to their fleet.

BoeingGuy wrote:

It was just a miss.

Yeah? Tell that to them:

What’s your point? It was a mistake. No-one is happy or proud of what happened. Do you think anyone at Boeing feels good now?

Does it just make you feel like a bigger man to stick it in everyone’s face with your pointless theatrics?

Everybody can and does make mistakes. Clearly Boeing did with the MAX, but it is not like they do it all the time. Every new model has its glitches, but they do get worked out. It is unfortunate that the MAX got grounded over this; I do not think it was necessary, but it obviously was not my decision. It WILL get sorted out, and hopefully soon. And while it has been a big inconvenience for WN, fortunately it happened while they had comparatively few MAXs in the fleet. And so having only one type in the fleet is not really an issue; if they had a mixed fleet and one type got grounded they would be in the same fix they are in now. It’s not like ALL 737s were grounded. And just going by history that is highly unlikely to ever happen. When was the last time a type was grounded, not counting the 787 battery issue? The last I remember was the DC-10 after AA191, and that was in 1979. Unless you believe that Boeing has totally forgotten how to build safe planes, it is not likely to happen again soon. You can be sure that there are many red faces among Boeing engineers and managers, and they are going to do all in their power to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

It was just a miss. Remember that Jim McSlimeball moved the Technical Pubs group to Long Beach a few years ago to a bunch of inexperienced people. After all, experienced employees are just replaceable cogs in his view.

MCAS is intended to be transparent to the pilots, so it wasn’t believed that training was required.

Right or wrong, there were misses and perhaps mistakes, but MCAS was not intentionally hid from the customers due to the no training requirements.

I would say thanks for the laugh but with over 300 people dead that'd be pretty callous.

'Intended to be transparent'? Are you actually serious? You have a very different definition of transparent to the one most of us are familiar with. Even one of Boeing's test pilots has been quoted saying he wasn't briefed on it.

It was completely necessary for it not to be transparent to achieve their goal of no additional type rating requirement. I hope to god there aren't people at Boeing hoping they can still pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but their last statement regarding MCAS doesn't give me much hope they have learned anything.

Not sure what your point is. I know a bit more about the system and its history and intent than “experts” like you do.

I stated it as it is. It was not intentionally hid because it wasn’t believe to be a big issue.

Apparently you haven’t bothered to read to media before making pointless emotional statements. MCAS is being significant redesigned (I’m well familiar with the changes) and it’s being added to the FCOM age training.

With all due respect, I think everyone here will be treating the comment of anyone heavily involved with MCAS with quite some suspicion right now. You do know what transparent means? Pilots were not informed about MCAS. You can say it wasn't 'intentionally hidden' but that sure as hell isn't transparent.

Not sure what you mean about media I'm well aware MCAS is being redesigned. Whoopdy doo, you must be proud. Out of interest when you were there during its development, did anyone ever ask what would happen if an AoA sensor failed? Your words seem rather out of line with other accounts of the development of MCAS perhaps you haven't read the media?

LAX772LR wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

What’s your point?

That dismissing it as such was kind of a douchebag thing to say.

BoeingGuy wrote:

No-one is happy

Ehhh, sure about that?

BoeingGuy wrote:

Does it just make you feel like a bigger man to stick it in everyone’s face with your pointless theatrics?

Not everyone, just you.

No you are just your usual annoying bully self. You have to get the last word. You tell me who you think is happy at Boeing about what has happened?

What is douchy? That I stated no one intentionally intended for people to die?

BoeingGuy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Sancho99504 wrote:

I would imagine that WN management would not only being doing themselves a disservice by not being in tune with what else is out there

You ARE imagining it... seeing as WN holds meetings with non-Boeing OEMs all the time.

John Leahy used to joke about how often Airbus would visit WN with proposals, saying that (paraphrasing) WN would need to order 100 planes just to cover the cost of all the trips and meetings we've had with them.

Just because they haven't ordered another product, doesn't mean they aren't well versed on (1) what's out there and (2) what the numbers would be if they did or didn't add it to their fleet.

BoeingGuy wrote:

It was just a miss.

Yeah? Tell that to them:

What’s your point? It was a mistake. No-one is happy or proud of what happened. Do you think anyone at Boeing feels good now?

Does it just make you feel like a bigger man to stick it in everyone’s face with your pointless theatrics?

I didn't see any pointless theatrics. I've had my runs ins with LAX772LR before but I'm completely with them on this. And it's been clear from some of the discussion of these disasters here, and Boeing's PR driven reaction, that some people really do need to be reminded of what actually happened to those people and the thousands more whose lives have been wrecked.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

I would say thanks for the laugh but with over 300 people dead that'd be pretty callous.

'Intended to be transparent'? Are you actually serious? You have a very different definition of transparent to the one most of us are familiar with. Even one of Boeing's test pilots has been quoted saying he wasn't briefed on it.

It was completely necessary for it not to be transparent to achieve their goal of no additional type rating requirement. I hope to god there aren't people at Boeing hoping they can still pull the wool over everyone's eyes, but their last statement regarding MCAS doesn't give me much hope they have learned anything.

Not sure what your point is. I know a bit more about the system and its history and intent than “experts” like you do.

I stated it as it is. It was not intentionally hid because it wasn’t believe to be a big issue.

Apparently you haven’t bothered to read to media before making pointless emotional statements. MCAS is being significant redesigned (I’m well familiar with the changes) and it’s being added to the FCOM age training.

With all due respect, I think everyone here will be treating the comment of anyone heavily involved with MCAS with quite some suspicion right now. You do know what transparent means? Pilots were not informed about MCAS. You can say it wasn't 'intentionally hidden' but that sure as hell isn't transparent.

Not sure what you mean about media I'm well aware MCAS is being redesigned. Whoopdy doo, you must be proud. Out of interest when you were there during its development, did anyone ever ask what would happen if an AoA sensor failed? Your words seem rather out of line with other accounts of the development of MCAS perhaps you haven't read the media?

I wasn’t there during the development. I don’t know whether that was considered. I was on a different program. I have my own opinions on it.

I don’t need to read the media to know what is going on. . The media has fabricated a lot of stuff that isn’t accurate.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

You ARE imagining it... seeing as WN holds meetings with non-Boeing OEMs all the time.

John Leahy used to joke about how often Airbus would visit WN with proposals, saying that (paraphrasing) WN would need to order 100 planes just to cover the cost of all the trips and meetings we've had with them.

Just because they haven't ordered another product, doesn't mean they aren't well versed on (1) what's out there and (2) what the numbers would be if they did or didn't add it to their fleet.



Yeah? Tell that to them:

What’s your point? It was a mistake. No-one is happy or proud of what happened. Do you think anyone at Boeing feels good now?

Does it just make you feel like a bigger man to stick it in everyone’s face with your pointless theatrics?

I didn't see any pointless theatrics. I've had my runs ins with LAX772LR before but I'm completely with them on this. And it's been clear from some of the discussion of these disasters here, and Boeing's PR driven reaction, that some people really do need to be reminded of what actually happened to those people and the thousands more whose lives have been wrecked.

I’ll say it again. No-one at Boeing is having an easy time now. No-one is not fully aware of the loss of life.

Just not sure what you expect people to say.

At least your replies are well written and you can have an intelligent debate and not resort to childish and bullying insults and attacks like someone else: