AIRT0M wrote:

9Patch wrote:

But that doesn't keep them from buying or riding in Fords.

Not Ford. But Ford Pinto. That's why they axed it.

And nobody will stop buying or flying Boeing if they axe the Max..

Ford is the brand, not Pinto.
Car models have a life of about 10 years. Ford built and sold the Pinto from 1971 to the 1980.
It was at the end of its life. That's why they axed it.
The Wiki article on the Pinto is worth a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

MSPNWA wrote:

B777LRF wrote:

Could you please point us to just a single piece of evidence that will back up that claim? Contrary to the nonsense you've often peddled here, Boeing are yet to release the final version of MCAS 2.whatever, nor have the solved the dual-sensor or dual-FCC issue. Or, as the case may well be, any of the other issues which popped as the regulators dug much deeper than Boeing found comfortable. There was even reports from the FAA they hadn't even submitted the correct paperwork, but zero reports from anybody saying that task had been closed.

As expected. I don't believe you have a honest desire for me to point you to anything. And since it appears you've been following the grounding, I can assume you do know the evidence, but you've already rejected its validity as it doesn't fit the "Boeing is evil" narrative. Conclusions always wrongly determine the evidence, not correctly vice versa.

I'll give one more chance. What is one stated reason why the Boeing CEO was let go?

Please, by any and all means, where are the evidence? Educate us; at least me, I haven't been following the massive mega threads about the grounding.

9Patch wrote:

AIRT0M wrote:

9Patch wrote:

But that doesn't keep them from buying or riding in Fords.

Not Ford. But Ford Pinto. That's why they axed it.

And nobody will stop buying or flying Boeing if they axe the Max..

Ford is the brand, not Pinto.
Car models have a life of about 10 years. Ford built and sold the Pinto from 1971 to the 1980.
It was at the end of its life. That's why they axed it.
The Wiki article on the Pinto is worth a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Boeing is the brand in this case, 737 MAX the model; same difference.

But to go back to the beginning of this: people will remember (for a while, how long is the question) that the 737 MAX they're about to step in (or are supposed to fly on) is the same type that was associated with 2 crashes caused by design defects. Even if those defects were maybe limited to the MAX 8 (and they're about to step in a MAX 10), and even after the aircraft has been modified and deemed fully safe by multiple authorities, people will remember it was a MAX.
Maybe the parallel with the Pinto was wrong; think about the Corvair then.

9Patch wrote:

Ford is the brand, not Pinto.
Car models have a life of about 10 years. Ford built and sold the Pinto from 1971 to the 1980.
It was at the end of its life. That's why they axed it.
The Wiki article on the Pinto is worth a read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

I lived it. My mom owned one, and so did I. My family also owned a Chevy Vega. Ahh, the 70s!

MSPNWA wrote:

As expected. I don't believe you have a honest desire for me to point you to anything. And since it appears you've been following the grounding, I can assume you do know the evidence, but you've already rejected its validity as it doesn't fit the "Boeing is evil" narrative. Conclusions always wrongly determine the evidence, not correctly vice versa.

I'll give one more chance. What is one stated reason why the Boeing CEO was let go?

As expected some are still in denial who’s to blame for the MAX disaster.

scbriml wrote:

So provide an example of the FAA “throwing a fit”. Multiple people have asked TTailedTiger and he’s failed to respond. Otherwise we should just order more tin foil hats.

Sigh. Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Did you miss the month of December? Do you not remember the public spat the FAA had with Boeing?

I'll remind you, ad hominems destroy any credibility you may have had and automatically mean your debate opponent is likely right.

marcelh wrote:

As expected some are still in denial who’s to blame for the MAX disaster.

I agree completely. But that's for the grounding thread.

WayexTDI wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Lauda will get 737Max if the price is right. That is a win for Beoing and released A320s will soften the market for new A320s
Buzz will get 737Max-10 for holiday destinations.
Ryanair Main will be happy to take 737Max200 and Max-10.

Ryanair will have very competitive airframes for the next 15 years by which time the next generation of Boeing and Airbus planes will be available to order. They'll barge to the top of queue, take whatever slots free up. dispose of their fleet of old planes and the orders from Lease companies will get softer and softer. Lease companies are somewhat traditional lease companies and somewhat speculative commodity traders.

Give me some of what you're smoking...

Lauda has 23 A320's; you really think that 23 planes, even if released on the used market at once, will "soften the market for new A320s"??? It's a drop in the Olympic swimming pool...

there may be thousands of A320s in existence but the free float on the lease market is small. 23 planes becoming available will have an impact and Ryanair after the last two decades of owning near new 737s with low maintenance costs doesn't like paying 200k a month for rental of old airframes which need loads of TLC.
Ryanair will happily take hundreds of 737s between firm orders and favourable options so long as they gain certainty of industry leading low operating costs for the next 10 to 15 years.

SDL wrote:

The question is what you get first 320 or 737. We have no Idea when the max is back in the air, Airbus can at least give a delivery time.

Had a discussion with a FAA ASI just last week and asked about the 737Max. He said, "The Max was ready in January." IMHO, the politicians aren't done getting their pound of flesh yet, though.

Opus99 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

It’s certainly not impossible but it will be difficult. Especially if groups like IAG take on their 200 Max LOI. Are we sure airlines won’t discount MAX flights? Especially as the MAX returns and delivery kicks in. Especially in the US

Are you sure airlines would want to lose billions of dollars in income because of MAX? LOL.

Saying it's difficult to choose to fly on A320 are hella weird. I just gave you the list of major airlines around the world who operated A320 aircraft. Many of them ARE the CHEAPEST options to fly.

Why would you fly on the more expensive airlines that fly the MAX?

I didn’t say it’s difficult to choose to fly one a neo. I just said it’s difficult to avoid the MAX as it returns to service because it the number of MAXes will increase. Especially in the US. In Europe the neo is more popular of course. But in North America the 737s are more popular. And so is the MAX. It will be difficult to avoid. You’re not listening to my argument and most normal fliers don’t necessarily go out of their way to look for a certain aircraft. In the short run they probably will but it will evaporate and people will move on to something else.

It would only be difficult if you don't have alternatives. But in many continent, you do have many alternatives ranging from the dirt cheap LCCs to Legacy carriers. There's still lots of young A320CEO and B737NG currently Flying around too, add regional jets and turboprops. The number of MAX would still be in the minority. For 5 years or so from now, we would see what happen to MAX before airlines started retiring the older jets.

And while B737NG are popular in the US, they are not MAX. There is no reason to avoid NG. Many legacy airlines loved to keep their aircraft till they reached 20-30 years of age. Many A320CEO and B737NG are still flying for at least a decade now. And then we see what would happen to MAX after all those years.

MSPNWA wrote:

[Sigh. Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Did you miss the month of December? Do you not remember the public spat the FAA had with Boeing?

You mean when Boeing handed out a MAX RTS timeline that had not been coordinated with the FAA?
FAA dressing down Boeing was afaics rather appropriate.

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

the average Joe wouldn't even know is he's on a boeing or airbus. All Boeing needs to do, is to give the max a new name & Ryanair has already done that.

Also big travel agency groups must be making rude offers to airlines right now for seats, especially when Chinese airlines start flying again & dumping seats at never before seen prices.

lessredtape wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

the average Joe wouldn't even know is he's on a boeing or airbus. All Boeing needs to do, is to give the max a new name & Ryanair has already done that.

Also big travel agency groups must be making rude offers to airlines right now for seats, especially when Chinese airlines start flying again & dumping seats at never before seen prices.

Yes, average pax can't tel the difference between two planes, but with internet today, if you want to know on which aircraft you are, you will know. MOL and other will realise that sometimes, low fares are not enough, espacially if you are trying to decieve your customer by camoufling the MAX.
For a time pax and maybe crews, will want to stay away from the type, how long will be the key.

mig17 wrote:

lessredtape wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

the average Joe wouldn't even know is he's on a boeing or airbus. All Boeing needs to do, is to give the max a new name & Ryanair has already done that.

Also big travel agency groups must be making rude offers to airlines right now for seats, especially when Chinese airlines start flying again & dumping seats at never before seen prices.

Yes, average pax can't tel the difference between two planes, but with internet today, if you want to know on which aircraft you are, you will know. MOL and other will realise that sometimes, low fares are not enough, espacially if you are trying to decieve your customer by camoufling the MAX.
For a time pax and maybe crews, will want to stay away from the type, how long will be the key.

yes of course about 5 mins, but the new max called the super dooper, won't be the max, it will be "different"

mig17 wrote:

lessredtape wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

the average Joe wouldn't even know is he's on a boeing or airbus. All Boeing needs to do, is to give the max a new name & Ryanair has already done that.

Also big travel agency groups must be making rude offers to airlines right now for seats, especially when Chinese airlines start flying again & dumping seats at never before seen prices.

Yes, average pax can't tel the difference between two planes, but with internet today, if you want to know on which aircraft you are, you will know. MOL and other will realise that sometimes, low fares are not enough, espacially if you are trying to decieve your customer by camoufling the MAX.
For a time pax and maybe crews, will want to stay away from the type, how long will be the key.

yes of course about 5 mins, but the new max called the super dooper, won't be the max, it will be "different"

MSPNWA wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So provide an example of the FAA “throwing a fit”. Multiple people have asked TTailedTiger and he’s failed to respond. Otherwise we should just order more tin foil hats.

Sigh. Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Did you miss the month of December? Do you not remember the public spat the FAA had with Boeing?

I'll remind you, ad hominems destroy any credibility you may have had and automatically mean your debate opponent is likely right.

marcelh wrote:

As expected some are still in denial who’s to blame for the MAX disaster.

I agree completely. But that's for the grounding thread.

So “the FAA throwing a fit” is now “the public spat the FAA had with Boeing”?

Ad hominem attacks are damaging to a genuine exchange of opinions, when they are in fact resorted to. So are unsupported statements that are aimed not at informing but at forcing a view of events that a lot of people here do not seem to agree with, with the benefit of all available information.

If you want to be respected as a participant, you have to reconsider your quest to force a view of the FAA (and its role in Boeing’s current predicament) onto people by rhetorical gimmicks like going from “throwing a fit” to “having a public spat”, a less inflammatory, but still unsupportable statement.

It is not only ad hominem attacks that are insulting, treating people as if they are incapable of understanding what they are reading (as in knowing what throwing a fit means) is equally insulting. Just because it does not have a fancy Latin name, does not mean it is right.

You were asked to provide support for a statement you made, which you cannot, because it is at best (and I emphasize the at best here) an emotionally based personal view that is not shared by many on this forum. When this is exposed, you are resorting to attacking people who are exposing the lack of support and, in the process, still trying to gain points for your unsupported statement (no, no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true, a million ad hominem attacks or a million statements of agreement will not change the validity of a statement).

The FAA did not throw a fit, that is simply the way you want to present the world. If you really want to present it that way (I would not) and call the various statements a public spat, which is entirely irrelevant to the claim that the FAA threw a fit (a one-sided and irrational act as opposed to the two-sided and potentially irrational act of having a public spat, which by the way could imply that it is entirely Boeing’s fault, unlike the FAA throwing a fit) please do so. But please do it with an acknowledgment that the “FAA having a fit” statement was an exaggeration, poetic license, misstatement or whatever, not with the maybe they will not notice the difference kind of approach. People do. Assuming they do not is substantively like an ad hominem attack.

And if you believe that the issue of who is to blame for the current predicament of the MAX does not belong in a topic concerning an offer by RyanAir making a proposal to purchase more MAXs, compare that to the statement about the FAA throwing a fit and decide how relevant that statement is to the same topic.

And yes, sigh.

leghorn wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Lauda will get 737Max if the price is right. That is a win for Beoing and released A320s will soften the market for new A320s
Buzz will get 737Max-10 for holiday destinations.
Ryanair Main will be happy to take 737Max200 and Max-10.

Ryanair will have very competitive airframes for the next 15 years by which time the next generation of Boeing and Airbus planes will be available to order. They'll barge to the top of queue, take whatever slots free up. dispose of their fleet of old planes and the orders from Lease companies will get softer and softer. Lease companies are somewhat traditional lease companies and somewhat speculative commodity traders.

Give me some of what you're smoking...

Lauda has 23 A320's; you really think that 23 planes, even if released on the used market at once, will "soften the market for new A320s"??? It's a drop in the Olympic swimming pool...

there may be thousands of A320s in existence but the free float on the lease market is small. 23 planes becoming available will have an impact and Ryanair after the last two decades of owning near new 737s with low maintenance costs doesn't like paying 200k a month for rental of old airframes which need loads of TLC.
Ryanair will happily take hundreds of 737s between firm orders and favourable options so long as they gain certainty of industry leading low operating costs for the next 10 to 15 years.

If Lauda decides to suddenly offload their 23 A320s, the used A320 market won't collapse, neither will the new A320 market. The good frames will be picked up in a heartbeat by airlines who need cheap additional metal (and can't get their hands quickly enough on A320neos or can't get their hands at all on 737 MAXes), or will be parted out even faster (to support the thousands of existing A320s).

Ahh, folks, the majority of punters won't give 2 flying ___s about what kind of plane they are on.

They'll see the cheap fare and go for it. They will be aware of the MAX problems in the background, but will believe them to be sorted 'cos everyone who knows what they are talking about say the plane is now safe.

Now, another crash shortly after the MAX returns to flight would be a very different story. At that point - there is a breakdown in trust that the people that are supposed to know actually have a safe plane as they have already said they made it safe it before. Then, airlines (and by extension, Boeing) would have a real problem getting travellers onto the aircraft.

Well said NonTechAvLover.

Too many personal and unsupported statements on here.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing will end up with some cancelled and delayed orders anyway. Ryanair might be wanting and taking airplanes faster than others. So why not sell them to FR and reward the flexibility with some rebate? It's in Boeing's interest to keep the flow steady even with hickups on the demand curve now. Get the rate up fast, deliver those parked aircraft, get the supply chain going again ASAP.

Summed the basics nicely.

In a previous crisis MOL solved heaps of problems in the nicest possible way.

Fast. Finally.

But it would cost BA on the profitably of some frames.


But the pluses for BA?
1) solved a heap of problems, and
2) kept a future 1000-unit operator inside the tent.

I greatly admired the Laudamotion move as leveraging huge pressure on BA.
(I don't know enough about it's profitability to comment otherwise).

But if it was so, then maybe it was overkill - BA was always going to agree anyway.

cheers



.

Weren't the high profile crashes of the DC10 70s a reason why they renamed the DC9-80 the MD-80 to stop it being tarred with the "unsafe" DC name...

I'd be amazed if any airline still use the "Max" name

AirbusA6 wrote:

Weren't the high profile crashes of the DC10 70s a reason why they renamed the DC9-80 the MD-80 to stop it being tarred with the "unsafe" DC name...

I'd be amazed if any airline still use the "Max" name

It probably will be "simplified" to Boeing 737-7/8/9/10 without the MAX title

TC957 wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person in the street. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident once the MAX is flying again and airlines which do them and your Boeing-only airline is in trouble.

In the UK, every mention of the MAX in the press or on news websites has the mention of the two crashes killing 346 people and the long grounding and Ryanair won't get away with calling them 737-8200 or whatever else.

I was listening to a news report about the Ukraine 752 incident and the news person said “this was a 737-800, so not a MAX or an NG, it must be a very different model”. Most people have no clue what they’re talking about with these planes. Ryanair could call it a 737-cheapoliner and nobody would care. Except maybe the folks at cheapoair.

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

They can make an offer if they want, but that doesn't mean that Boeing has to accept it. If they don't like the offer, they could just say no. Perhaps Ryanair is calculating that they might really want an order right now and be willing to accept a very low price, plus they will have to pay compensation anyway.

scbriml wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

When the buyer has all the cards, why not?

The buyer doesn't have all the cards. Ryanair couldn't get 100 321Neos or A220s before 2025 now matter how much they begged. Who was the analyst a few weeks ago quoted as remarking the MAX is all there is?

Sure, but I’m talking about the customer’s relationship with Boeing. Boeing’s MAX customers are in a position of strength in any deal. Ryanair seems to be saying “We’ll take 737-10s for the same price as those -8s we have on order.” Boeing’s in no position to play hardball with their second biggest 737 customer, are they? Ryanair’s recent “interest” in A320s was just a ploy to get Boeing’s attention.

Imagine this scenario; MOL will try to squeeze Boeing with the door, and in one point they will say to him:
-Dude this what you get! Take it or leave it!
Where MOL will go!? Maybe to Comac and wait for the next century to receive a plane!?

scbriml wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

When the buyer has all the cards, why not?

The buyer doesn't have all the cards. Ryanair couldn't get 100 321Neos or A220s before 2025 now matter how much they begged. Who was the analyst a few weeks ago quoted as remarking the MAX is all there is?

Sure, but I’m talking about the customer’s relationship with Boeing. Boeing’s MAX customers are in a position of strength in any deal. Ryanair seems to be saying “We’ll take 737-10s for the same price as those -8s we have on order.” Boeing’s in no position to play hardball with their second biggest 737 customer, are they? Ryanair’s recent “interest” in A320s was just a ploy to get Boeing’s attention.

Imagine this scenario; MOL will try to squeeze Boeing with the door, and in one point they will say to him:
-Dude this what you get! Take it or leave it!
Where MOL will go!? Maybe to Comac and wait for the next century to receive a plane!?

How about MOL goes with the MC-21-300? He'd probably take that extra 11" of cabin width and make it a single aisle 7ab at 3-4...

MSPNWA wrote:

Sigh. Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Did you miss the month of December? Do you not remember the public spat the FAA had with Boeing?

Swing and a miss, champ.

You were asked to provide evidence of your support for TTailedTiger’s claim the the FAA “threw a fit” every time Boeing issued public statements. You haven’t.

There really isn’t anything to add to NonTechAvLover’s post.

NonTechAvLover wrote:

You were asked to provide support for a statement you made, which you cannot, because it is at best (and I emphasize the at best here) an emotionally based personal view that is not shared by many on this forum. When this is exposed, you are resorting to attacking people who are exposing the lack of support and, in the process, still trying to gain points for your unsupported statement (no, no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true, a million ad hominem attacks or a million statements of agreement will not change the validity of a statement).

I've enjoyed your post, and I'm going to focus on this paragraph. It illustrates one reason why I'm holding my cards close to my vest and playing them carefully. The bandwagon fallacy is alive and strong. It's a tough fallacy to crack open.

The moral of the story here is that sometimes it's best to let your opponent score for you. I didn't need to provide any specific evidence for my position before you stated falsehoods and displayed a closed mind to the debated statement. Your statement that I cannot provide support for a statement is something you cannot possibly know as true. Only I know if it's true or not. You can suspect it if you wish, but you cannot know it. You've just shown us all that you're wrongly stating something as fact when it is only known to you as an unknown. The second error is your thoughts culminating with this: "no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true". This dialogue tells me that you've closed your mind to any possibility that the original statement could be true (and don't forget, it wasn't my statement. I've only agreed and defended it). It's a critical error in reasonable thought, and your opinion's credibility falls with it. My earlier post about my belief that another poster doesn't truly want me to show the evidence has apparently turned prophetic with our discussion. It makes me wonder if you would objectively receive any evidence I provided.

I think you're confusing a personal attack with an attack on your thought process and opinion. For example, in this post I attacked your thought process and opinion, and I stated the reasons why they are not trustworthy. What I didn't do was attack you personally apart from the content, which what some posters have done to others with the "tin foil hat" talk. It's disgusting.

This all pretty interesting from you considering your first post on this forum was a proposition that Airbus and Boeing form a joint venture around the A320 and for Boeing to cease producing the MAX. Yet the opinion that the FAA has thrown a sort of a fit over Boeing trying to do the right thing isn't even worthy of plausibility before a poster is personally attacked? Would you have liked it if someone did that to your first post?

If you change your mind and reopen your case file, the largest piece of evidence of the FAA "throwing a fit" was in December. Even just the article's headline captures the tone of the FAA's message. We can debate what the aviation equivalent of "throwing a fit" is, or even if maybe the idiom was somewhat tongue in cheek. But what's impossible to logically argue against is that the FAA's actions amount to an antonym of what TTailedTiger stated. The facts are the facts. That was not a happy and reserved FAA. You can disagree with the subjective opinion of what it amounted to. We can debate whether or not it was the "right thing" and whether or not that classifies as a "fit". But what you can't say is there's zero evidence for it.

https://www.ibtimes.com/faa-chief-deliv ... ce-2884981

scbriml wrote:

champ.

Yep!

scbriml wrote:

You were asked to provide evidence of your support for TTailedTiger’s claim the the FAA “threw a fit” every time Boeing issued public statements. You haven’t.

Oh, was there a time limit?

scbriml wrote:

There really isn’t anything to add to NonTechAvLover’s post.

If you want to align with someone who stated a falsehood and indicated a lack of openness to other opinions, be my guest.

MSPNWA wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

You were asked to provide support for a statement you made, which you cannot, because it is at best (and I emphasize the at best here) an emotionally based personal view that is not shared by many on this forum. When this is exposed, you are resorting to attacking people who are exposing the lack of support and, in the process, still trying to gain points for your unsupported statement (no, no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true, a million ad hominem attacks or a million statements of agreement will not change the validity of a statement).

I've enjoyed your post, and I'm going to focus on this paragraph. It illustrates one reason why I'm holding my cards close to my vest and playing them carefully. The bandwagon fallacy is alive and strong. It's a tough fallacy to crack open.

The moral of the story here is that sometimes it's best to let your opponent score for you. I didn't need to provide any specific evidence for my position before you stated falsehoods and displayed a closed mind to the debated statement. Your statement that I cannot provide support for a statement is something you cannot possibly know as true. Only I know if it's true or not. You can suspect it if you wish, but you cannot know it. You've just shown us all that you're wrongly stating something as fact when it is only known to you as an unknown. The second error is your thoughts culminating with this: "no matter how a poster responds to you, your statement about the FAA throwing a fit will not become true". This dialogue tells me that you've closed your mind to any possibility that the original statement could be true (and don't forget, it wasn't my statement. I've only agreed and defended it). It's a critical error in reasonable thought, and your opinion's credibility falls with it. My earlier post about my belief that another poster doesn't truly want me to show the evidence has apparently turned prophetic with our discussion. It makes me wonder if you would objectively receive any evidence I provided.

I think you're confusing a personal attack with an attack on your thought process and opinion. For example, in this post I attacked your thought process and opinion, and I stated the reasons why they are not trustworthy. What I didn't do was attack you personally apart from the content, which what some posters have done to others with the "tin foil hat" talk. It's disgusting.

This all pretty interesting from you considering your first post on this forum was a proposition that Airbus and Boeing form a joint venture around the A320 and for Boeing to cease producing the MAX. Yet the opinion that the FAA has thrown a sort of a fit over Boeing trying to do the right thing isn't even worthy of plausibility before a poster is personally attacked? Would you have liked it if someone did that to your first post?

If you change your mind and reopen your case file, the largest piece of evidence of the FAA "throwing a fit" was in December. Even just the article's headline captures the tone of the FAA's message. We can debate what the aviation equivalent of "throwing a fit" is, or even if maybe the idiom was somewhat tongue in cheek. But what's impossible to logically argue against is that the FAA's actions amount to an antonym of what TTailedTiger stated. The facts are the facts. That was not a happy and reserved FAA. You can disagree with the subjective opinion of what it amounted to. We can debate whether or not it was the "right thing" and whether or not that classifies as a "fit". But what you can't say is there's zero evidence for it.

First, thank you for the response and its measured and polite tone. I want to write a few things not because I think this forum is debate society and I am here to win arguments, but because your post deserves (in the positive sense of that word) a response. I would be very happy if you thought about the implications of that a little bit. You referred to another poster as your “debate opponent” (or vice versa) and used that term in your response to me as well. There is nothing inherently wrong with debating and some of us even do it for a living. I am only suggesting that I do not see it as the best way to enjoy and benefit from this forum.

Flowing from that is a related issue: “throwing a fit” is, at least in my view, not a factual term that can be proven or unproven, which makes debating it a bit pointless. I think when users react to it by asking for evidence, it is implied that they are not in reality asking you or the OP to provide factual evidence (such and such District Court ruled in January 2020 that the FAA threw a fit the previous month), but it is a way of saying “hey, that is a loaded term and we do not see it is a fair description of what happened in December.” If the statement was made tongue in cheek, it would be easy to say so (you notice I suggested exaggeration and poetic license as possible explanations in my post).

I like to assume every organization is made up of people who are trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities. Naturally, the FAA and Boeing are included in that assumption. That is why I react to a statement like the FAA threw a fit. I do not think it is capable of being proven or unproven. It also fails to advance a discussion, I think.

And one final point: I read this forum literally for years before ever posting anything. I hope this does not offend anyone, but I find the whole A v B thing a bit strange and it reminds me of football (as in soccer) fans talking. But every community has its own dynamics and all I can do is to share my observation about it. I was on a 737, a 767 and a 787 and on a 320-21 and 330 in the last two months alone. I find all of them to be amazing machines and I have tremendous respect for the individuals and the organizations who make them. I also appreciate that a lot of users here, because of their backgrounds have a deeper understanding of those machines than I do and that may lead to finding one superior over the other. But I do not understand the approach to the issue in a partisan manner. To the extent my previous post was critical, that is the point of the criticism. I saw the statement directed at the FAA as a means to score points in the A v B fight, as a pro-Boeing shot. I did not object to it because I am an Airbus fan or hate Boeing, I did not like its inherent unfairness. A statement like “I disagree with the way FAA reacted to Boeing’s statements” would have been a different matter. If this looks like parsing words, I disagree and would say I see a difference.

And finally, I am not sure if I changed my mind on this particular issue since my first post: I think it would be great if the two companies collaborated on a project, especially in a situation like the MAX problem, where there would be the benefit to the two entities commercially and maybe also from a “rubbing shoulders” perspective (I was educated by a colleague that this would not be possible from an anti-trust perspective.) I generally find our current societal approach to competition (as excluding any cooperation) not smart and at times harmful. Not a romantic “let A and B move into the same headquarters and live happily ever after” kind of wish, but maybe find and act upon more opportunities to cooperate. I do not know why you read my statements whose main thrust was about treating an organization more fairly (and that organization is the FAA) as my having changed my mind in this unrelated issue.

Thanks again for your response. I am sorry I will not debate you, but I will gladly continue to share my thoughts.

Rgds,

peterinlisbon wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

They can make an offer if they want, but that doesn't mean that Boeing has to accept it. If they don't like the offer, they could just say no. Perhaps Ryanair is calculating that they might really want an order right now and be willing to accept a very low price, plus they will have to pay compensation anyway.

it's a buyer market & Ryanair have got Boeing by the balls

lessredtape wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

JayBCN wrote:

The buyer making an offer ... is that really how it’s done ?

I believe MOL is getting this one wrong. Passengers are really concerned and really aware - and that includes the average person. Overheard this conversation in my holiday flight from CGN to LPA on Corendon flight XR 1304 on 1.1.2020 (Corendon has ordered the MAX): „honey, don’t worry this [737-800] is not one of the bad ones.“

Just another incident - related or not to the original issue - once the MAX is flying again and all airlines which fly even only a few MAXes are in deep trouble.

They can make an offer if they want, but that doesn't mean that Boeing has to accept it. If they don't like the offer, they could just say no. Perhaps Ryanair is calculating that they might really want an order right now and be willing to accept a very low price, plus they will have to pay compensation anyway.

it's a buyer market & Ryanair have got Boeing by the balls

I personally believe that MOL is being very smart about making an opportunity to his airline’s benefit.

Firstly, the FAA won’t grant certification until they’re absolutely CERTAIN that every I has been dotted and every T has been crossed. Given the level of investigation into this by so many authorities, they will want to limit trials, court cases, damages etc. Negligence is a messy legal business.

Secondly, Boeing I’m sure are very, very aware that the travelling public aren’t stupid and will do their research about what planes people will be flying on. But Boeing is a manufacturer, not an airline. So in steps MOL and Ryanair and says “We will do your marketing about confidence in the product”. I’m not sure off the top of my head how many passengers Ryanair fly daily, but I’m sure it’s quite a lot.

So, a stalwart Boeing customer stands up and supports their product but they want something in return. Seems like a reasonable business deal to me.

Rgds,
C1973

NonTechAvLover wrote:

Thanks again for your response. I am sorry I will not debate you, but I will gladly continue to share my thoughts.

An embellishments to what you wrote.

"winning a debate" is not about "finding facts or new insights."
Schopenhauer assembled his "38 stratagems.. " not as a "How To"
but as a reminder to what not to use in a "good" discussion.

This is completely lost on a range of participants ( here, in other public, especially political, discourse )

OT: "throwing a fit" is a colloquial synonym for being unreasonable and unfair to some interacting party.
( actually one of the Schopenhauer # )
FAA admonishing Boeing that "Boeing is not speaker for the FAA" by way of handing out timelines
is neither unreasonable nor unfair. Beyond that all indications are that Boeing has not adequately
fulfilled the task set. colloquial: "ball is on their side"

Chipmunk1973 wrote:

lessredtape wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

They can make an offer if they want, but that doesn't mean that Boeing has to accept it. If they don't like the offer, they could just say no. Perhaps Ryanair is calculating that they might really want an order right now and be willing to accept a very low price, plus they will have to pay compensation anyway.

it's a buyer market & Ryanair have got Boeing by the balls

I personally believe that MOL is being very smart about making an opportunity to his airline’s benefit.

Firstly, the FAA won’t grant certification until they’re absolutely CERTAIN that every I has been dotted and every T has been crossed. Given the level of investigation into this by so many authorities, they will want to limit trials, court cases, damages etc. Negligence is a messy legal business.

Secondly, Boeing I’m sure are very, very aware that the travelling public aren’t stupid and will do their research about what planes people will be flying on. But Boeing is a manufacturer, not an airline. So in steps MOL and Ryanair and says “We will do your marketing about confidence in the product”. I’m not sure off the top of my head how many passengers Ryanair fly daily, but I’m sure it’s quite a lot.

So, a stalwart Boeing customer stands up and supports their product but they want something in return. Seems like a reasonable business deal to me.

Rgds,
C1973

the public IS VERY stupid & a huge % would have no idea what aircraft there were flying on. Even those who know the difference between A & B wouldn't know what type of B737 they were on. Aircraft are also switched. Many pax book their flights up to 11 months ahead & some sectors will change aircraft a few times in that 11 months.

Recently flew FJ to SFO & flight to NAN was on a B738, which was not even FJ, as was switched.

scbriml wrote:

I’m surprised by this. I thought Ryanair were looking at A320neos?

Oh wait, no I’m not!

Nor am I. Sounds like Me Schraer and the Airbus sales team welcomed MOL to pay list price for some A321neos.

You reap what you sow....

seahawk wrote:

morrisond wrote:

This could be the start of the 1,500 -2,000 MAX's added to the backlog after RTS.

Say Ryanair takes 200-300, Plus the 200 for IAG, plus Southwest still needs to order another 500 to replace 737-700 - you get to 1,000 pretty quick.

On the day of the RTS Boeing will surely announce new orders by the hundreds.

No it's going to be by the tens of thousands.

767333ER wrote:

PennPal wrote:

I would think that with all the scrutiny the MAX will be one of the safest planes in the air. I'll have no problem flying on one...

Yeah that’s not how risk and safety works reality

No but it makes for a catchy slogan. I'm seeing it all around social media at the moment. I love your signature btw.

N14AZ wrote:

This time it’s different, some examples:
(i) the travel agency in charge of flight bookings for my organization still sends e-mails saying „make sure that there will be no equipment change and you will fly a MAX“. They send such e-mails to thousands of travelers since months (... even though N14AZ wrote them an e-mail trying to explain them that these aircraft are stored worldwide and it’s impossible to fly on a max but they wouldn’t believe me :-/ ...)
(ii) a female colleague has a sticker on her table with „max“ written on it to verify all flight schedules she receives
(iii) my boss sending me an e-mail with the ending „and make sure you do not fly any Max“

The name Max is in everybody’s brain (except for my colleague... :‘)))))))) .....)

This is fairly common among corporate agents and I suspect it will be for a good while to come. Nobody wants the liability.

morrisond wrote:

On the other hand Airbus was at 6,563 at the end of 2019. They will deliver about 720 this year - taking them down to 5,843. They just had a great order year and assuming they don't come down to Boeing MAX discount level (no need too) it may be a relatively quiet year leaving them with only 200-300 sales taking them back to about 6,150-6,250.

207 net orders in January alone. How confident are you on the 200-300 in 2020?

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

On the other hand Airbus was at 6,563 at the end of 2019. They will deliver about 720 this year - taking them down to 5,843. They just had a great order year and assuming they don't come down to Boeing MAX discount level (no need too) it may be a relatively quiet year leaving them with only 200-300 sales taking them back to about 6,150-6,250.

207 net orders in January alone. How confident are you on the 200-300 in 2020?

Rgds

Not very - I didn't know about the Spirit order not counting for 2019. That is very unusual for Airbus to not count everything in January for December. But they knew they were going to win by a long shot in 2019 so why not start the year off well? Good strategy in what they must guess could be a difficult year to win the orders race.

morrisond wrote:

astuteman wrote:

morrisond wrote:

On the other hand Airbus was at 6,563 at the end of 2019. They will deliver about 720 this year - taking them down to 5,843. They just had a great order year and assuming they don't come down to Boeing MAX discount level (no need too) it may be a relatively quiet year leaving them with only 200-300 sales taking them back to about 6,150-6,250.

207 net orders in January alone. How confident are you on the 200-300 in 2020?

Rgds

Not very - I didn't know about the Spirit order not counting for 2019.

Airbus’s 2019 numbers were known when you made your prediction.

What’s interesting to this and other ‘Boeing’s to lose’ orders (thinking for example Alaska here) is Airbus’s response.
Airbus here is in a win-win situation, they can put in a stupidly low offer. If they win over one of these key Boeing customers it’s another nail in the Max coffin, if they lose then Boeing will have to have also put in a stupidly low offer and close out their own production line to more profitable sales (they’ve lost the advantage of early slots vs Airbus now).
Losing could also push Boeing down the FSA route earlier (leaving Airbus to wait for the tech to mature slightly longer for their own replacement for the A320/ re-wing etc)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This thread is about Ryanair submitting an offer to Boeing, not about A v. B sales numbers. Please keep it on topic.

ShamrockBoi330 wrote:

leghorn wrote:

Lauda will get 737Max if the price is right. That is a win for Beoing and released A320s will soften the market for new A320s
Buzz will get 737Max-10 for holiday destinations.
Ryanair Main will be happy to take 737Max200 and Max-10.

Ryanair will have very competitive airframes for the next 15 years by which time the next generation of Boeing and Airbus planes will be available to order. They'll barge to the top of queue, take whatever slots free up. dispose of their fleet of old planes and the orders from Lease companies will get softer and softer. Lease companies are somewhat traditional lease companies and somewhat speculative commodity traders.

I'm not so certain with Lauda getting MAX. It has long been known that MOL wanted to get his hands on 320s and Lauda was a happy match when it became part of the group. FR are owed a ton of compensation that he is going to fight hard over, so am sure he will fight hard to get MAX10s for the original price he paid for the MAX200s.

Agreed. Other than diversification of OEMs, I think Lauda is also important to Ryanair because it's their trial of a different ownership model, with second hand aircraft approximately 15 years old being added to the fleet at a very low capital cost. Previously Ryanair's model was to buy brand new 737s ultra cheap by the hundred, fly them until their first heavy maintenance check was due then sell them on although in the past five years they seem to have been running aircraft a lot longer.

Importantly the two aircraft types across the group allows them to play the Labour groups off against each other and keep crew wages low..... something which I expect to see a lot of in the coming years.

Another benifit is that it allows them to recruit flightcrew cheaply when a competitor goes into bankruptcy. Whether they previously flew for an A320 operator (Air Berlin) or a 737 operator (Primera) Ryanair group can employ them cheaply onto one of their AOCs with minimal retraining.

zkojq wrote:

I think Lauda is also important to Ryanair because it's their trial of a different ownership model, with second hand aircraft approximately 15 years old being added to the fleet at a very low capital cost.

An old A320 at 200k a month is not cheap. It undermines their cost advantage against legacy airlines and other LCCs. Either they get new A32Xs or 737Maxes to maintain their cost advantage. Lauda will not continue in the long term with old leased planes.

leghorn wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I think Lauda is also important to Ryanair because it's their trial of a different ownership model, with second hand aircraft approximately 15 years old being added to the fleet at a very low capital cost.

An old A320 at 200k a month is not cheap. It undermines their cost advantage against legacy airlines and other LCCs. Either they get new A32Xs or 737Maxes to maintain their cost advantage. Lauda will not continue in the long term with old leased planes.

Why do you say that the old planes model has been proven to work several times?

leghorn wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I think Lauda is also important to Ryanair because it's their trial of a different ownership model, with second hand aircraft approximately 15 years old being added to the fleet at a very low capital cost.

An old A320 at 200k a month is not cheap. It undermines their cost advantage against legacy airlines and other LCCs. Either they get new A32Xs or 737Maxes to maintain their cost advantage. Lauda will not continue in the long term with old leased planes.

What? Plenty of LCCs successfully operate with that model of leasing old A320/B737s. It's all a tradeoff between capital costs vs cash operating costs. Hardly rocket science.

none are even close to the cost base of Ryanair

In a duopoly market ( A and B ) I would assume Airbus are not too tempted to take Mr O´Leary onboard - even if Boeing are under pressure for the moment.... Airbus - are most likely concentrating on keeping existing customers satisfied... this is regulated via the price tag... mr O Leary is between a rock and a hard place. My thoughts.

zkojq wrote:

leghorn wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I think Lauda is also important to Ryanair because it's their trial of a different ownership model, with second hand aircraft approximately 15 years old being added to the fleet at a very low capital cost.

An old A320 at 200k a month is not cheap. It undermines their cost advantage against legacy airlines and other LCCs. Either they get new A32Xs or 737Maxes to maintain their cost advantage. Lauda will not continue in the long term with old leased planes.

What? Plenty of LCCs successfully operate with that model of leasing old A320/B737s. It's all a tradeoff between capital costs vs cash operating costs. Hardly rocket science.

Warning - German text
https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/02/ ... problemen/
What would you do with an old dog like this.

leghorn wrote:

zkojq wrote:

leghorn wrote:

An old A320 at 200k a month is not cheap. It undermines their cost advantage against legacy airlines and other LCCs. Either they get new A32Xs or 737Maxes to maintain their cost advantage. Lauda will not continue in the long term with old leased planes.

What? Plenty of LCCs successfully operate with that model of leasing old A320/B737s. It's all a tradeoff between capital costs vs cash operating costs. Hardly rocket science.

Warning - German text
https://www.austrianwings.info/2020/02/ ... problemen/
What would you do with an old dog like this.

AVHerald probably has more details than the report in German - https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4d3bb507&opt=0

It does seem this particular frame has had a few issues, but there are times any particular frame can be a bête noire in a fleet, regardless of type.

As noted, this topic is about a Ryanair offer to Boeing.

This is not a hypothetical improved/new models to compete thread.

OA412 wrote:

This thread is about Ryanair submitting an offer to Boeing, not about A v. B sales numbers. Please keep it on topic.