In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines. Now, all of the sudden they want to add another airplane type?

Something doesn't add up here.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

N776AU wrote:

Looks better on the A319 anyway

Maybe after WN puts B6 out of their misery once and for all via merger (sorry, couldn't resist). And, no, it looks much better on a 738, thank you very little.

Getting back on topic (relatively speaking), I don't know that you can't make the same arguments about the A320-family and how Airbus is essentially doing the same thing with the A320neo as Boeing is doing with the 737MAX. Yes, I get that the 737 has been around a lot longer than the 320s, but there's something to be said about a significant number of airlines around the world who still chose the 737MAX (before the accidents, obviously) instead of either waiting for Boeing to clean sheet a replacement for the line or opting for the 320.

A no. The A320 had room to mount the larger engines under the wing in a normal position. Thus not having 2 conflicting & Boeing admitted issues. 1: the engine had to be moved further forward & tilted upward to fit under the wing. This caused it to nose up during standard flight. 2: It also increases chance of creating wing stall due to the engine being to far forward. Combined it makes it easier & increases the chance of a stall. If they spent the extra development to increase main gear length allowing the engine to be mounted in the standard style this would not have happened. This was all a cost saving measure to save money and it cost 300+ lives. This is fully on Boeing. It saddens me that my fave plane most of my life was cheapened down to this level.

Bradin wrote:

In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines. Now, all of the sudden they want to add another airplane type?

Something doesn't add up here.

Considering the rumors about WN considering the (as of now, still hypothetical) 797 before the 3M8 grounding, I can't think it's that much of a shock. As has been suggested upthread, WN has always looked at other options despite the CEO's public assertions that WN will be an all-737 fleet for as long as he was in charge. Whether or not the 3M8 issues accelerate a new plane into the WN fleet is open to debate.

BoeingGuy wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

Regarding single fleets as far as I can remember every grounding or major issue with a commercial plane occurred early and somewhat shortly after introduction. One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred. It takes substantial time for an airline to aquire a major fleet of a particular type. Planes are manufactured rather slowly compared to other goods. Most risk would be proportionally spread towards early adopters. Of course early adopters get pricing breaks, benefit of the new type and the panach / notoriety of being first. So it balances out.

The chance of a type in service a long period of time having a major issue causing a grounding seems rather low. Chances are low for any major problems to begin with and as the type rapidly builds hours in service the chance of any problems decreases substantially.

Personally I would be more concerned about engine manufacturers and issues than frames. Which brings up another interesting point...many of the components on aircraft come form a small handful of manufacturers. It would be interesting to see how much commonality or close commonality there is between Boeing and Airbus. I’m sure they share many components. I.e Goodyear, Honeywell ect

What other grounding have occurred? 787, DC-10, and L-188 Electra come to mind. Was the Comet grounded? The 787 is the only grounding I can think of in which no-one was ever hurt.

The 787 and Electra turned out to be excellent airplanes after the fixes were in place.

You forgot AA MD80 groundings a couple years back due to AA running a wiring bundle though the wrong location in the wheel well.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

What I don't understand is that, even before the MAX crashes, it always seemed to be all-Boeing fleets that get the negativity. Like you'd see "Why are Southwest/Ryanair/Alaska etc. all Boeing" threads, but almost never "why is easyJet all-Airbus?" or threads to that effect. In fact the only "why are these fleets all-Airbus?" thread I even recall reading was the one a while back about the Philippine aviation market being dominated by Airbus. Like why are people here so mad about all-737 fleets but rarely do you see people complaining about all-A320 fleets? Not even a Boeing or Airbus fanboy, just an observation.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Was the Comet grounded?

It indeed was, hence those testings they did where they put a Comet in a water tank and filled the tank with water until the frame was destroyed.

Yes a test now done on all pressurized commercial airliners.

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Bradin wrote:

In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines. Now, all of the sudden they want to add another airplane type?

Something doesn't add up here.

Considering the rumors about WN considering the (as of now, still hypothetical) 797 before the 3M8 grounding, I can't think it's that much of a shock. As has been suggested upthread, WN has always looked at other options despite the CEO's public assertions that WN will be an all-737 fleet for as long as he was in charge. Whether or not the 3M8 issues accelerate a new plane into the WN fleet is open to debate.

eExcept for 1979 to 1987 when it leased and operated several Boeing 727-200s from Braniff International Airways. Thus they did operate other models that were not part of a merger in thier mainline fleet. 8 years removes the exclusive work horse comment from the equation.

Bradin wrote:

In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines.

Except that (1) WN hasn't had 737s all 52yrs, (2) they've operated 727s, and (3) Herb pushed Boeing hard for 752s at 733 prices, yet was refused... he long maintained that if he'd gotten the price he wanted, he would've happily added the second type.

rbavfan wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

Regarding single fleets as far as I can remember every grounding or major issue with a commercial plane occurred early and somewhat shortly after introduction. One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred. It takes substantial time for an airline to aquire a major fleet of a particular type. Planes are manufactured rather slowly compared to other goods. Most risk would be proportionally spread towards early adopters. Of course early adopters get pricing breaks, benefit of the new type and the panach / notoriety of being first. So it balances out.

The chance of a type in service a long period of time having a major issue causing a grounding seems rather low. Chances are low for any major problems to begin with and as the type rapidly builds hours in service the chance of any problems decreases substantially.

Personally I would be more concerned about engine manufacturers and issues than frames. Which brings up another interesting point...many of the components on aircraft come form a small handful of manufacturers. It would be interesting to see how much commonality or close commonality there is between Boeing and Airbus. I’m sure they share many components. I.e Goodyear, Honeywell ect

What other grounding have occurred? 787, DC-10, and L-188 Electra come to mind. Was the Comet grounded? The 787 is the only grounding I can think of in which no-one was ever hurt.

The 787 and Electra turned out to be excellent airplanes after the fixes were in place.

You forgot AA MD80 groundings a couple years back due to AA running a wiring bundle though the wrong location in the wheel well.

I remember that one. Hint hint. But that was a maintenance issue and not a manufacturer issue. Also was blown way way way out of proportion. It really was a nothing burger that ended up being a very expensive oops. But if I remember correctly it had to do with spacing of wire tires and the interpretation of the FAA vs maint of some wording in th AD. I might be a little off but that’s my recollection.

Looking at specifications and requirements, the A220-300 seems a very good option for replacing most of the 500 SW 737-700s <150 seats. Looking at development, supply chain and assembly the A220-300 isn't much Airbus.



The only viable responds from Boeing seems to be putting their full weight behind an E2 close to 150 seats in a realistic SW specification.

Bradin wrote:

In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines. Now, all of the sudden they want to add another airplane type?

Something doesn't add up here.

Times and requirements are changing. I don’t see them taking the 797 right away, but the 737MAX10 and the newest Embraer can be added

BoeingGuy wrote:

I was specifically responding to allegations that the information was intentionally omitted. No it wasn’t.

It was a miss, not an intentional effort to deceive the customers. I wasn’t dismissing the losses. Sorry if I didn’t word it exactly the way you prefer. Hence, why I think you are kind of a bully.

All indications point to MCAS info being intentionally held back.
( EASA demanding mentioning in the docs and though assured that ... this never happened,
Brazil the same .. but they apparently got the info included in their local domain. language barrier inhibiting proliferation. )

Looking at the fall out it was intentional ommision to not need difference training ( in a simulator and/or other way )
to avoid penalty payments to certain customers.

What is not clear ( to me ) why Boeing went out of its way ( did they, actually? ) to botch the implementation in such a "disinterested" way.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

If you genuinely believe its impossible that corporate management at one of the worlds largest companies behaved in sociopathic ways...I have a bridge to sell you. Their behaviour ever since Lionair has more or less proven the complete lack of empathy there.

This is not a Boeing criticism, it is a criticism of behaviours rewarded by corporations everywhere. The same types of personalities appear in the top positions in corporations everywhere. As someone said earlier it helps in becoming president. The US is particularly keen on rewarding alpha behaviour, and it takes some getting used to that bragging about your achievements is considered normal by Americans if you're not from there, which actually explains a lot of posts in this thread but the UK is equally guilty in having a system that rewards undesirable character traits.

In any case, we'll see what the actual criminal investigations come up with. They obviously think there is something to look into.

What exactly would you expect a large company leadership to say in a situation like this?

What did happen after Lion Air was a complete review of the issue and new software design. Tragically ET happened before it was implemented. Is that sociopathic?

Well yeh exactly, it seems Lionair proved something went very, very wrong in the design of this plane. And what did Boeing do when it crashed? Launch an insidious PR campaign against Lionair maintanence. They might have got away with it if it didn't then happen to another airline with a damn good safety record. Making a safe plane safer eh?

Statistics say some of the management of Boeing are sociopaths. If you choose to believe Boeing are an exception that's up to you, but some of what I've seen from them rather confirms it to me.

I'm pretty sure Airbus has a larger Management team than Boeing - statistics would say a bunch of them are Sociopaths as well. Let's just hope none of the German Auto Industry Execs have transferred to Airbus.

morrisond wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

What exactly would you expect a large company leadership to say in a situation like this?

What did happen after Lion Air was a complete review of the issue and new software design. Tragically ET happened before it was implemented. Is that sociopathic?

Well yeh exactly, it seems Lionair proved something went very, very wrong in the design of this plane. And what did Boeing do when it crashed? Launch an insidious PR campaign against Lionair maintanence. They might have got away with it if it didn't then happen to another airline with a damn good safety record. Making a safe plane safer eh?

Statistics say some of the management of Boeing are sociopaths. If you choose to believe Boeing are an exception that's up to you, but some of what I've seen from them rather confirms it to me.

I'm pretty sure Airbus has a larger Management team than Boeing - statistics would say a bunch of them are Sociopaths as well. Let's just hope none of the German Auto Industry Execs have transferred to Airbus.

Schmidt went or is going to jail, as those should at Boring who responsible for hiding this max issue as well if they deliberately hid or deliberately underplayed this problem to prevent a new type rating being needed.

WIederling wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

I was specifically responding to allegations that the information was intentionally omitted. No it wasn’t.

It was a miss, not an intentional effort to deceive the customers. I wasn’t dismissing the losses. Sorry if I didn’t word it exactly the way you prefer. Hence, why I think you are kind of a bully.

All indications point to MCAS info being intentionally held back.
( EASA demanding mentioning in the docs and though assured that ... this never happened,
Brazil the same .. but they apparently got the info included in their local domain. language barrier inhibiting proliferation. )

Looking at the fall out it was intentional ommision to not need difference training ( in a simulator and/or other way )
to avoid penalty payments to certain customers.

What is not clear ( to me ) why Boeing went out of its way ( did they, actually? ) to botch the implementation in such a "disinterested" way.

The really simple explanation that makes sense to me is that if you assume the MCAS description from 737.org.uk is right (I do) and that MCAS is just a feel system to counteract the Controls getting light at High AOA's of attack making it easier to pull into a stall - it can understand the disinterest.

A system to get rid of this trait was probably not considered that critical Boeing as it was not really a safety of flight issue. I believe Boeing assumed Pilots could walk and chew gum at the same time and if they found themselves in a situation where they pulled the controls back too far the stall warning horn - the stick shaker and the frame buffeting would give them more than enough warning to prevent a stall and they probably thought MCAS wasn't really needed - however the new FAR that was brought in place after the NG was certified required them to compensate for the light control feel.

I believe Boeing saw this as such a minor issue they did not put as many resources into it as they should have in retrospect. In practise the odds of it ever triggering (without other system failures) were so low (it's quite hard to get close to really stalling any commercial aircraft).

Boeing should have taken it a lot more seriously - but I don't believe MCAS was really needed and even though a properly working MCAS system would make a safe plane safer - the increase in safety is so minuscule (when was the last time a Commercial pilot stalled a properly functioning Commercial airplane). It could be viewed as Overregulation made a simple system more complex than needed for no real increase in safety.

Even with my call for better training WORLDWIDE - I don't believe any pilot would ever get in a situation with a MAX that didn't have an MCAS system that would result in a safety of flight issue due to loss of control if they pulled too hard on the control column - they are way too many other warnings of the approaching stall to believe this would ever happen and result in a crash.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

Option C. Analysis was based on existing procedures for runaway trim which were substantially the same as for the NG to effectively mitigate MCAS.

This is correct and exactly what happened.

So they used the same analysis for a new system with different behaviour. Interesting. Runaway trim of course was not a response to angle of attack error.it rather heightens the work load if you have both at the same time when you've just taken off no? Oh and then there's Boeing's own just released statements that the 8MAX won't perform well at hot and high airports (when they were trying to flog the -7).I wonder if they told Ethiopian airlines that? They might regret putting that in writing.

You do understand that all Aircraft have something called Performance tables? I'm pretty sure Ethiopian read them and determined that the MAX 8 was more than good enough for the mission they intended.

Yes - in general - shorter/lighter versions of an airplane with the same wing and thrust will be better out of Hot and high airports.

However at certain airports hot and high airports with insufficient runway length - certain models of aircraft may be required to take off at less than MTOW.

These are not special physics that only apply to Boeing's - they apply to all aircraft. An A321 won't be as good out of hot and high as an 319

Bradin wrote:

In 52 years, the 737 has been the exclusive work horse of Southwest Airlines. Now, all of the sudden they want to add another airplane type?

Something doesn't add up here.

What doesn't add up is due to a lack of comprehension.

"Southwest pilots" is an accurate phrase to use, because the article quotes officials from both WN and AA pilot unions, shortly after these officials had meetings with senior FAA officials.

Yet those gentlemen don't necessarily present the consensus view of all WN and AA pilots, just like your local politician doesn't necessarily present the consensus view of his constituency.

As union officials, they often find themselves in adversarial relationships with the company and its positions.

Both sides obviously want the pilots to have confidence in the forthcoming MAX fix, but clearly the company would want to do that with the least possible cost whereas the pilots would want to do that with the most intensive training possible.

Therefore to make the cost of intense training look small, the pilot union heads float the notion of something far more costly, which would be changing fleet types.

Everyone knows changing fleets is not feasible, but still, suggesting this got the company's attention, and it got your attention, and it generated lots of clicks for the Seattle Times, so all is good.

TL:DR; Click bait.

keesje wrote:

Looking at specifications and requirements, the A220-300 seems a very good option for replacing most of the 500 SW 737-700s <150 seats. Looking at development, supply chain and assembly the A220-300 isn't much Airbus.



The only viable responds from Boeing seems to be putting their full weight behind an E2 close to 150 seats in a realistic SW specification.

Except that they are up sizing any retired -700s to max 8s right now. Most of the -700 fleet is young enough to serve that size requirement for quite some time.

By the time Southwest needs a 150 seat replacement the A220 will be ready for an NEO and the Boeing/Embraer JV will have a new plane in that size class.

Your theory assumes WN needs to order a new 150 seat aircraft within the next 5 years and they just don't need to. They have 513 -700s right now and 246 more MAX 8s on order (plus the 30 MAX 7s which may be converted). They can grow the fleet by 150 planes AND retire 136 -700s.

Bottom line is that the next time WN puts out an RFP, the A220 will not be the only good option for 150 seats.

Planetalk wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

What I don't understand is that, even before the MAX crashes, it always seemed to be all-Boeing fleets that get the negativity. Like you'd see "Why are Southwest/Ryanair/Alaska etc. all Boeing" threads, but almost never "why is easyJet all-Airbus?" or threads to that effect. In fact the only "why are these fleets all-Airbus?" thread I even recall reading was the one a while back about the Philippine aviation market being dominated by Airbus. Like why are people here so mad about all-737 fleets but rarely do you see people complaining about all-A320 fleets? Not even a Boeing or Airbus fanboy, just an observation.

I think this is what we call confirmation bias i.e. you only notice/remember things that support your already formed hypothesis. or when you're aware of something you suddenly start seeing it everywhere. There are thousands of examples on the forum of claims that Airlines only chose Airbus because of huge discounts and such like. Indeed there was a thread recently I think about Vivaaerobus switching to all airbus.

I think there's some confusion or perhaps a bit of conflating of the various positions in this and other threads. There's the "XYZ airline only ever buys Airbus/Boeing, etc." Then there's the "If airline X is all-737, they should really diversify" vs "If airline Y is all-A320....crickets". The former is the one's discussed for the entire existence of A.net, while the latter seems to be a more recent phenomenon. For example, Alaska has gotten continual flak for putting a "Proudly All Boeing" sticker on their fleet, yet I just saw a recently an airline highlight their "all-A320 fleet" or some such - and crickets.

What can you do....

william wrote:

I don't think there will be criminal investigations but there will be quite few cleaning out their desks. I doubt it will be publicized.

There is enough indication that there was a motivation to keep the MCAS implementation on the down-low for commercial reasons. When you have motivation, implementation, then hundreds of deaths all linked together, I think a criminal investigation is likely warranted. That doesn't mean they're guilty, but 'hush-hush just fire so-and-so' is chicken shit stuff when something like this situation arises. The dead and their families deserve better - and by better, I mean a full investigation into what went on inside of Boeing. If it's all innocent stupidity, fine. I'm just not convinced at all that that's the case.

So - if WN pilots want to use this as some sort of leveraging stick, so be it. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon but anything can happen.

planecane wrote:

Except that they are up sizing any retired -700s to max 8s right now. Most of the -700 fleet is young enough to serve that size requirement for quite some time.

By the time Southwest needs a 150 seat replacement the A220 will be ready for an NEO and the Boeing/Embraer JV will have a new plane in that size class.

Your theory assumes WN needs to order a new 150 seat aircraft within the next 5 years and they just don't need to. They have 513 -700s right now and 246 more MAX 8s on order (plus the 30 MAX 7s which may be converted). They can grow the fleet by 150 planes AND retire 136 -700s.

Bottom line is that the next time WN puts out an RFP, the A220 will not be the only good option for 150 seats.

Expect extreme push back on this suggestion, since it derails the narrative that there must be a way for Airbus to break Boeing's strangle hold on WN's fleet. I personally don't see why some find WN's all Boeing fleet to be so annoying, annoying to the point that we see attempts to leverage the MAX crisis to support the narrative. Lots of operators have single model or single brand fleets for obvious, sound economic reasons, yet WN's choice seems to draw so much attention and others do not. We don't see people pushing for U2 or B6 to move to Boeing, yet we keep seeing people pushing for WN to move to Airbus, or at least go mixed fleet. I guess it's just part of the climate here on a.net.

Ok. The pilots union head says some members of his union are “concerned”. IOW Give us more money and we will be back to happy. Do we have a “snore” emoticon here?

Of course, we haven’t had a trollish Boeing bashing thread in the last hour so why not throw more chum in the water? Only about a dozen MAX threads on the first page after all. I mean why isn’t BA bankrupt already? And then I saw the OP’s identity and all was obvious. Drain circling.

What time does the Masters coverage start?

Some information to consider with regard to how WN's CEO feels about going to a mixed fleet:

Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly wrote:

Beyond Hawaii, we've got 50 more destinations that we are continuing to monitor and examine and consider for Southwest service. That won't be all in a year. That will be over a long period of time. That equates to the potential to add 500 more aircraft, more 737 aircraft to our fleet, and these are all expansion opportunities in North America and South America, all of that is dependent upon continuing to maintain low cost, low fares, and of course, high flying service.
...
So, we've got a medium-sized narrow-body fleet. If you think about bigger or smaller, I think the smaller is, we've looked at many times and always concluded that the cost and the market opportunity just weren't right for us and it was also a distraction from what has now turned out to be over the past 5 years, a vast opportunity to continue to grow with just what we've got. The 737 is going to do the mission just fine to Hawaii. We don't have Europe on our list. It could do that mission potentially as well. Does that eventually lead to bigger airplane ideas? Maybe. But I've told everybody who asked that we are not spending any time looking at anything in terms of size different than what we have.

So the A220 fits into that in terms of the eligible to look at. And again, we've been talking and looking at that, but it's simply a long –it's just admitting that we have a duty to examine that. But right now there's no plan at all to deviate from our fleet strategy

This is right from the horse's mouth.

His (projected) 500 more aircraft are going to be more 737 aircraft.

They've looked at smaller aircraft and concluded the cost and opportunity aren't right for them.

In fact he's called the examination of smaller aircraft a distraction that takes away from what they've done well for the last five years!

Dang, they had an entire fleet of efficient (for their time) 717s in house, and could not make it work.

They ended up paying one of their biggest competitors to take them off their hands!

If that doesn't tell you what the true situation is, you just aren't listening.

Of course he's going to say good things about Airbus products and say he's always going to be evaluating them, but read what he said: he's doing that out of a sense of duty.

Basically he wants leverage to negotiate with Boeing and he wants to be able to react to any competitor who operates Airbus.

With regard to Airbus, he's being diligent and polite, but that's it.

This isn't opinion, this is me quoting WN's CEO ( ref: posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=21151847 )

Sounds like a plug to merge with B6?

Fly

Revelation wrote:

If that doesn't tell you what the true situation is, you just aren't listening.

With due respect, you are the one who is not listening. This is not about the economics of single-type fleets or the appropriateness of other types to Southwest business model.

This is about the outsize influence Boeing has on the industry, its relationship with the FAA and its customers. The industry has become way too complacent and the FAA too cozy with the parties it is supposed to regulate: both Boeing and Southwest in this case. There is no way to sugarcoat this gargantuan MAX certification failure.

What's bizarre is that Southwest had its own issues of being too cozy with the FAA:
FAA Whistleblowers: Southwest Probes Stymied
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/sto ... d=89328997

I don't want to speak on behalf of the pilots but it looks to me they are simply wondering at this point whom they can trust - their employer Southwest, their regulator FAA or their manufacturer Boeing - all three of them being way too cozy. Clearly, they are having a hard time trusting either.

Obviously UA, AA and DL (all bigger to much bigger than WN) didn’t get that memo about sucking up to Boeing and the FAA then did they? Hard to claim outside undue influence there. Don’t I read every other post here about how great Airbus is doing (and don’t they have a much bigger backlog?). That article is not one of Gates best, more a hodgepodge of all the negativity surrounding Boeing at the moment. When I read it I thought for a second his byline had been hacked by someone with a German IP address. :rofl:

Bricktop wrote:

Obviously UA, AA and DL (all bigger to much bigger than WN) didn’t get that memo about sucking up to Boeing and the FAA then did they? Hard to claim outside undue influence there. Don’t I read every other post here about how great Airbus is doing (and don’t they have a much bigger backlog?). That article is not one of Gates best, more a hodgepodge of all the negativity surrounding Boeing at the moment. When I read it I thought for a second his byline had been hacked by someone with a German IP address. :rofl:

I don't know if you are replying to me but this is from the article:
"Among “numerous questions posed to SWAPA” after the crashes, Weaks wrote, his pilots as well as Wall Street analysts have discussed “the advantages and disadvantages of an airline having a single fleet and having aircraft from only one manufacturer.”
He also referred to Boeing’s size and enormous influence in the aerospace world “and the antitrust issues that accompany this long-overlooked issue.”

TWA772LR wrote:

AIRT0M wrote:

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.

I dont have personal friendships with these guys, just overheard conversations and would talk to pilots on outbound flights I worked. That said, I know Southwest (just like the other US majors) has very good pilots. I met one who was a B2 pilot (they are hand selected from other planes to fly those), and a AF Academy grad who flew F15s in the Gulf War, became a test pilot for the F22 and F35, then flew the Space Shuttle.

Planetalk wrote:

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.

To tack on a counter argument to what I said above, pilots do tend to see themselves as know-it-all's with a skygod attitude. But at the end of the day I'd rather be in a plane during an emergency with a WN (or any US3) crew than a 200TT FO.

You meant an astronaut? Woah!

PlanesNTrains wrote:

william wrote:

I don't think there will be criminal investigations but there will be quite few cleaning out their desks. I doubt it will be publicized.

There is enough indication that there was a motivation to keep the MCAS implementation on the down-low for commercial reasons. When you have motivation, implementation, then hundreds of deaths all linked together, I think a criminal investigation is likely warranted. That doesn't mean they're guilty, but 'hush-hush just fire so-and-so' is chicken shit stuff when something like this situation arises. The dead and their families deserve better - and by better, I mean a full investigation into what went on inside of Boeing. If it's all innocent stupidity, fine. I'm just not convinced at all that that's the case.

So - if WN pilots want to use this as some sort of leveraging stick, so be it. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon but anything can happen.

Has there ever been criminal investigations of an aircraft manufacturer before? Or an airline?

This is just insane. I'll make an attempt to stop this nonsense right here and now (I know I'll regret it)

Here is the exact quote from the SWAPA President -

Closer to home, the advantages and disadvantages of an airline having a single fleet and having aircraft from only one manufacturer are already being discussed in the media, on Wall Street, by the aviation industry, and by SWAPA members. It is a very complex issue, both financially and safety-wise.

SWAPA members. Line pilots - have wondered aloud about it, both the pros and cons. Big deal - should that be any surprise?? This wasn't pressure from the union in some organized fashion, it was the President acknowledging that some pilots have discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a single fleet.

He said nothing about the union approaching the company in any way.

Talk about negligence, this reporter needs to take an English comprehension class before approaching their keyboard again.

This article falls in line with just about all reporting on this - If it bleeds, it leads.

Revelation wrote:

planecane wrote:

Except that they are up sizing any retired -700s to max 8s right now. Most of the -700 fleet is young enough to serve that size requirement for quite some time.

By the time Southwest needs a 150 seat replacement the A220 will be ready for an NEO and the Boeing/Embraer JV will have a new plane in that size class.

Your theory assumes WN needs to order a new 150 seat aircraft within the next 5 years and they just don't need to. They have 513 -700s right now and 246 more MAX 8s on order (plus the 30 MAX 7s which may be converted). They can grow the fleet by 150 planes AND retire 136 -700s.

Bottom line is that the next time WN puts out an RFP, the A220 will not be the only good option for 150 seats.

Expect extreme push back on this suggestion, since it derails the narrative that there must be a way for Airbus to break Boeing's strangle hold on WN's fleet. I personally don't see why some find WN's all Boeing fleet to be so annoying, annoying to the point that we see attempts to leverage the MAX crisis to support the narrative. Lots of operators have single model or single brand fleets for obvious, sound economic reasons, yet WN's choice seems to draw so much attention and others do not. We don't see people pushing for U2 or B6 to move to Boeing, yet we keep seeing people pushing for WN to move to Airbus, or at least go mixed fleet. I guess it's just part of the climate here on a.net.

IMO, its gone from annoying to entertaining to read and predictable as one pops up every 30 days it seems like.

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

If you genuinely believe its impossible that corporate management at one of the worlds largest companies behaved in sociopathic ways...I have a bridge to sell you. Their behaviour ever since Lionair has more or less proven the complete lack of empathy there.

This is not a Boeing criticism, it is a criticism of behaviours rewarded by corporations everywhere. The same types of personalities appear in the top positions in corporations everywhere. As someone said earlier it helps in becoming president. The US is particularly keen on rewarding alpha behaviour, and it takes some getting used to that bragging about your achievements is considered normal by Americans if you're not from there, which actually explains a lot of posts in this thread but the UK is equally guilty in having a system that rewards undesirable character traits.

In any case, we'll see what the actual criminal investigations come up with. They obviously think there is something to look into.

What exactly would you expect a large company leadership to say in a situation like this?

What did happen after Lion Air was a complete review of the issue and new software design. Tragically ET happened before it was implemented. Is that sociopathic?

Well yeh exactly, it seems Lionair proved something went very, very wrong in the design of this plane. And what did Boeing do when it crashed? Launch an insidious PR campaign against Lionair maintanence. They might have got away with it if it didn't then happen to another airline with a damn good safety record. Making a safe plane safer eh?

Statistics say some of the management of Boeing are sociopaths. If you choose to believe Boeing are an exception that's up to you, but some of what I've seen from them rather confirms it to me.

There is very much truth to that, whether you want to be in denial or not.

The airworthiness of the replaced AOA Vane is in question. Further, it was installed out of calibration. In addition, Lion Air didn’t properly perform the maintenance or testing steps as specified in the AMM.

Be clear in this. Lion Air dispatched an airplane that was not airworthy. It left the gate with a faulty AOA Vane and an erroneous reading.

Now that doesn’t mean the airplane should have fallen out of the sky. I’m not saying that is the only responsibility, but their maintenance and safety practices very much have some responsibility.

To my knowledge, ET is a quality airline with excellent safety and maintenance practices. To my understanding, ET was a bird strike incident that took out the AOA Vane.

MD80Ttail wrote:

One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred.

What was the A300 tail issue?

NZPM wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred.

What was the A300 tail issue?

AA587 in November 2001 when the vertical stabilizer broke off due to excessive rudder inputs.

planecane wrote:

NZPM wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred.

What was the A300 tail issue?

AA587 in November 2001 when the vertical stabilizer broke off due to excessive rudder inputs.

And I do not think it was an "issue". Wasn't it poor training ( not slamming rudder against the stops for one thing)? The A300 was not FBW, which would have prevented from happening.

planecane wrote:

NZPM wrote:

MD80Ttail wrote:

One could argue the 737 rudder or A300s tail issue but no groundings occurred.

What was the A300 tail issue?

AA587 in November 2001 when the vertical stabilizer broke off due to excessive rudder inputs.

AA587 was caused by pilot error, not a design flaw with the tail of the A300.

The airworthiness of the replaced AOA Vane is in question. Further, it was installed out of calibration. In addition, Lion Air didn’t properly perform the maintenance or testing steps as specified in the AMM.

Be clear in this. Lion Air dispatched an airplane that was not airworthy. It left the gate with a faulty AOA Vane and an erroneous reading.

Now that doesn’t mean the airplane should have fallen out of the sky. I’m not saying that is the only responsibility, but their maintenance and safety practices very much have some responsibility.

Spot. On.

Curious how that very important fact (dispatched an unairworthy aircraft) gets glossed over.

NZPM wrote:

AA587 was caused by pilot error, not a design flaw with the tail of the A300.

If we use the same logic we see with the latest crashes, the fact that a pilot could have made the excessive inputs means it was also a design flaw.

It's a very similar situation to what we have today. Yet the narrative is of course completely different.

MSPNWA wrote:

NZPM wrote:

AA587 was caused by pilot error, not a design flaw with the tail of the A300.

If we use the same logic we see with the latest crashes, the fact that a pilot could have made the excessive inputs means it was also a design flaw.

It's a very similar situation to what we have today. Yet the narrative is of course completely different.

Not the same logic. The A300 was not actively trying to kill the pilots and passengers. If the pilot had just refrained from doing what he did, the frame would not have crashed. There was a warning in the manuals. The pilot used repeatedly full ruder from side to side over stressing the vertical stabilizer, apart from the stress brought by the wake turbulence.
Because of this crash Airbus did some limitation on the travel on the rudder of the A300.

VS11 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

Obviously UA, AA and DL (all bigger to much bigger than WN) didn’t get that memo about sucking up to Boeing and the FAA then did they? Hard to claim outside undue influence there. Don’t I read every other post here about how great Airbus is doing (and don’t they have a much bigger backlog?). That article is not one of Gates best, more a hodgepodge of all the negativity surrounding Boeing at the moment. When I read it I thought for a second his byline had been hacked by someone with a German IP address. :rofl:

I don't know if you are replying to me but this is from the article:
"Among “numerous questions posed to SWAPA” after the crashes, Weaks wrote, his pilots as well as Wall Street analysts have discussed “the advantages and disadvantages of an airline having a single fleet and having aircraft from only one manufacturer.”
He also referred to Boeing’s size and enormous influence in the aerospace world “and the antitrust issues that accompany this long-overlooked issue.”

Boeing is big, yes. So is Airbus, So is UT. So is LMC. A convenient pile-on is all that's going on here. Kick 'em when they're down. Which by the way is business as usual, and as such is highly un-newsworthy.

DDR wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

william wrote:

I don't think there will be criminal investigations but there will be quite few cleaning out their desks. I doubt it will be publicized.

There is enough indication that there was a motivation to keep the MCAS implementation on the down-low for commercial reasons. When you have motivation, implementation, then hundreds of deaths all linked together, I think a criminal investigation is likely warranted. That doesn't mean they're guilty, but 'hush-hush just fire so-and-so' is chicken shit stuff when something like this situation arises. The dead and their families deserve better - and by better, I mean a full investigation into what went on inside of Boeing. If it's all innocent stupidity, fine. I'm just not convinced at all that that's the case.

So - if WN pilots want to use this as some sort of leveraging stick, so be it. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon but anything can happen.

Has there ever been criminal investigations of an aircraft manufacturer before? Or an airline?

EA back in the 90s and their maintenance. Critter after 592–more specifically SabreTech. One of the mechanics fled the country to South America, still has a warrant for his arrest and is on the FBIs most wanted list.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

So - if WN pilots want to use this as some sort of leveraging stick, so be it. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon but anything can happen.

I don't see how we would have any leverage, nor why would try to capitalize on such a tragic situation.

They will get fixed, and we'll start flying them the next day.

william wrote:

planecane wrote:

NZPM wrote:

What was the A300 tail issue?

AA587 in November 2001 when the vertical stabilizer broke off due to excessive rudder inputs.

And I do not think it was an "issue". Wasn't it poor training ( not slamming rudder against the stops for one thing)? The A300 was not FBW, which would have prevented from happening.

It was a B I G issue. Airbus purposely misled airlines how the rudder operates as speed increased and the proportion of movement with pedal inputs. The NTSB states the A300 / 310 rudder design was flawed—it’s in the report. I’ve read it. Additionally, pedal forces were not in line with expected norms. Most shocking was the accident occurred below stated Va—maneuvering speed. Up until this accident every single plane in existence was designed for and every pilot always understood universally he or she could use full authority / deflection of any control surfaces at or below Va without risk of structural failure / damage or any safety issues for the plane. Airbus knew the rudder could not withstand full deflection at or below Va and “forgot” to mention it to Airlines.

The pilot was a guy named Stan Molin. A very competent and above average pilot. He was following the prescribed procedure as taught and authorized by AA, Airbus and the FAA. He executed it as he was taught and as he had practiced. The captain of the flight....can’t remember his name maybe Stately???.....anyways the FO Molin was PF and the captain instructed him to perform the procedure which he did. Our procedures were later found to be overly aggressive and changed. AA was found to be mainly at fault for the accident but not solely at fault. The NTSB did absolutely find Airbus’s design was negligent and their communications with airlines not transparent regarding what Airbus knew and what they decided to share.

Had Airbus been totally transparent with their knowledge regarding the design and it’s limitations the accident would never have happened. Pretty much the same parallels as Boeing and the current Max situation. The major differences being the fix was really simple. Just telling pilots Va wasn’t really legit solved the problem.

Besides rarely do you use the rudder climbing out or in flight. Feet on the floor. Just a rare event. A classic Swiss cheese accident.

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?

some pilots weren't trained on mcas. united, LOT, and TUI pilots were all trained on it. but unfortunately that seems to have been the exception rather than the norm.

musman9853 wrote:

Planetalk wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

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?

some pilots weren't trained on mcas. united, LOT, and TUI pilots were all trained on it. but unfortunately that seems to have been the exception rather than the norm.

How did they do that with no simulators available?