As we all know, the 737 max 8 and Boeing have suffered a huge PR black eye over the entire way the crashes, investigation, grounding and implementation of a potential fix have been mismanaged. It brings to my memory the way the disasters the DC-10 suffered and the subsequent investigations that revealed the design flaws and maintenance issues that came to light. From the PR and sales standpoints, the DC-10's reputation never really fully recovered from those events. Has the Max 8 suffered the same fate?

Yes!

Not just the Max 8. The Max.

They'll need to rebrand.

They're lucky that the 737 probably still has decent brand power.

Difficult to judge, however in my opinion it’s a lot easier to damage a reputation in today’s world compared to what it was like at the time of the DC10. Way more information available now with traditional, new media, and social networks around. People are way more “informed” (in quotation marks as they aren’t always correctly informed...) now than they used to be.

So in my view the max’ reputation has been hurt more and more longer lasting compared to the DC10 back in the days.

Yes. More so now that we are aware it was a known issue following the first crash. Notable as regulators have stated there was a high priority that it could happen again, but they could not notify "due to regulatory limits during an investigation." Most have seen that claim as the BS it is.

2 years barely anybody in the public will remember nor care. Aviation enthusiasts are not the general public.

The DC-10 grounding was 40 years ago - it's a long time ago to compare groundings and the perceived damage in the eyes of the traveling public.

I do have a couple of comments though. Stating the obvious, the Max grounding is obviously much longer than any previous airliner grounding, with a possible exception being the original jetliner Comet in the 1950s. It's serious and, in my opinion, I think it's a tacit admission of how deep the problems are and how ill-equipped the FAA and other agencies are in dealing with complex software functionality on modern planes. A key difference with the DC-10 grounding is that there are other versions of the B737 flying, unaffected by the Max. So the Max 'brand' maybe tainted by the crashes, but there are so many B737s out there that they still represent a small percentage of the overall program.

The traveling public is also different than it was in 1979. More people than ever are flying, and with digital technology at our fingertips, we process a lot of information and retain only a small portion of it. Once the Max is re-certified and back flying, then assuming there are no more crashes (one would hope), I think the collective memory of the media and passengers alike will be on to the next crisis in the world. That's not to say that the events of the past year or so will be completely forgotten or forgiven, but I don't think the Max (or whatever it will be called) will carry a stigma as such.

I think the big difference is that while both types have had some very high profile crashes, none of those crashes occurred here in the US ... to the public minds' eye, that makes a big difference. I'd bet that if you rebranded the airplane, here in the US within six months of re-entry into service, nobody will even care.

Internationally, especially in the regions where the crashes occurred ... much different story. That will take some serious time to heal.

The MAX name will probably have to be dropped.

The DC10 Chicago crash was fundamentally caused by faulty maintenance procedures, and the cargo door issue only caused one accident even though there was almost a second accident from it. The publicity that the MAX issues and the entire certification process have gotten and will continue to receive going forward will dwarf the DC10 bad publicity IMO.

ILNFlyer wrote:

As we all know, the 737 max 8 and Boeing have suffered a huge PR black eye over the entire way the crashes, investigation, grounding and implementation of a potential fix have been mismanaged. It brings to my memory the way the disasters the DC-10 suffered and the subsequent investigations that revealed the design flaws and maintenance issues that came to light. From the PR and sales standpoints, the DC-10's reputation never really fully recovered from those events. Has the Max 8 suffered the same fate?

I think the flying public is a completely different beast today than it was during the DC-10's lifetime. In general, for the majority of the growing flying public, the number one concern is price. The average airline customer today doesn't even think about or know what aircraft they are on, as long as it's cheap. the crazy expansion of LCCs and ULCCs is part of that. Airlines with questionable safety records and awful quality are still filling aircraft every single day with willing customers.

On a long enough timeline, and with people mainly just concerned with price, whatever happens to the 737 MAX will be forgotten. Especially with the growing rumors of a shady and quiet rebrand to something like the 737-8200 that was seen on the Ryanair aircraft. That's about as simple as it needs to be to sweep the matter under the rug. Give it a year or so maybe.

On the other hand, I'd be perfectly ok being proved wrong on this.

Noise wrote:

The MAX name will probably have to be dropped.

This worked for the DC10 where media was easily controlled, but in today's world of social media, blogs, vlogs etc, the general public will know... it won't be so easy.

This is the age of social media, everything gets fast, amplified, sometimes distorted.

Of course the 737 MAX's image is as damaged as the one of the DC-10. Probably even more at this stage.

This is the probably the scandal that the people will remember the most when it comes to commercial aviation.

Probably even more. Back then there were no internet for the public

Noise wrote:

The MAX name will probably have to be dropped.

The Mad Max seems to be a strong contender for a new name.

On a more serious note, what will matter is the communication that will be made when the Max will be allowed to fly again. The FAA will probably make clear to the general public why the Max is safe to fly again and then a few months without incident will complete the demonstration for the most reluctant people. Beyond those few months, the issues of the Max will be a thing of the past to everyone, save it for those having to endure the consequences of the 2 deadly crashes and those being possibly sued due to these crashes.

On a personal note, as an aircraft geek and as a person being involved in aircraft design, I will always remain flabbergasted as to how Boeing ended up implementing such a sloppy system design in the MCAS. No name change will ever change this feeling.

Yes, the MAX brand is permanently damaged. Expect lots and lots of airlines to refer to their aircraft just as "737-8" and "737-10."

For me it would be the DC-10 due to the incredible photos that were taken of the AA DC-10 crashing at KORD that were where plastered all over the news worldwide. Even today the photos are heart stopping. Of course there were no photos taken of the two MAX crashes.

Lockheed L-188 was even worse....

But seriously, how many spin-off topics on the MAX do we need? What is this, the 100th one??

Elementalism wrote:

2 years barely anybody in the public will remember nor care. Aviation enthusiasts are not the general public.

I would argue that it's quite the opposite. For people who know next to nothing about aviation, the only thing they'll probably remember is that the MAX is unsafe. People do care about their safety.
This is not something like "UA's last 747 flight", which indeed only enthusiasts care.

Most of the public don't know the plane they fly on, most of the rest won't care in two years. Memory is not too long for most consumers. The MAX will - most probably - overcome the issue's and since almost one in two of the middle range market will be a 737MAX, there is hardly any choice.

If you want to know more, the 787 grounding is much more relevant. The Dreamliner's name wasn't even dropped after the disaster.

No, the public *WILL* know what plane they will be flying on because when/if anything heads back into the skies , they'll be reminded at ad nauseam.

Good ole Max has a massive amount of problems no matter how it's packaged. This will be fun to watch.

stlgph wrote:

No, the public *WILL* know what plane they will be flying on because when/if anything heads back into the skies , they'll be reminded at ad nauseam.

Good ole Max has a massive amount of problems no matter how it's packaged. This will be fun to watch.

Wow Boeing hater alert. And your "If" is at best misguided. If you really believe in anyway the MAX wont fly again I have some ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.

CPHFF wrote:

Lockheed L-188 was even worse....

But seriously, how many spin-off topics on the MAX do we need? What is this, the 100th one??

The moderators of this website see no need to exercise their professionalism and cull the insane level of useless topics.

The time it's taking to develop a fix and get it tested and the plane certified is not a good sign. What happened to all the enthusiasm that this was going to be resolved in the Spring? That was either an overly optimistic move on Boeing's part or sheer incompetence or both.

While the public will continue to fly, it will be an interesting few weeks when it's reintroduced in the US and worldwide. What will pilot's say to passengers? You know there will be a ton of YouTube videos for all to see. The news networks will cover it nightly just like they do the weather. And the moment something remotely bad happens (of course, most everyone will fear those first 5 minutes after takeoff), will me amplified like no other.

That drama aside, here's the question I have: Who will speak to the country about it's safety and viability and it's ok to fly?
POTUS? No.
The Boeing CEO? No.
Airline CEO's? No.
The FAA? No.
None of these people or organization has credibility.

Will it be a panel of pilots willing to put their prestige on the line?

Dutchy wrote:

Most of the public don't know the plane they fly on, most of the rest won't care in two years. Memory is not too long for most consumers.

This is oft repeated by industry folks, but I think it's largely wishful thinking...

Brands get destroyed for far less in this day and age. To the general public, the MAX isn't just an "unsafe" aircraft that killed 350 people, but to many it's also emblematic of "corporate greed" — which makes it part of social issue.

Finally, any data-driven Airline isn't worried about the general public at large, as the majority of americans only fly once a year. Airlines are worried about the 20% of Americans that represent 50% of bookings. And frequent flyers know about Aircraft because they care about comfort and amenities.

Elementalism wrote:

2 years barely anybody in the public will remember nor care. Aviation enthusiasts are not the general public.

Tell that to De Havilland (Comet), and Lockheed (L-188). Although each type did fly again and the military versions continued for long careers, both commercial programs never recovered.

Rebranding might make matters worse, like if Boeing was trying to obfuscate things.

seat1a wrote:

The time it's taking to develop a fix and get it tested and the plane certified is not a good sign. What happened to all the enthusiasm that this was going to be resolved in the Spring? That was either an overly optimistic move on Boeing's part or sheer incompetence or both.

While the public will continue to fly, it will be an interesting few weeks when it's reintroduced in the US and worldwide. What will pilot's say to passengers? You know there will be a ton of YouTube videos for all to see. The news networks will cover it nightly just like they do the weather. And the moment something remotely bad happens (of course, most everyone will fear those first 5 minutes after takeoff), will me amplified like no other.

That drama aside, here's the question I have: Who will speak to the country about it's safety and viability and it's ok to fly?
POTUS? No.
The Boeing CEO? No.
Airline CEO's? No.
The FAA? No.
None of these people or organization has credibility.

Will it be a panel of pilots willing to put their prestige on the line?

Ah yes lets get into politics that always makes things so much better.

Also have to remember that the reason the DC-10 ended up doing badly wasn't just the crashes, but the L1011 and it competing in a market (wide body trijet) that was already being phased out by the time the A300 and 767 rolled along, so did its crashes hamper the sales? Of course, but not nearly to the same extent as the already shrinking market it was made for.

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

No, the public *WILL* know what plane they will be flying on because when/if anything heads back into the skies , they'll be reminded at ad nauseam.

Good ole Max has a massive amount of problems no matter how it's packaged. This will be fun to watch.

Wow Boeing hater alert. And your "If" is at best misguided. If you really believe in anyway the MAX wont fly again I have some ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.

I worked for years in the media - you know - the very same type that will be beating the fact you're flying "on a plane with problems" - and have since transitioned into crisis management public relations billing out a couple of hundred per hour. I must be decent at it since I get about 3 or 4 phone calls a day from someone in major need and willing to shell out a lot of money right into my bank account. So, thanks for your commentary, but perhaps you should stick to playing flight simulator and I'll go back to work seeing as I've already billed $2,300 today. I'm a little busy.

And P.S. - as a quick reminder, I also made no comment about "hating" on Boeing and made only commentary about the situation at hand. Read first, k?

Cheers.

PacificWest wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Most of the public don't know the plane they fly on, most of the rest won't care in two years. Memory is not too long for most consumers.

This is oft repeated by industry folks, but I think it's largely wishful thinking...

Brands get destroyed for far less in this day and age. To the general public, the MAX isn't just an "unsafe" aircraft that killed 350 people, but to many it's also emblematic of "corporate greed" — which makes it part of social issue.

Finally, any data-driven Airline isn't worried about the general public at large, as the majority of americans only fly once a year. Airlines are worried about the 20% of Americans that represent 50% of bookings. And frequent flyers know about Aircraft because they care about comfort and amenities.

We'll know in a few years which scenario has come true.

About the DC-10, there was also Turkish Airlines Flight 981, and the FAA played a dodgy role back then in not grounding, and not issuing an AD, after an almost crash with the same cause.

PacificWest wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Most of the public don't know the plane they fly on, most of the rest won't care in two years. Memory is not too long for most consumers.

This is oft repeated by industry folks, but I think it's largely wishful thinking...

Brands get destroyed for far less in this day and age. To the general public, the MAX isn't just an "unsafe" aircraft that killed 350 people, but to many it's also emblematic of "corporate greed" — which makes it part of social issue.

Finally, any data-driven Airline isn't worried about the general public at large, as the majority of americans only fly once a year. Airlines are worried about the 20% of Americans that represent 50% of bookings. And frequent flyers know about Aircraft because they care about comfort and amenities.

Boeing doesn't sell to the public. They sell to the airlines. The brand people are buying are the airlines. If Airbus got through an A320 crashing at an airshow and it broadcasted around the world.And subsequent news stories about how the airplane takes the pilot out of the equation. Boeing and the 737 MAX will survive.

It's been damaged much more than the DC10 was because in the DC10's days there was no social media and no 24 hour rolling news programmes. Even people with no aviation knowledge or interest will be able to tell you that the MAX is grounded.

stlgph wrote:

No, the public *WILL* know what plane they will be flying on because when/if anything heads back into the skies , they'll be reminded at ad nauseam.

Good ole Max has a massive amount of problems no matter how it's packaged. This will be fun to watch.

Your "joy" is duly noted.

The DC-10 bounced back and remained in passenger service for well over 20 years following the grounding in ‘79, and that included another high-profile accident in United 232 a decade later. Whether people of today forgive and forget is yet to be seen, but there’s a whole lot more wrong at Boeing today that caused this then there was with McDD in the late 70s.

The public knows the Max 8 and Max as well as they know what the thrust rating is. I think the enthusiasts on this site way overrates how much the public cares or even pays attention to the type of plane they fly. It’s like when I go to the Apple websites and the users there complain about the iPhone and how Apple doesn’t innovate and this and that and yet, nearly everyone I know owns an iPhone and absolutely could care less about and/or is aware of anything on the Apple rumors and news websites.

Let’s not forget that it’s not just the MAX that people (non-aviation enthusiasts) are now against. It’s all of the 737s.

About a month ago I was flying on an A320, and overheard some people asking an FA if they were on “that plane that crashed.”

unsafePerformIO wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

2 years barely anybody in the public will remember nor care. Aviation enthusiasts are not the general public.

I would argue that it's quite the opposite. For people who know next to nothing about aviation, the only thing they'll probably remember is that the MAX is unsafe. People do care about their safety.

GE, in their just released quarterly report, specifically identify current and potential financial and reputational (not sure the latter is a word) harm due to their involvement with the 737 MAX, so not sure how fleeting and forgetful aircraft customers and passengers will be.

IAG is banking passengers have short memories, while GE.................

Honestly I really don’t think it is. The 787 survived its battery explosion media attention and grounding. Plus the DC-10 flew on for many many years after it had its string of issues.

stlgph wrote:

Floridaguy74656 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

No, the public *WILL* know what plane they will be flying on because when/if anything heads back into the skies , they'll be reminded at ad nauseam.

Good ole Max has a massive amount of problems no matter how it's packaged. This will be fun to watch.

Wow Boeing hater alert. And your "If" is at best misguided. If you really believe in anyway the MAX wont fly again I have some ocean front property in Kansas to sell you.

I worked for years in the media - you know - the very same type that will be beating the fact you're flying "on a plane with problems" - and have since transitioned into crisis management public relations billing out a couple of hundred per hour. I must be decent at it since I get about 3 or 4 phone calls a day from someone in major need and willing to shell out a lot of money right into my bank account. So, thanks for your commentary, but perhaps you should stick to playing flight simulator and I'll go back to work seeing as I've already billed $2,300 today. I'm a little busy.

And P.S. - as a quick reminder, I also made no comment about "hating" on Boeing and made only commentary about the situation at hand. Read first, k?

PR experts have two challenges with current and prospective passengers. One, separating the reputation and technical track record of non-MAX 737's from the MAX. Two, changing MAX perception itself. Quite a mission, when every 737 event, however minor, is going to feature on global media.

Airbus and Mitsubishi will be working overtime to delete 737, and especially MAX references in their own marketing and technical material.

I think the DC-10 image was more damaged back in those days than today's MAX damage, in several ways.

- First because, like someone said, the DC-10 was a class on it's own, while the MAX is a subtype of a very widespread model which is also quite difficult for the general public to distinguish one from another. Unless they try hard.
- Second, the DC-10 silhoutte (and big size) was very identifiable even for non-aviation fans, while MAX and 737's, not only there are thousands of them, but also of the very main configuration existing now in aviation (wing-mounted twin engines) and standard size.
- And third, because back in those days, I think general public was more aware of aircraft types (especially Jumbos, DC-10, etc.), than they are now. (There were less models, more easily distinguishable, and aviation was then more an event than it is now)

iberiadc852 wrote:

I think the DC-10 image was more damaged back in those days than today's MAX damage, in several ways.

- And third, because back in those days, I think general public was more aware of aircraft types (especially Jumbos, DC-10, etc.), than they are now. (There were less models, more easily distinguishable, and aviation was then more an event than it is now)

As others have pointed out, with the internet and social media, public awareness, perception, and knowledge (right or wrong) is a fingertip away.

Much worse than the DC10. The public has gotten used to almost zero crashes. Crashes were much more common 1990s and prior to that. the max never should have been built. It was a jimmy-rigged attempt to compete with Airbus. All executives involved at Boeing should be fired.

smartplane wrote:

unsafePerformIO wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

2 years barely anybody in the public will remember nor care. Aviation enthusiasts are not the general public.

IAG is banking passengers have short memories, while GE.................

I am super skeptical of the IAG order. Is it firm or a MOU? If it is then it is worth the paper it’s written on. Just PR spin to try to build confidence in the Max / Boeing.

Sandyb123

AirwayBill wrote:

This is the age of social media, everything gets fast, amplified, sometimes distorted.

Yes, but social media works both ways.

FAA/EASA/etc will sign off on the plane weeks before they return to service.

Since their reputations are tarnished they will go out of their way saying how thoroughly they have checked the plane, etc.

Airlines have invested tons of money in the plane so they will doing their best PR spin for return to service.

If people act too skiddish, the airlines will just lower the prices for a few weeks till no one even bothers to check what plane they will be flying.

Hopefully I'll get a few cheap flights out of WN upon return to service.

If you won't accept a cheap seat because it's a MAX even after the regulators have blessed it, me and plenty other of people will.

People outside the a aviation community barley remember the 787 problems from a few years ago. Same thing will happen with the MAX. Give it a few years and people will be flying on them to their destinations

I. The B737 series has worked through another serious issue (Rudder PCU/Hardover/Loss of Control) and the reputation of the aircraft has remained largely intact. [Ref: UA585, US427 and the Eastwind “Stingerbee” incident].

II. The DC10, like earlier variants of the B737, managed to become a successful aircraft despite the cargo door locking mechanism issue on AA96 [June 1972], the subsequent and related TK981 crash outside of Paris, [cargo door design flaw], AA191 [maintenance practices] and UA232 [aircraft hydraulic system design “flaw”/fan disc manufacturing impurity & defect]. The DC10 has proven itself to be a reliable and safe aircraft despite these unfortunate incidents.

III. You cannot compare issues 45+ years apart and draw any viable correlation between the events, or, how the manufacturer copes with said event(s). That being said, my educated opinion is that Boeing “screwed the pooch” with the MAX.

IV. Very few members of the general public that are not affiliated with this (out of control) forum will have any recollection of the DC10 grounding.

V. At some point, with no “new news” from the manufacturer or the FAA, the issue runs amok on this forum with suggestions and conjecture.

sandyb123 wrote:

smartplane wrote:

unsafePerformIO wrote:

IAG is banking passengers have short memories, while GE.................

I am super skeptical of the IAG order. Is it firm or a MOU? If it is then it is worth the paper it’s written on. Just PR spin to try to build confidence in the Max / Boeing.

Sandyb123

It's an MOU. And apart from only Seven other units, represents the entirety of 2019's sales. It's also obviously conditional on BCA's being able to rectify the current issues plaguing the aircraft's safety.

So, yeah, I'd say it's pretty obvious (no matter how loathe A.net is to admit it) that this aircraft's sales potential is, barring some Deus Ex Machina, mortally wounded. At the very least, yes, worse off than the DC-10.

For reference, Airbus has sold 60 A32X & 109 A32X NEO over the same time period. And did so without having to resort to conditional and unusually steeply discounted MOUs. So, there's that. . .

its a lot worse than the DC-10 in my opinion. This is a plane that might never fly pax again....