Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

DartHerald wrote:

Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

It's a long thread. That idea has been floated repeatedly. This is Delta, not Qatar or Ryanair.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

It's a long thread. That idea has been floated repeatedly. This is Delta, not Qatar or Ryanair.

I'm certain DL would try. I'm also certain there would be no LEAP MRO deal for the A321 (more Pratt's). That doesn't mean no chance, but Delta works a combined strategy. That strategy includes not just future airline profits, but future MRO profits. I'm not saying the MAX is a done deal, but the MRO portion, if it happens, makes this a likely transaction.

Lightsaber

Using a potential Max order for pricing leverage doesn’t really work if Airbus doesn’t have slots to provide ~100 new A321s in the timeframe DL wants.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

It's a long thread. That idea has been floated repeatedly. This is Delta, not Qatar or Ryanair.

Whilst unlikely in this circumstance (321 slots aren't available) are you seriously saying DL would always be above reproach in such matters?

Polot wrote:

Using a potential Max order for pricing leverage doesn’t really work if Airbus doesn’t have slots to provide ~100 new A321s in the timeframe DL wants.

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

1337Delta764 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Using a potential Max order for pricing leverage doesn’t really work if Airbus doesn’t have slots to provide ~100 new A321s in the timeframe DL wants.

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Vicenza wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

It's a long thread. That idea has been floated repeatedly. This is Delta, not Qatar or Ryanair.

Whilst unlikely in this circumstance (321 slots aren't available) are you seriously saying DL would always be above reproach in such matters?

I think it is fair that Delta wouldn’t just play games and send out RFPs if they aren’t interested in actually acquiring the airplanes. Given Delta’s history with Boeing, Airbus, as well as Bombardier and McDonnell Douglass in the past, it is very clear that they are willing and able to work with all the manufacturers. This isn’t flipping a customer. Delta has more Boeing airplanes in their fleet than Airbus airplanes and includes almost 500 Boeing airplanes in their fleet with some of them delivered as recently as 3 years ago

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Using a potential Max order for pricing leverage doesn’t really work if Airbus doesn’t have slots to provide ~100 new A321s in the timeframe DL wants.

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception, regardless of whether you prefer Boeing or Airbus.

Vicenza wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

Surprised that no-one has floated the suggestion that this possible purchase as a way of getting a better price out of Airbus for more A321s..... Just sayin...!

It's a long thread. That idea has been floated repeatedly. This is Delta, not Qatar or Ryanair.

Whilst unlikely in this circumstance (321 slots aren't available) are you seriously saying DL would always be above reproach in such matters?

One can lie and bluff - being transactional, focused only on the immediate purchase - but that's not how long term business relationships prosper. O'Leary isn't in the queue for his MAX10s now, is he?

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception.

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception.

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception.

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

I'm also not sure if the leaked information in the Reuters article counts as a "public statement".

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception, regardless of whether you prefer Boeing or Airbus.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual facts here (an article - not a public statement by DL), and securities law.

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception.

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

I’m far from wanting Delta to only purchase Airbus aircraft. I would like to see the 787 in Delta colors and would like to see Delta be the launch customer for the Boeing MOM potential new plane. I think the 737-MAX is a mistake. My favorite plane of all times is the 757-200 btw.

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

I’m far from wanting Delta to only purchase Airbus aircraft. I would like to see the 787 in Delta colors and would like to see Delta be the launch customer for the Boeing MOM potential new plane. I think the 737-MAX is a mistake. My favorite plane of all times is the 757-200 btw.

Why is the MAX a mistake? Those old A320s and 757s need to be replaced by something! Sadly the 757s won’t fly forever.

Heavierthanair wrote:

As of now there is still no indication as to when the -10 may be certified. The -7 completed certification testing at the end of last year but some testing and paperwork apparently is still to be done and there is doubt they both will meet the year end deadline to avoid of having to comply with the Aircraft Safety and Certification Reform Act i.e.the modern day standard installation of an EICAS with related sensor and software changes, resulting in a likely delay of some 2 years?

Quote from an Ostrower tweet:“Installing EICAS on the 737 “would be challenging,” said Mike Carriker, Boeing’s chief pilot for product development. “There aren’t enough sensors on the 737.” Even if it were possible, it would require a new type certificate and new pilot training.”

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3817386-boeing-may-not-get-737-max-10-certification-by-end-of-2022-reuters
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/boeing/737-7-certification-work/

So who would want to commit to those without reasonably firm delivery time frame?

I heard rumours that the FAA has recently written to Boeing to say they don't expect the MAX 10 or 777-9 to get certified this year. This apparently is an issue with the MAX 10 as there is an exemption that is needs to certify the MAX 10 for attention getters, and that exemption ends by year end.

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception.

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

That's an "interesting" theory. Please show us where DL has made a public statement that they're negotiating with Boeing for the purchase of MAX.

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception, regardless of whether you prefer Boeing or Airbus.[/quote

I think you are being a little over-pompous here! What we are discussing here a rumours and I don't think there's any requirement to be transparent about rumours! IF they had to announce their negotiating tactics they'd end up paying list price every time!

DartHerald wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception, regardless of whether you prefer Boeing or Airbus.

I think you are being a little over-pompous here! What we are discussing here a rumours and I don't think there's any requirement to be transparent about rumours! IF they had to announce their negotiating tactics they'd end up paying list price every time!

Don't forget that fans of the pink 767 write outraged letters to their congress critter each time DL orders planes from anyone other than Boeing.

scbriml wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

Delta would be doing a dis service to the shareholders by not negotiating and getting the best value.

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

That's an "interesting" theory. Please show us where DL has made a public statement that they're negotiating with Boeing for the purchase of MAX.

Even if they are discussing buying planes (which I see as a basic duty of fleet managers) it does not in any way suggest they will actually buy those planes. And it certainly does not imply that Delta will refrain from talking to Airbus about the same topic. I would expect Delta to routinely talk to both A&B. And no public comments from Delta contradict that belief, that I am aware of.

LCDFlight wrote:

scbriml wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

When a company makes a public statement about a business decision and it doesn't go through, that makes them hard to trust for honesty. I am pretty sure DL negotiated; it just seems like you only want DL to only buy Airbus exclusively.

That's an "interesting" theory. Please show us where DL has made a public statement that they're negotiating with Boeing for the purchase of MAX.

Even if they are discussing buying planes (which I see as a basic duty of fleet managers) it does not in any way suggest they will actually buy those planes. And it certainly does not imply that Delta will refrain from talking to Airbus about the same topic. I would expect Delta to routinely talk to both A&B. And no public comments from Delta contradict that belief, that I am aware of.

Absolutely. The suggestion was that this couldn't be a negotiating tactic by DL because they'd made a public announcement about buying MAX, when no such public statement has been made.

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

It's a seattletimes article. Not a rumor

Would you have a link to the article you could share please ?

zeke wrote:

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

It's a seattletimes article. Not a rumor

Would you have a link to the article you could share please ?

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... -deadline/

Here you go.

Not sure if this would have impact on a potential order.
With the timeline Delta needs a plane and the wait for an alternative from airbus, this may not matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/key-lawmaker-says-he-wont-support-safety-waiver-for-boeing-737-max-10/%3famp=1

Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who leads the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an opening statement at a Wednesday hearing that he would oppose Congress extending a waiver it granted to the MAX 10.

“The aircraft certification bill gave the FAA a two-year grace period to certify aircraft without the advanced flight crew alerting system, but that grace period should not be extended,” DeFazio said in prepared remarks.

Keith2004 wrote:

Not sure if this would have impact on a potential order.
With the timeline Delta needs a plane and the wait for an alternative from airbus, this may not matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/key-lawmaker-says-he-wont-support-safety-waiver-for-boeing-737-max-10/%3famp=1

Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who leads the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an opening statement at a Wednesday hearing that he would oppose Congress extending a waiver it granted to the MAX 10.

“The aircraft certification bill gave the FAA a two-year grace period to certify aircraft without the advanced flight crew alerting system, but that grace period should not be extended,” DeFazio said in prepared remarks.

Another senator agreed that if FAA needs 6 months they’ll vote to give them six months. Can’t remember the senators name but they were also heavyweights in the rule changes that affected certification in the first place. I still think Boeing will get the waiver

Opus99 wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Not sure if this would have impact on a potential order.
With the timeline Delta needs a plane and the wait for an alternative from airbus, this may not matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/key-lawmaker-says-he-wont-support-safety-waiver-for-boeing-737-max-10/%3famp=1

Rep. Peter DeFazio, the Oregon Democrat who leads the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an opening statement at a Wednesday hearing that he would oppose Congress extending a waiver it granted to the MAX 10.

“The aircraft certification bill gave the FAA a two-year grace period to certify aircraft without the advanced flight crew alerting system, but that grace period should not be extended,” DeFazio said in prepared remarks.

Another senator agreed that if FAA needs 6 months they’ll vote to give them six months. Can’t remember the senators name but they were also heavyweights in the rule changes that affected certification in the first place. I still think Boeing will get the waiver

Oh OK, I believe that was Senator Patty Murray (D) Washington State, just wasn't sure if a House Chairman could throw it off.

1337Delta764 wrote:

NLINK wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

If I were a DL shareholder, I would consider tactics like this as shareholder deception. DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and tactics like this IMO does not pass muster.

As a Selta shareholder I think it would be a wonderful tactic. Unfortunately I think we will see the tarnished 737-MAX at Delta.

Then you don't believe in shareholder law. As I said, DL has a fiduciary duty to be transparent to its shareholders, and this would be shareholder deception, regardless of whether you prefer Boeing or Airbus.

Delta (and all corporations) have a duty to maximize shareholder returns. That is a bedrock of corporate law. The SEC requires a certain level of transparency from companies in their public statements/reports. Delta is under absolutely no duty to tell shareholders everything.

Keith2004 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Not sure if this would have impact on a potential order.
With the timeline Delta needs a plane and the wait for an alternative from airbus, this may not matter.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.seattletimes.com/business/key-lawmaker-says-he-wont-support-safety-waiver-for-boeing-737-max-10/%3famp=1

Another senator agreed that if FAA needs 6 months they’ll vote to give them six months. Can’t remember the senators name but they were also heavyweights in the rule changes that affected certification in the first place. I still think Boeing will get the waiver

Oh OK, I believe that was Senator Patty Murray (D) Washington State, just wasn't sure if a House Chairman could throw it off.

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

planecane wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Another senator agreed that if FAA needs 6 months they’ll vote to give them six months. Can’t remember the senators name but they were also heavyweights in the rule changes that affected certification in the first place. I still think Boeing will get the waiver

Oh OK, I believe that was Senator Patty Murray (D) Washington State, just wasn't sure if a House Chairman could throw it off.

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

Bingo. Boeing is too important (even if the FAA isn’t at fault). But we will see comments and posturing now; the result is inevitable.

planecane wrote:

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

jbs2886 wrote:

Bingo. Boeing is too important (even if the FAA isn’t at fault). But we will see comments and posturing now; the result is inevitable.

What will be the other certifying agencies opinion on this? Or do you guys think the FAA has won back the confidence of the other agencies in their capability to safely certify a derivative already after the MAX debacle for both Boeing and the FAA?

planecane wrote:

Keith2004 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Another senator agreed that if FAA needs 6 months they’ll vote to give them six months. Can’t remember the senators name but they were also heavyweights in the rule changes that affected certification in the first place. I still think Boeing will get the waiver

Oh OK, I believe that was Senator Patty Murray (D) Washington State, just wasn't sure if a House Chairman could throw it off.

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

Absolutely - and I don't think they have said anything this thread is based on a rumour from a press source!

enzo011 wrote:

planecane wrote:

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

jbs2886 wrote:

Bingo. Boeing is too important (even if the FAA isn’t at fault). But we will see comments and posturing now; the result is inevitable.

What will be the other certifying agencies opinion on this? Or do you guys think the FAA has won back the confidence of the other agencies in their capability to safely certify a derivative already after the MAX debacle for both Boeing and the FAA?

Really, aren’t we talking about changing switch colors etc. to where there would be a greater safety risk in the lack of commonality for 737 pilots, vs. the new standards if the -10 etc are made much different? This is just piling on, imho, regarding the max challenges. Let the FAA and Boeing take their time getting it certified, but don’t punish the new version any further by making the larger/smallest versions somehow different to the point of causing pilot confusion.

texl1649 wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

planecane wrote:

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

jbs2886 wrote:

Bingo. Boeing is too important (even if the FAA isn’t at fault). But we will see comments and posturing now; the result is inevitable.

What will be the other certifying agencies opinion on this? Or do you guys think the FAA has won back the confidence of the other agencies in their capability to safely certify a derivative already after the MAX debacle for both Boeing and the FAA?

Really, aren’t we talking about changing switch colors etc. to where there would be a greater safety risk in the lack of commonality for 737 pilots, vs. the new standards if the -10 etc are made much different? This is just piling on, imho, regarding the max challenges. Let the FAA and Boeing take their time getting it certified, but don’t punish the new version any further by making the larger/smallest versions somehow different to the point of causing pilot confusion.

Then maybe they shouldn't do mixed flying for MAX10 pilots and other MAX's. Just have a dedicated pilot pool for those.... 100 MAX10 seems like enough to justify a seperate fleet...

enzo011 wrote:

planecane wrote:

They can try but it is highly unlikely. This extension will have bi-partisan support. Congress isn't going to sabotage one of the biggest exporters over an arbitrary deadline when the FAA is at fault for the delay.

jbs2886 wrote:

Bingo. Boeing is too important (even if the FAA isn’t at fault). But we will see comments and posturing now; the result is inevitable.

What will be the other certifying agencies opinion on this? Or do you guys think the FAA has won back the confidence of the other agencies in their capability to safely certify a derivative already after the MAX debacle for both Boeing and the FAA?

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

Maybe without the MAX debacle you could exclude other certifying agencies when talking about certification at the moment. The FAA has to win back the confidence that they are committed to safety and will not cut corners again at the request of other factors. Letting the deadline extend to suit the company just because it will cost them money or jobs is not the way to win back that confidence.

[quote="texl1649" but don’t punish the new version any further by making the larger/smallest versions somehow different to the point of causing pilot confusion.[/quote]

So just change the law to suit Boeing once again, eh....despite them knowing for the last three years?

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

Vicenza wrote:

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

I’m confused. The reason the max10 is delayed is BECAUSE of other certifying agencies I.e EASA. FAA was happy to leave the airspeed system as is. EASA said they wanted the updated one. So they should be in support of the extension because it’s because they’re the root cause of extension

Opus99 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

I’m confused. The reason the max10 is delayed is BECAUSE of other certifying agencies I.e EASA. FAA was happy to leave the airspeed system as is. EASA said they wanted the updated one. So they should be in support of the extension because it’s because they’re the root cause of extension

That’s a whole lot of logic, for a Boeing-related topic here.

enzo011 wrote:

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

Maybe without the MAX debacle you could exclude other certifying agencies when talking about certification at the moment. The FAA has to win back the confidence that they are committed to safety and will not cut corners again at the request of other factors. Letting the deadline extend to suit the company just because it will cost them money or jobs is not the way to win back that confidence.

Vicenza wrote:

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

Opus99 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

I’m confused. The reason the max10 is delayed is BECAUSE of other certifying agencies I.e EASA. FAA was happy to leave the airspeed system as is. EASA said they wanted the updated one. So they should be in support of the extension because it’s because they’re the root cause of extension

You are all confusing different issues and treating them as one. The deadline to add EICAS is due to a US law that was passed where congress essentially decided to override the FAAs autonomy on that requirement. That is the ONLY reason that, if the deadline is not extended, the 737 MAX 10 would have to be updated to include EICAS at a cost which is too high to be worth doing.

The other agencies (namely EASA) required other improvements to provide more redundancy and these improvements will be required to be retrofitted into the other MAX models. The delay isn't because of these requirements. The delay is due to the FAA not being able to process the certification quickly enough to meet the deadline imposed by congress. Look how long the MAX 7 certification is taking and it is essentially the same aircraft as the already certified MAX 8.

The other certifying agencies are not irrelevant when it comes to certifying the MAX 10. They are irrelevant when it comes to the requirement of adding EICAS if it isn't certified by the end of the year.

planecane wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

planecane wrote:

This issue doesn't have anything to do with other certifying agencies. A law was passed in the wake of the MAX crashes that requires all new aircraft certified in the US after a certain date (I believe December 31, 2022) to have EICAS.

Maybe without the MAX debacle you could exclude other certifying agencies when talking about certification at the moment. The FAA has to win back the confidence that they are committed to safety and will not cut corners again at the request of other factors. Letting the deadline extend to suit the company just because it will cost them money or jobs is not the way to win back that confidence.

Vicenza wrote:

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

Opus99 wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

You think so eh, and that when it comes to the MAX all other certifying agencies are irrelevant? Hmm, okay.

I’m confused. The reason the max10 is delayed is BECAUSE of other certifying agencies I.e EASA. FAA was happy to leave the airspeed system as is. EASA said they wanted the updated one. So they should be in support of the extension because it’s because they’re the root cause of extension

You are all confusing different issues and treating them as one. The deadline to add EICAS is due to a US law that was passed where congress essentially decided to override the FAAs autonomy on that requirement. That is the ONLY reason that, if the deadline is not extended, the 737 MAX 10 would have to be updated to include EICAS at a cost which is too high to be worth doing.

The other agencies (namely EASA) required other improvements to provide more redundancy and these improvements will be required to be retrofitted into the other MAX models. The delay isn't because of these requirements. The delay is due to the FAA not being able to process the certification quickly enough to meet the deadline imposed by congress. Look how long the MAX 7 certification is taking and it is essentially the same aircraft as the already certified MAX 8.

The other certifying agencies are not irrelevant when it comes to certifying the MAX 10. They are irrelevant when it comes to the requirement of adding EICAS if it isn't certified by the end of the year.

I understand that, but the reason Boeing is even facing the EICAS deadline in the first place is because they had to send the max 10 back to the drawing board a little bit. The max 10 rolled out December 2019. We are now at April 22. My hunch is that without having to go back to make the changes EASA required, Boeing won’t be facing the EICAS deadline now. I don’t know if that makes sense.

Boeing could’ve started the flight test campaign of the max 10 as soon as they got certification of the max family back on. But they couldn’t because of the changes EASA enforced

I mean I say that and look at the MAX 7

This thread went off topic and will be locked. Feel free to start a new one when there are nay news with respect to an order announcement.

For 737 MAX 10 Please continue here: Boeing 737 MAX 10 Development / Testing / Production Thread - 2022