I think the rebranding of the 737 MAX as the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10 was a mistake. Not because it'll hurt Boeing, but it will hurt the airlines. Most passengers are going to see "737-800", think it's the same as the 737-8, and then panic because they think the MAX is still dangerous. Same case for the -700 and -900. It's unfortunate, and I think it was a bit of a mistake by Boeing. People won't die from this mistake, but it's still likely to do damage to the airlines that fly the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10. And trying to explain this to a nervous passenger is unlikely to work. I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I don't really see any way around it. Am I alone in thinking this?

I don't know if you are alone, but I am not with you. Outside this thing of ours, the genpop mostly doesn't know or remember jack about the MAX brand. Oh yeah, there was those plane crashes but that was a while ago right, and there's been nothing since so all must be well. Any remindery of the MAX name may trigger some memories, so this tweaking of the name (making it consistent with other Boeing nomenclature) is entirely predictable and necessary. Backdraft against the previous generation? Dubious.

Bricktop wrote:

Outside this thing of ours, the genpop mostly doesn't know or remember jack about the MAX brand.

Nor do they know aircraft types. Nor aircraft age - a new interior on a 25-yr old plane is a 'new plane'. The genpop is lucky to be able to guess Airbus or Boeing even 75% of the time without looking at the nameplate at the entry door.

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Bricktop wrote:

I don't know if you are alone, but I am not with you. Outside this thing of ours, the genpop mostly doesn't know or remember jack about the MAX brand. Oh yeah, there was those plane crashes but that was a while ago right, and there's been nothing since so all must be well. Any remindery of the MAX name may trigger some memories, so this tweaking of the name (making it consistent with other Boeing nomenclature) is entirely predictable and necessary. Backdraft against the previous generation? Dubious.

I'm not sure about that. As things stand, the genpop has no chance of knowing the difference, but if the media makes a big deal of the rebranding when it's re-certified to fly, then I think people will freak out.

For the forseeable future, I think the only thing the flying public will be worrying about is whether
the middle seat next to them is empty or not.

arcticcruiser wrote:

DALMD80 wrote:

Bricktop wrote:

I don't know if you are alone, but I am not with you. Outside this thing of ours, the genpop mostly doesn't know or remember jack about the MAX brand. Oh yeah, there was those plane crashes but that was a while ago right, and there's been nothing since so all must be well. Any remindery of the MAX name may trigger some memories, so this tweaking of the name (making it consistent with other Boeing nomenclature) is entirely predictable and necessary. Backdraft against the previous generation? Dubious.

I'm not sure about that. As things stand, the genpop has no chance of knowing the difference, but if the media makes a big deal of the rebranding when it's re-certified to fly, then I think people will freak out.

Where do you see EVIDENCE of rebranding?

Good point. It's been MAX-8/MAX-9 right from the start, long before the crisis. Some airlines may or may not drop the 'MAX' part, but they have always been free to tweak their naming schemes. Boeing itself in the form of the CEO has said they will not do a rebranding effort. He literally said that there was no sense in trying to market their way around the crisis, what they needed to do is get the right fixes in place and get the regulators to allow RTS.

I'm sure the press will put some stink onto the plane at RTS time, but that'll wear off pretty darn quickly, IMO. Airlines like WN and FR are looking forward to parking their older NGs and cashing in on the fuel burn improvements on planes they already own.

Zero effect. The general population is not going to be concerned at all. They know that the aircraft cannot fly unless certified. They may remember that there was some issue that led to a 737 grounding; but, it must have been fixed if the aircraft are flying.

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

Have a great day,

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Isn’t that the whole problem with the Max?

General population may not care. Frequent flyers may be a different story

kalvado wrote:

General population may not care. Frequent flyers may be a different story

Even then, only the avgeeks.

DALMD80 wrote:

if the media makes a big deal of the rebranding when it's re-certified to fly, then I think people will freak out.

And then everyone will forget a week later.

KLMatSJC wrote:

DALMD80 wrote:

if the media makes a big deal of the rebranding when it's re-certified to fly, then I think people will freak out.

And then everyone will forget a week later.

Most humans are herd animals. Once the first wades across the river, the rest follow.

The new naming system is at least consistent with the system used for the 777X. In both cases "X" or "MAX" is the family/brand name (to distinguish from the previous generation) whilst the individual models just use suffixes like -8 or -9.

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

ikramerica wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

Only a.net is the princess and the pea and pretends to feel that 0.25" is some sort of torture device. Blind aircraft test, I am confident these so called experts will fail at telling the difference.

No one cares. They never have. it is an airplane and that's all that matters to 99.99% of the flying public.

arcticcruiser wrote:

Elshad wrote:

The new naming system is at least consistent with the system used for the 777X. In both cases "X" or "MAX" is the family/brand name (to distinguish from the previous generation) whilst the individual models just use suffixes like -8 or -9.

There is no “new naming system”. The -7, -8, -9 and -10 have been used since the idea of a new family was launched.

Exactly. Boeing would be stupid to emphasize MAX after the news coverage. Keep it MAX for return to service. Then drop the MAX logos and just call it by the model instead of the trade name.

This isn't that big a deal. The plane has new control logic including future synthetic airspeed. I would happily fly on it.

I personally cannot tell the difference in seat width and I have broad shoulders. I've flown in the last 12 months on A320s, A319s, 738s, 739s, CRJs, and 757s... (huh, no widebodies in a while and for whatever reason no E-jet this year, not intentional). The planes I didn't like, it was due to seats purchased or out of date overhead bins creating loading issues.

This topic keeps coming up. One doesn't advertise a tarnished brand. Airlines will buy the MAX, but call it the 737-8 or 737-9 and so what? Those who have a fear will let all their friends know. I'll fly a rather efficient aircraft as I will fly the A320NEO and I hope to fly the A220 and E2 (not yet common to California). This isn't a conspiracy theory. Just smart marketing.

The half life of public attention is short:
http://www.continuityinbusiness.com/201 ... companies/

Lightsaber

I think there is no perfect solution and the one they chose is the simplest which might be best.

lightsaber wrote:

I personally cannot tell the difference in seat width and I have broad shoulders. I've flown in the last 12 months on A320s, A319s, 738s, 739s, CRJs, and 757s... (huh, no widebodies in a while and for whatever reason no E-jet this year, not intentional). The planes I didn't like, it was due to seats purchased or out of date overhead bins creating loading issues.

I am confident that if we did a blind aircraft test, it would go exactly as well as the results of most people who call themselves sommeliers do when tested. It's all a big charade of self-reinforcing stereotypes.

2175301 wrote:

Zero effect. The general population is not going to be concerned at all. They know that the aircraft cannot fly unless certified. They may remember that there was some issue that led to a 737 grounding; but, it must have been fixed if the aircraft are flying.

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

Have a great day,

Well over 300 dead people out there, their families grieving and many of us not too keen to get on an aircraft with this kind of a track record. So just detail, really...

oxonrow wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Zero effect. The general population is not going to be concerned at all. They know that the aircraft cannot fly unless certified. They may remember that there was some issue that led to a 737 grounding; but, it must have been fixed if the aircraft are flying.

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

Have a great day,

Well over 300 dead people out there, their families grieving and many of us not too keen to get on an aircraft with this kind of a track record. So just detail, really...

It is just a detail in the long run, yes. Many more have unfortunately perished on the 737 NG, a320, a330, 777 etc. People still fly them daily without issue.

Once the issue is fixed, people will understandably be hesitant. But assuming no further issues after re-entering service, it will be a footnote on the overall type. I don't say this to diminish the loss of life, just to recognize that aviation is (despite incidents) remarkably safe and continues to be due to the efforts of a large number of people focused on keeping it that way.

DALMD80 wrote:

I think the rebranding of the 737 MAX as the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10 was a mistake. Not because it'll hurt Boeing, but it will hurt the airlines. Most passengers are going to see "737-800", think it's the same as the 737-8, and then panic because they think the MAX is still dangerous. Same case for the -700 and -900. It's unfortunate, and I think it was a bit of a mistake by Boeing. People won't die from this mistake, but it's still likely to do damage to the airlines that fly the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10. And trying to explain this to a nervous passenger is unlikely to work. I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I don't really see any way around it. Am I alone in thinking this?

They already do when the plane was branded as the 737 MAX 8 etc.

Too many people already refer to the 747-8 as the "747-800." Those same people will probably refer to the 737-8 as the "737-800," and confusion will abound.

ikramerica wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

Aren’t you speaking of configuration, though? For carriers like UA or WN who had large 737 fleets, configured the MAX close to how the extant 737s were configured, and never really got around to using the capabilities of the MAX before grounding (not quite true for UA, who scheduled them liberally to OGG, where the NGs can struggle with runway performance), it would have been difficult for even informed passengers to tell the difference. On my WN MAX flights I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference from the interior or even the sound level.

It’s different for a carrier like AC who was not an NG operator so that 737 = MAX.

Just bring back the customer codes and call it an XR or something

2175301 wrote:

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

No one died because of the 787 battery problem. Hundreds of people died because of the MAX MCAS problem. That's the difference.

afterburner wrote:

2175301 wrote:

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

No one died because of the 787 battery problem. Hundreds of people died because of the MAX MCAS problem. That's the difference.

Same thing happened with the a330 after AF 447. Or the 767 after the Lauda air thrust reverser issue. Hundreds.

Both aircraft types are in regular service still. Why do we keep repeating the same tired arguments that history has repeatedly shown to not matter?

Antarius wrote:

afterburner wrote:

2175301 wrote:

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

No one died because of the 787 battery problem. Hundreds of people died because of the MAX MCAS problem. That's the difference.

Same thing happened with the a330 after AF 447. Or the 767 after the Lauda air thrust reverser issue. Hundreds.

Both aircraft types are in regular service still. Why do we keep repeating the same tired arguments that history has repeatedly shown to not matter?

I think because this one Boeing KNEW they were releasing a sub standard product

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

afterburner wrote:

No one died because of the 787 battery problem. Hundreds of people died because of the MAX MCAS problem. That's the difference.

Same thing happened with the a330 after AF 447. Or the 767 after the Lauda air thrust reverser issue. Hundreds.

Both aircraft types are in regular service still. Why do we keep repeating the same tired arguments that history has repeatedly shown to not matter?

I think because this one Boeing KNEW they were releasing a sub standard product

Some people did, yes. And consequences should be appropriately meted out.

I just don't think that the average consumer knows or cares though. History has shown that over time, people return to flying the damned variant and thats it.

Cubsrule wrote:

It’s different for a carrier like AC who was not an NG operator so that 737 = MAX.

This means that Boeing should even scrap the "737" brand, not only the "MAX".

(Same things happen with VietJet being an all-A320 operator. My friend works for the VJ marketing team said the carrier is having trouble to persuade pax about the MAX, and one of suggested the solutions is not letting any pax know that they are sitting on a 737)

Antarius wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Same thing happened with the a330 after AF 447. Or the 767 after the Lauda air thrust reverser issue. Hundreds.

Both aircraft types are in regular service still. Why do we keep repeating the same tired arguments that history has repeatedly shown to not matter?

I think because this one Boeing KNEW they were releasing a sub standard product

Some people did, yes. And consequences should be appropriately meted out.

I just don't think that the average consumer knows or cares though. History has shown that over time, people return to flying the damned variant and thats it.

Well eventually yes. But then again there’s also the argument that if the MAX should have any problem in the future whatsoever, it’s just going to open a can of worms even if it has nothing to do with MCAS. Media making a big deal, conspiracy theories etc. But i do agree that eventually nobody cares

Opus99 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

I think because this one Boeing KNEW they were releasing a sub standard product

Some people did, yes. And consequences should be appropriately meted out.

I just don't think that the average consumer knows or cares though. History has shown that over time, people return to flying the damned variant and thats it.

Well eventually yes. But then again there’s also the argument that if the MAX should have any problem in the future whatsoever, it’s just going to open a can of worms even if it has nothing to do with MCAS. Media making a big deal, conspiracy theories etc. But i do agree that eventually nobody cares

I'm operating under the assumption that Boeing has 2 years under the microscope to fix their screw ups and will do so. If this occurs, then no one should care.

If they have another at fault incident (or one that's close) soon after reentry, then its curtains for the MAX and possibly Boeing as a whole.

Antarius wrote:

afterburner wrote:

2175301 wrote:

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

No one died because of the 787 battery problem. Hundreds of people died because of the MAX MCAS problem. That's the difference.

Same thing happened with the a330 after AF 447. Or the 767 after the Lauda air thrust reverser issue. Hundreds.

Both aircraft types are in regular service still. Why do we keep repeating the same tired arguments that history has repeatedly shown to not matter?

No aircraft grounding after either the AF447 and Lauda 004 accidents. Investigation found that inappropriate actions by the flight crew was the more dominant cause of the AF accident. On the Lauda accident, the investigation result was inconclusive because the FDR was destroyed.
Also, I think the ubiquity/pervasiveness of social media made the notoriety of 737MAX spread more easily.

Cubsrule wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

Aren’t you speaking of configuration, though? For carriers like UA or WN who had large 737 fleets, configured the MAX close to how the extant 737s were configured, and never really got around to using the capabilities of the MAX before grounding (not quite true for UA, who scheduled them liberally to OGG, where the NGs can struggle with runway performance), it would have been difficult for even informed passengers to tell the difference. On my WN MAX flights I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference from the interior or even the sound level.

It’s different for a carrier like AC who was not an NG operator so that 737 = MAX.

Paper thin seats, less pitch and unusable bathrooms.

I know that you can retrofit that onto an -800 or A320, but the Max was the first new aircraft that introduced less comfort and space than the aircraft that came before.

The MAX issues, the amount of publicity they received and the duration and extend of the grounding are unprecedented, so I find it hard to predict how the general public will react to a rebranding. "MAX", unlike other airplane model designation, has become a household name - almost, if not quite like "Corona".
Being a communications and marketing specialist I'd say create the least amount of noise around a discrete name change seems the best strategy. That's pretty much what Boeing is doing now: No official rebranding, but let the airlines chose to drop the MAX if hey want and, most important: let them do the explanation.

N965UW wrote:

Too many people already refer to the 747-8 as the "747-800." Those same people will probably refer to the 737-8 as the "737-800," and confusion will abound.

I was on a WN MAX-8 and the first officer welcomed us onboard a brand new 737MAX-800.

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Here is why it is different this time : The MAX8 was certified to fly and yet 2 planes crashed with loss of lives! What the accidents exposed was not just the flaws in the 737MAX aircraft, but also, more worryingly, the FAA's lax oversight during the certification process. For over half a century, most countries usually followed in step with the FAA. But this whole "self certification by Boeing" nonsense becoming public, the dirty laundry is out.

Let us not kid ourselves! Return to service is not going to be smooth for the 737MAX! And people are going to keep a close watch on both Boeing and FAA. There is absolutely zero room for maneuver for these two!

mileduets wrote:

The MAX issues, the amount of publicity they received and the duration and extend of the grounding are unprecedented, so I find it hard to predict how the general public will react to a rebranding. "MAX", unlike other airplane model designation, has become a household name - almost, if not quite like "Corona".

Ryanair have had later build -8s labelled as "737-8200" and their Buzz subsidiary has nothing at all, but they have painted "by RYANAIR" in its place. Currently Ryanair does not paint the aircraft designation on their -800s. Neither does Lauda on the A320. Clearly operators can market their aircraft whatever they like, I think 737-8 will have to appear on the safety card, Im not sure about MAX? Or if 737-8200 would also be acceptable - I think that is a specific model with capacity over 189?

Time, and time, and time, and time, and time, and time again the general flying public have shown there is only one thing they are interested in when choosing an airline to fly: price. If an airline is flying Boeing 737-7s, or -8s, or -9s, or -10s, and they price their tickets well, people will fly them, and most will be none the wiser.

Most passengers (i.e. non-AV geeks) struggle to tell a widebody from a narrowbody, let alone a B from an A. True story: my sister-in-law flew from London to San Francisco, upstairs in Premium Economy on a BA A380. I know, because I paid for the ticket and booked her seat for her. And I was there to collect her, and saw G-XLEF taxi to the gate. She didn't even know she was on a double-decker aircraft, that it was an A380, or that she was in Premium Economy, but she did notice the wine came in a glass not a plastic cup, and that the meal was lovely. In fact she was quite adamant that it wasn't a double decker when I asked her what she thought of flying "upstairs".

People will remember the MAX crashes, of course they will. But they won't realise they are on a rebranded MAX, and, since the problem was solved (presumably: I am talking in the future here!), won't care.

DALMD80 wrote:

I think the rebranding of the 737 MAX as the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10 was a mistake. Not because it'll hurt Boeing, but it will hurt the airlines. Most passengers are going to see "737-800", think it's the same as the 737-8, and then panic because they think the MAX is still dangerous. Same case for the -700 and -900. It's unfortunate, and I think it was a bit of a mistake by Boeing. People won't die from this mistake, but it's still likely to do damage to the airlines that fly the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10. And trying to explain this to a nervous passenger is unlikely to work. I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I don't really see any way around it. Am I alone in thinking this?

I think you are trying to start something like trying to start a fire in a swimming pool. Most of the travelling public still needs to be shown how to put on a seatbelt. They don't have a clue what type of aircraft they are taking. It's not an issue.

brilondon wrote:

DALMD80 wrote:

I think the rebranding of the 737 MAX as the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10 was a mistake. Not because it'll hurt Boeing, but it will hurt the airlines. Most passengers are going to see "737-800", think it's the same as the 737-8, and then panic because they think the MAX is still dangerous. Same case for the -700 and -900. It's unfortunate, and I think it was a bit of a mistake by Boeing. People won't die from this mistake, but it's still likely to do damage to the airlines that fly the 737-7, -8, -9, and -10. And trying to explain this to a nervous passenger is unlikely to work. I hope it doesn't happen this way, but I don't really see any way around it. Am I alone in thinking this?

I think you are trying to start something like trying to start a fire in a swimming pool. Most of the travelling public still needs to be shown how to put on a seatbelt. They don't have a clue what type of aircraft they are taking. It's not an issue.

I agree, most of the traveling public just doesn't know. Airline A might win a corporate or government contract and those people will fly them until someone else wins the contract.

Of all things to decide upon, if it is a MAX or not isn't worth the brain cells. That is like not flying the A330 despite multiple aircraft instabilities. Why pilots made incorrect actions, that was eventually going to happen.

There is a solution, it will be fixed.

Lightsaber

ikramerica wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

Aren’t you speaking of configuration, though? For carriers like UA or WN who had large 737 fleets, configured the MAX close to how the extant 737s were configured, and never really got around to using the capabilities of the MAX before grounding (not quite true for UA, who scheduled them liberally to OGG, where the NGs can struggle with runway performance), it would have been difficult for even informed passengers to tell the difference. On my WN MAX flights I wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference from the interior or even the sound level.

It’s different for a carrier like AC who was not an NG operator so that 737 = MAX.

Paper thin seats, less pitch and unusable bathrooms.

I know that you can retrofit that onto an -800 or A320, but the Max was the first new aircraft that introduced less comfort and space than the aircraft that came before.

Again, that’s operator choice. On WN they were identical in the cabin.

Antarius wrote:

oxonrow wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Zero effect. The general population is not going to be concerned at all. They know that the aircraft cannot fly unless certified. They may remember that there was some issue that led to a 737 grounding; but, it must have been fixed if the aircraft are flying.

No one was concerned about the 787 return to service after the battery grounding. Why should anything be different now?

Have a great day,

Well over 300 dead people out there, their families grieving and many of us not too keen to get on an aircraft with this kind of a track record. So just detail, really...

It is just a detail in the long run, yes. Many more have unfortunately perished on the 737 NG, a320, a330, 777 etc. People still fly them daily without issue.

Once the issue is fixed, people will understandably be hesitant. But assuming no further issues after re-entering service, it will be a footnote on the overall type. I don't say this to diminish the loss of life, just to recognize that aviation is (despite incidents) remarkably safe and continues to be due to the efforts of a large number of people focused on keeping it that way.

The aircraft you mentioned all had many more units in service, having flown many more flights and hours. Two fatal crashes for an aircraft with less than 2 years and fewer than 400 aircraft in service is not even remotely comparable to the NG, A32X, A330 and 777. As far as I'm aware, the 777 and A330's crashes were not caused by design flaws either (save a pitot tube issue on the A330 that was recognised and in the process of being changed).

MrHMSH wrote:

Antarius wrote:

oxonrow wrote:

Well over 300 dead people out there, their families grieving and many of us not too keen to get on an aircraft with this kind of a track record. So just detail, really...

It is just a detail in the long run, yes. Many more have unfortunately perished on the 737 NG, a320, a330, 777 etc. People still fly them daily without issue.

Once the issue is fixed, people will understandably be hesitant. But assuming no further issues after re-entering service, it will be a footnote on the overall type. I don't say this to diminish the loss of life, just to recognize that aviation is (despite incidents) remarkably safe and continues to be due to the efforts of a large number of people focused on keeping it that way.

The aircraft you mentioned all had many more units in service, having flown many more flights and hours. Two fatal crashes for an aircraft with less than 2 years and fewer than 400 aircraft in service is not even remotely comparable to the NG, A32X, A330 and 777. As far as I'm aware, the 777 and A330's crashes were not caused by design flaws either (save a pitot tube issue on the A330 that was recognised and in the process of being changed).

The entire order and deliveries of the 777 and a330 combined is less than than MAX order book though. So there is a large vested interest in getting these aircraft back into service eventually on the part of Boeing and the airlines. I don't see another option - its going to return to service eventually. It isn't like the MAX is going to go away.

We will definitely see what ends up shaking out, but my personal opinion is that similar to the other crashes and models (admittedly, not exactly the same as you mentioned), eventually the media buzz will die down and things will return to normal.

With COVID, I still probably won't be flying for awhile. But if the MAX, no matter how it is rebranded, has flown for a few months with no incidents, I would get aboard. I will have a problem with my wife. I plan not to tell her about the -8, -9, etc. rebranding. It has to be the most looked into aircraft by many oversight groups in years. Pilots will be getting sim training. And, if you know any pilots, you bet they will be diligent in their training. After all, I got aboard the DC10 after the grounding accident just a few months afterwards. I did have have a cocktail before I got aboard.

The general public may not be able to recognize the a/c when they wait at the lounge or when they board until they grab the safety info card and read (if they do that actually).

However, the equipment type is usually shown when one books a ticket online. With so much negative press going on with the MAX, I doubt this would not affect customers' choice. To go even further, an average passenger may avoid all 737 flights altogether as they won't understand the differences between a MAX and NG. All they know is #737 #MAX #CRASH.

And before anyone suggest, in the part of the world where I am residing, they are actually enough choices for passengers should they really want to avoid a particular a/c type.

b-hrn

Antarius wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

mcdu wrote:

What is really different in the passenger experience from an -800 and a -8? 99,999% of the customers have no idea what kind of plane they are on and the 737 is the same inside from almost every perspective. The difference is in economics if the fix works and the plane is certified to fly. It’s the balance sheet guys at the airlines that know what the difference is between them.

Well, an already marginally comfortable aircraft (-800) is being made less comfortable by everyone putting it (-8) into service. So I would say, the difference is worse.

Only a.net is the princess and the pea and pretends to feel that 0.25" is some sort of torture device. Blind aircraft test, I am confident these so called experts will fail at telling the difference.

No one cares. They never have. it is an airplane and that's all that matters to 99.99% of the flying public.

Agreed. And United was able to put the same seat width on their 737 Max 9 as their Airbus fleet by slightly reducing the armrest width.

Antarius wrote:

The entire order and deliveries of the 777 and a330 combined is less than than MAX order book though. So there is a large vested interest in getting these aircraft back into service eventually on the part of Boeing and the airlines. I don't see another option - its going to return to service eventually. It isn't like the MAX is going to go away.

We will definitely see what ends up shaking out, but my personal opinion is that similar to the other crashes and models (admittedly, not exactly the same as you mentioned), eventually the media buzz will die down and things will return to normal.

Of course there's a vested interest in a safe MAX for everyone involved, but that doesn't exactly counter the point I've made. Other aircraft had accidents, but the rate of the MAX's fatalities was quite unprecedented for a modern airliner, because the other aircraft have many more thousands (NG and A320) or hundreds (777 and A330) of units in service. The problem was also a flaw with the aircraft itself, even though the aircraft should have been the same as the MAX in every regard bar fuel efficiency, some maintenance and a few very minor differences.

The MAX's image is tainted, if there's another accident then people will start to think that the aircraft is unsafe, and unfortunately there's a strong possibility that will happen, as the NG still has accidents, and the MAX is (MCAS aside) pretty much the same aircraft from a safety point of view. The other aircraft didn't have the disadvantage of being in the age where any idiot can share anything on the internet, either.