737 MAX 10 Uncertainty Potentially holding up 16 billion dollars worth of Sales

Opus99 · Mon May 09, 2022 1:11 pm

Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders. Either congress will extend the deadline and if not, what is Boeings plan? Particularly delta.

Like we all know, Boeing says they’re confident that congress will extend the deadline, when are they taking it to congress? Does anyone know

Anyway the orders in the pipeline

Delta : 100 Max 10s
IAG: 50 Max 10s
Ryanair: 100-200 Max 10s

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-bonanza

MrHMSH · Mon May 09, 2022 1:20 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders. Either congress will extend the deadline and if not, what is Boeings plan? Particularly delta.

Like we all know, Boeing says they’re confident that congress will extend the deadline, when are they taking it to congress? Does anyone know

Anyway the orders in the pipeline

Delta : 100 Max 10s
IAG: 50 Max 10s
Ryanair: 100-200 Max 10s

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-bonanza

I imagine this must be immensely frustrating, by the looks of things the orders would be ready to go without the issues. Though we can't absolve Boeing completely, the FAA seems to be a bit chaotic at the moment. 3 very high-profile customers with pretty sizeable orders which would be badly-needed good news. Not sure where IAG's MAXs would go, seems too small for BA or IB, VY is all-Airbus but could change. Is Air Europa deal still on the table?

wingman · Mon May 09, 2022 1:53 pm

Between this fiasco and Udvar-Hazy's comments about the 777X this morning you could generalize more broadly and say that Boeing uncertainty is potentially cancelling its own existence, forever.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-09/

GCT64 · Mon May 09, 2022 2:24 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders. Either congress will extend the deadline and if not, what is Boeings plan? Particularly delta.

Like we all know, Boeing says they’re confident that congress will extend the deadline, when are they taking it to congress? Does anyone know

Anyway the orders in the pipeline

Delta : 100 Max 10s
IAG: 50 Max 10s
Ryanair: 100-200 Max 10s

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-bonanza

I imagine this must be immensely frustrating, by the looks of things the orders would be ready to go without the issues. Though we can't absolve Boeing completely, the FAA seems to be a bit chaotic at the moment. 3 very high-profile customers with pretty sizeable orders which would be badly-needed good news. Not sure where IAG's MAXs would go, seems too small for BA or IB, VY is all-Airbus but could change. Is Air Europa deal still on the table?

The general consensus seems to be that the IAG Max 10s would be for LCC short-haul, so presumably VY (rather than BA, IB or EI). All the IAG brands are currently "All Airbus" for short-haul so one of the airlines is going to have to adopt a new supplier and go through the change if they actually order Max 10s. The cost model and pax experience of a high density Max 10 seems to fit the VY brand.

jbs2886 · Mon May 09, 2022 2:25 pm

It was posted in a KLM thread, but the MAX was the preferred aircraft - uncertainty on verification for the 10 pushed the deal to Airbus.

I question whether certification is really holding up a Ryanair deal. I imagine that’s solely over price. I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

MIflyer12 · Mon May 09, 2022 2:38 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

Sure, DL could use MAX8s - but if it's 10s they want...

The way Bloomberg writes this the work is with the FAA, not Boeing, to complete this year. Not just Congress amending the law to give more time, I wonder if the courts might be dragged in to this. Messy.

MrHMSH · Mon May 09, 2022 2:39 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
It was posted in a KLM thread, but the MAX was the preferred aircraft - uncertainty on verification for the 10 pushed the deal to Airbus.

I question whether certification is really holding up a Ryanair deal. I imagine that’s solely over price. I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

Makes sense to me, current 737 operator who don't use them on 'long' narrowbody routes, and never seen any indication that they want to launch new routes with the XLR, though that option is easily taken up if they change their minds.

We know the A321neo is overall a more compelling product, but the mere fact that you can reliably expect them to be delivered on time is probably its biggest virtue at present.

JerseyFlyer · Mon May 09, 2022 2:55 pm

GCT64 wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that the IAG Max 10s would be for LCC short-haul, so presumably VY (rather than BA, IB or EI). All the IAG brands are currently "All Airbus" for short-haul so one of the airlines is going to have to adopt a new supplier and go through the change if they actually order Max 10s. The cost model and pax experience of a high density Max 10 seems to fit the VY brand.

When the LOI was signed, it was for 200 Max-8s and -10s, to be used by VY and BA's low cost operation at LGW. These 50 Max-10s could be for either. Perhaps most likely for BA at LGW as it would be a complete fleet there, not requiring a mixed operation. The LGW fleet could be used to gain operational experience before placing orders for other IAG operator(s). If IAG still wants some Max-8s, there is no impediment to placing an immediate order for them.

MrHMSH · Mon May 09, 2022 3:10 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that the IAG Max 10s would be for LCC short-haul, so presumably VY (rather than BA, IB or EI). All the IAG brands are currently "All Airbus" for short-haul so one of the airlines is going to have to adopt a new supplier and go through the change if they actually order Max 10s. The cost model and pax experience of a high density Max 10 seems to fit the VY brand.

When the LOI was signed, it was for 200 Max-8s and -10s, to be used by VY and BA's low cost operation at LGW. These 50 Max-10s could be for either. Perhaps most likely for BA at LGW as it would be a complete fleet there, not requiring a mixed operation. The LGW fleet could be used to gain operational experience before placing orders for other IAG operator(s). If IAG still wants some Max-8s, there is no impediment to placing an immediate order for them.

I still feel this would be a strange decision, though on its own the MAX 10 looks like a good choice for LGW, they'd also be sacrificing significant interoperability with the LHR fleet. In a pinch LHR birds or crew can cover LGW birds and crew if necessary. Would be a lot harder with different fleets and crew ratings.

JerseyFlyer · Mon May 09, 2022 3:23 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that the IAG Max 10s would be for LCC short-haul, so presumably VY (rather than BA, IB or EI). All the IAG brands are currently "All Airbus" for short-haul so one of the airlines is going to have to adopt a new supplier and go through the change if they actually order Max 10s. The cost model and pax experience of a high density Max 10 seems to fit the VY brand.

When the LOI was signed, it was for 200 Max-8s and -10s, to be used by VY and BA's low cost operation at LGW. These 50 Max-10s could be for either. Perhaps most likely for BA at LGW as it would be a complete fleet there, not requiring a mixed operation. The LGW fleet could be used to gain operational experience before placing orders for other IAG operator(s). If IAG still wants some Max-8s, there is no impediment to placing an immediate order for them.

I still feel this would be a strange decision, though on its own the MAX 10 looks like a good choice for LGW, they'd also be sacrificing significant interoperability with the LHR fleet. In a pinch LHR birds or crew can cover LGW birds and crew if necessary. Would be a lot harder with different fleets and crew ratings.

IAG said the LOI for 200 Maxes was primarily to establish a dual-supplier strategy within IAG for resilience reasons. In itself that could be seen as a "strange" decision, the benefits from which will surely cost something, somewhere. A cynic could view a fully independent operation at LGW being easier to sell on if they fail to extract profit from it. Time will tell!

KarlB737 · Mon May 09, 2022 3:26 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders.

The article doesn't state it but are there any technical or operational issues with the MAX10 at this point that would stall certification or is the FAA just gun shy of providing a fast approval and getting burned again.

HL300MUC · Mon May 09, 2022 3:27 pm

JerseyFlyer wrote:
GCT64 wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that the IAG Max 10s would be for LCC short-haul, so presumably VY (rather than BA, IB or EI). All the IAG brands are currently "All Airbus" for short-haul so one of the airlines is going to have to adopt a new supplier and go through the change if they actually order Max 10s. The cost model and pax experience of a high density Max 10 seems to fit the VY brand.

When the LOI was signed, it was for 200 Max-8s and -10s, to be used by VY and BA's low cost operation at LGW. These 50 Max-10s could be for either. Perhaps most likely for BA at LGW as it would be a complete fleet there, not requiring a mixed operation. The LGW fleet could be used to gain operational experience before placing orders for other IAG operator(s). If IAG still wants some Max-8s, there is no impediment to placing an immediate order for them.

There are no other IAG airlines who could use the 737s since the likes of IB and EI are all Airbus in this category and I doubt they would switch from NEOs to 737s.

Opus99 · Mon May 09, 2022 3:33 pm

KarlB737 wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders.

The article doesn't state it but are there any technical or operational issues with the MAX10 at this point that would stall certification or is the FAA just gun shy of providing a fast approval and getting burned again.

I mean, none that we are aware of. But we know these things have a way of coming out into the open sooner or later but for now no, nothing to report…yet

SEU · Mon May 09, 2022 4:05 pm

How much would it cost boeing to bite the bullet, upgrade the cockpits of the 737s and pay for airlines training of pilots? Would that not be cheaper than holding out for something else?

sxf24 · Mon May 09, 2022 4:15 pm

SEU wrote:
How much would it cost boeing to bite the bullet, upgrade the cockpits of the 737s and pay for airlines training of pilots? Would that not be cheaper than holding out for something else?

I’ve heard it’s not viable to modify the MAX 10 without re-engineering and certifying the entire aircraft. That’s tens of billions of dollars and many years.

It also results in one 737 that’s different than all of the other 737s, creating training issues. While the crew alerting technology on the 737 is older, it’s been proven over time and there is risk of changing.

ElroyJetson · Mon May 09, 2022 4:21 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Bloomberg this morning that customers are waiting to know the decision on the MAX10 before placing their orders. Either congress will extend the deadline and if not, what is Boeings plan? Particularly delta.

Like we all know, Boeing says they’re confident that congress will extend the deadline, when are they taking it to congress? Does anyone know

Anyway the orders in the pipeline

Delta : 100 Max 10s
IAG: 50 Max 10s
Ryanair: 100-200 Max 10s

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... on-bonanza

I imagine this must be immensely frustrating, by the looks of things the orders would be ready to go without the issues. Though we can't absolve Boeing completely, the FAA seems to be a bit chaotic at the moment. 3 very high-profile customers with pretty sizeable orders which would be badly-needed good news. Not sure where IAG's MAXs would go, seems too small for BA or IB, VY is all-Airbus but could change. Is Air Europa deal still on the table?

I agree with you in that the FAA appears to be in complete disarray. My additional concern is for the Airbus A321 XLR that will need some modifications in the belly fuel tank area for certification. Even though the EASA is the lead regulatory agency the FAA must also review and approve. Since resources appear to be limited I wonder how issues at the FAA will effect multiple programs.

Opus99 · Tue May 10, 2022 10:04 pm

https://twitter.com/rschuur_aero/status ... sDwd-CHWEw

IAG has now removed I believe a total of 4 A321NEOs from vuelings backlog and moved them to iberia

We know that Boeing has also posted a Global Engagement Specialist role in Barcelona (vueling home)

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/catalonia/g ... 5444767376

We also know that IAG is preparing to order 50 Max 10s to potentially be announced at Farnborough

I

iamlucky13 · Tue May 10, 2022 10:56 pm

Opus99 wrote:
Like we all know, Boeing says they’re confident that congress will extend the deadline, when are they taking it to congress?

Actually, I didn't know if they were confident, so I went ahead and looked up the transcript from the last quarterly earnings call (April 27), on the expectation it was discussed there:

https://investors.boeing.com/investors/ ... fault.aspx

Boeing Earnings Call wrote:
(Robert Spingarn - Analyst, Melius Research LLC - Q)
And if the MAX-10 slips beyond year-end and then you need the new flight crew alerting system do you assume you'll get the waiver or does this put the program at risk? I mean, if you can't get the 10 done without substantial more costs and looking at the order book, do you just leave that market for next airplane?

(David L. Calhoun - President, Boeing - A)
That's a great question. I hope I never get there. First and foremost, with respect to the original legislation, there was a lengthy window put in there based on historic certification timetables that would have provided for the MAX- 7 and MAX-10 easily, so these things have taken longer. The intent of that legislation was never to stop the derivative product line with respect to the MAX. So I believe our chances are good with respect to getting legislative relief. It doesn't mean we'll get them and if we don't it's a problem.

On the other hand, demand for the MAX is substantial. And we have other airplanes and substitution that we could implement and that decision has to get made sometime between now and the end of the year. We don't feel the need to do it now. I'm still pretty focused and our company is pretty focused on getting the dash 10 certified in our customer's hands. They love everything about the airplane, it's doing incredibly well on development program itself. So it's a good question, it's the right question, and we have to make sure our decisioning and thought process is ahead of where we think things end up at the end of the year.

My summary of that is: We think we will get a waiver, because the effective date of the legislation was intended to be beyond when everyone (Boeing, FAA, Congress) thought the MAX 7 and 10 would be done. If we don't get it, the demand for the MAX is still strong, so we have to decide between committing more money to the -10 or competing only with the -9.

Regarding your question about when they take the request to Congress: There isn't a formal request to make, like for an FAA type certificate application. Rather, they need a Congressman to introduce a bill to amend the regulation affecting the -10 certification. Presumably discussions are happening now with multiple Congressmen to lobby for them to propose such a bill. Rick Larsen and Maria Cantwell seem to me like possible sponsors, since Boeing is a major employer of their constituencies and they are both on transportation committees in their respective houses.

Avatar2go · Tue May 10, 2022 11:29 pm

The decision will be for Congress to make. They will likely wait to see if needed at the end of the year, and also will wait for the FAA review of the third-party "CAS-lite" proposal, to see if they want to impose conditions.

In the meantime all Boeing can do is press forward on MAX-10 certification with the FAA. That doesn't really change for any of the possible outcomes.

kayik · Wed May 11, 2022 12:13 am

sxf24 wrote:
SEU wrote:
How much would it cost boeing to bite the bullet, upgrade the cockpits of the 737s and pay for airlines training of pilots? Would that not be cheaper than holding out for something else?

I’ve heard it’s not viable to modify the MAX 10 without re-engineering and certifying the entire aircraft. That’s tens of billions of dollars and many years.

It also results in one 737 that’s different than all of the other 737s, creating training issues. While the crew alerting technology on the 737 is older, it’s been proven over time and there is risk of changing.

Wasn't that the idea behind MCAS? Maybe, Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots would take the risk.

Avatar2go · Wed May 11, 2022 4:13 am

kayik wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
SEU wrote:

It also results in one 737 that’s different than all of the other 737s, creating training issues. While the crew alerting technology on the 737 is older, it’s been proven over time and there is risk of changing.

Wasn't that the idea behind MCAS? Maybe, Lion Air and Ethiopian pilots would take the risk.

Idea behind MCAS was to ensure the column force gradient for a pilot-induced climb, would be compliant with the regulations. As all aircraft must be.

The FAA has repeatedly scrutinized and approved the CAS waiver for the 737, last time being at MAX recertification in late 2020. So there is no issue from the perspective of the regulator.

BoeingVista · Wed May 11, 2022 6:02 am

jbs2886 wrote:
It was posted in a KLM thread, but the MAX was the preferred aircraft - uncertainty on verification for the 10 pushed the deal to Airbus.

I question whether certification is really holding up a Ryanair deal. I imagine that’s solely over price. I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

The ability to switch to an aircraft they don't want? Thats a hard sell.

LAX772LR · Wed May 11, 2022 6:41 am

BoeingVista wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

The ability to switch to an aircraft they don't want? Thats a hard sell.

That's how they lost DL's interest in the 787 as well:

Almost 4yrs ago, Boeing sent a team to DL led by then-787 program directors Justin Hale and Emily Silvester, with basically "Don't come back, without getting a 787 order from them!" instructions.

DL made it clear from day-1 that the only thing they'd be interested in, is a 78X with 789-like range/performance.

The sales team tried everything: including 789+78X with the promise of unspecified future performance increases in the latter... combined with a sell plus buyback-guarantee of additional 77Ls, to make up for any lacking performance until increased 78X numbers could be officially ironed out.

DL wouldn't bite.

USAirKid · Wed May 11, 2022 6:43 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
Regarding your question about when they take the request to Congress: There isn't a formal request to make, like for an FAA type certificate application. Rather, they need a Congressman to introduce a bill to amend the regulation affecting the -10 certification. Presumably discussions are happening now with multiple Congressmen to lobby for them to propose such a bill. Rick Larsen and Maria Cantwell seem to me like possible sponsors, since Boeing is a major employer of their constituencies and they are both on transportation committees in their respective houses.

Last I checked Maria Cantwell was a Congresswoman, Congressperson, or a Senator, not a Congressman. But we could hang back in the 1960s when the 737s were originally designed and stick with Congressman.

FluidFlow · Wed May 11, 2022 6:45 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/rschuur_aero/status/1523701265661788160?s=21&t=G58wkD1oASFksDwd-CHWEw

IAG has now removed I believe a total of 4 A321NEOs from vuelings backlog and moved them to iberia

We know that Boeing has also posted a Global Engagement Specialist role in Barcelona (vueling home)

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/catalonia/g ... 5444767376

We also know that IAG is preparing to order 50 Max 10s to potentially be announced at Farnborough

I

The good thing is, IAG has enough "old" A320 at IB, EI and BA to place all the VX Neos and switch VX to a complete 737 operation. IMHO that is also the most sensible option and that way IAG could have an all new generation NB fleet before 2030. Everthing else seems rather experimental. While the LGW fleet might be, it is a big risk to buy a lot of 737 for that fleet, because if the venture does not work out and BA has to scale back again from LGW, where should the 737s go then? It is not like the BA operation at LGW was ever truely solid and a no brainer, they always had some kind of struggles there.

Opus99 · Wed May 11, 2022 7:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

The ability to switch to an aircraft they don't want? Thats a hard sell.

That's how they lost DL's interest in the 787 as well:

Almost 4yrs ago, Boeing sent a team to DL led by then-787 program directors Justin Hale and Emily Silvester, with basically "Don't come back, without getting a 787 order from them!" instructions.

DL made it clear from day-1 that the only thing they'd be interested in, is a 78X with 789-like range/performance.

The sales team tried everything: including 789+78X with the promise of unspecified future performance increases in the latter... combined with a sell plus buyback-guarantee of additional 77Ls, to make up for any lacking performance until increased 78X numbers could be officially ironed out.

DL wouldn't bite.

This is interesting, can you elaborate on why DL requested a 78X with that kind of performance? Especially since they had the 350s, I guess they’re slightly different sizes but still like you know, the same size category

DaCubbyBearBar · Wed May 11, 2022 7:38 am

wingman wrote:
Between this fiasco and Udvar-Hazy's comments about the 777X this morning you could generalize more broadly and say that Boeing uncertainty is potentially cancelling its own existence, forever.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-05-09/

I agree completely. Boeing is soon to be known as, Boeing a former commercial aircraft company but now just a military and space company

Heavierthanair · Wed May 11, 2022 7:56 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/rschuur_aero/status/1523701265661788160?s=21&t=G58wkD1oASFksDwd-CHWEw

IAG has now removed I believe a total of 4 A321NEOs from vuelings backlog and moved them to iberia

We know that Boeing has also posted a Global Engagement Specialist role in Barcelona (vueling home)

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/catalonia/g ... 5444767376

We also know that IAG is preparing to order 50 Max 10s to potentially be announced at Farnborough

I

The good thing is, IAG has enough "old" A320 at IB, EI and BA to place all the VX Neos and switch VX to a complete 737 operation. IMHO that is also the most sensible option and that way IAG could have an all new generation NB fleet before 2030. Everthing else seems rather experimental. While the LGW fleet might be, it is a big risk to buy a lot of 737 for that fleet, because if the venture does not work out and BA has to scale back again from LGW, where should the 737s go then? It is not like the BA operation at LGW was ever truely solid and a no brainer, they always had some kind of struggles there.

Except Vueling has a fleet of well over 100 Airbuses, so what would they do with only the mentioned 50 737's? For what I know they plan to grow the airline, not shrink it

LAX772LR · Wed May 11, 2022 8:23 am

Opus99 wrote:
This is interesting, can you elaborate on why DL requested a 78X with that kind of performance? Especially since they had the 350s, I guess they’re slightly different sizes but still like you know, the same size category

Their focus was in the 78X's long A-zone (the area between L1 and L2); it's disproportionately long in that model, longer in total than in the A339, 772, and A359.

If you'll notice, none of DL's aircraft equipped with the Delta One suites has a row that goes past the A-zone.
It's a self-imposed limitation, but one that they're consistent with.

But the 78X's long A-zone, would allow it to easily fit well over 40 suites, and thus become the airline's hi-premium model, for routes such as LHR/GRU/HND/PVG/SYD.... the majority of which it'd need a range bump to reliably do with cargo.

StTim · Wed May 11, 2022 8:45 am

This sounds to me like the opening salvo of the PR war to persuade Congress to extend the deadline.

keesje · Wed May 11, 2022 9:03 am

At some point a line has to be drawn and EICAS will be introduced on 737.

That point was 2011 or maybe 1995.

The geriatric 737 crew alerting system played a bad role in a series of 737MAX and 737NG incidents and accidents.

Somehow Boeing was able to push it thru in 1995 and 2011, bending the paperwork & working the congress-FAA exemption machinery.

Allowing Boeing again to avoid a solid 737 EICAS (like on 757, 767, 777, 787) would create a kind of international FAA credibility issue again.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max ... ign-urged/

EricThePilot · Wed May 11, 2022 9:06 am

If the MAX 10 is further delay as so as the 777X, will other airline switch order to 787 or other version of 737 MAX?

Opus99 · Wed May 11, 2022 9:24 am

keesje wrote:
At some point a line has to be drawn and EICAS will be introduced on 737.

That point was 2011 or maybe 1995.

The geriatric 737 crew alerting system played a bad role in a series of 737MAX and 737NG incidents and accidents.

Somehow Boeing was able to push it thru in 1995 and 2011, bending the paperwork & working the congress-FAA exemption machinery.

Allowing Boeing again to avoid a solid 737 EICAS (like on 757, 767, 777, 787) would create a kind of international FAA credibility issue again.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max ... ign-urged/

What if EASA supports the extension?

Good heavens, imagine that

Blotto · Wed May 11, 2022 9:52 am

keesje wrote:
At some point a line has to be drawn and EICAS will be introduced on 737.

That point was 2011 or maybe 1995.

The geriatric 737 crew alerting system played a bad role in a series of 737MAX and 737NG incidents and accidents.

Somehow Boeing was able to push it thru in 1995 and 2011, bending the paperwork & working the congress-FAA exemption machinery.

Allowing Boeing again to avoid a solid 737 EICAS (like on 757, 767, 777, 787) would create a kind of international FAA credibility issue again.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max ... ign-urged/

This.

What's the point in setting a deadline if it's pushed in case of inconvienance?

Given the recent years it's hard to believe that Boeing tries to circumvent flight safety measures again...

Opus99 · Wed May 11, 2022 10:14 am

Blotto wrote:
keesje wrote:
At some point a line has to be drawn and EICAS will be introduced on 737.

That point was 2011 or maybe 1995.

The geriatric 737 crew alerting system played a bad role in a series of 737MAX and 737NG incidents and accidents.

Somehow Boeing was able to push it thru in 1995 and 2011, bending the paperwork & working the congress-FAA exemption machinery.

Allowing Boeing again to avoid a solid 737 EICAS (like on 757, 767, 777, 787) would create a kind of international FAA credibility issue again.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max ... ign-urged/

This.

What's the point in setting a deadline if it's pushed in case of inconvienance?

Given the recent years it's hard to believe that Boeing tries to circumvent flight safety measures again...

Okay so if they certify it December 31 2021 at 11:59 you’re happy with it?

Of course they would get an extension. The right thing to do is get an extension. If not then congress should request all MAXs and NGs be upgraded if not it’s dumb.

It’s not as though the alerting system on the 737 has some kind of expiry date. Like after 31 December of this year it suddenly will stop working?

The deadline was put at this time because the belief was that both max 7 and 10 would be certified by this time but obviously not, given the changes that had to be made on the max 10 and the new FAA scrutiny on the max 7.

The FAA supports the extension and I believe EASA will too.

I hate how people are classifying this as some kind of trying to circumvent regulation.

It is actually dumb to spend billions of dollars to fix something that is not broken, that you think will improve safety when it will actually make things more complex for pilots, airlines and regulators AND Boeing. I even think forcing it will make Boeing even more creative with things that will “make the -10 similar to other models”. Who knows what that will be. It’s just a long unnecessary process.

So the alerting system is okay on 31 December 2022 but it’s bad on 1 jan 2023?

The first thing is to seek the extension, if they don’t do it, drop the max 10. It’s incredibly wild to spend that money upgrading it.

frigatebird · Wed May 11, 2022 10:59 am

Heavierthanair wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
https://twitter.com/rschuur_aero/status/1523701265661788160?s=21&t=G58wkD1oASFksDwd-CHWEw

IAG has now removed I believe a total of 4 A321NEOs from vuelings backlog and moved them to iberia

We know that Boeing has also posted a Global Engagement Specialist role in Barcelona (vueling home)

https://jobs.boeing.com/job/catalonia/g ... 5444767376

We also know that IAG is preparing to order 50 Max 10s to potentially be announced at Farnborough

I

The good thing is, IAG has enough "old" A320 at IB, EI and BA to place all the VX Neos and switch VX to a complete 737 operation. IMHO that is also the most sensible option and that way IAG could have an all new generation NB fleet before 2030. Everthing else seems rather experimental. While the LGW fleet might be, it is a big risk to buy a lot of 737 for that fleet, because if the venture does not work out and BA has to scale back again from LGW, where should the 737s go then? It is not like the BA operation at LGW was ever truely solid and a no brainer, they always had some kind of struggles there.

Except Vueling has a fleet of well over 100 Airbuses, so what would they do with only the mentioned 50 737's? For what I know they plan to grow the airline, not shrink it

The thread refers to an article about possible MAX-10 orders, of which IAG seems to be ready place 50. It could very well be IAG also plans to order MAX-8's, which could go to VX (and possibly BA operating out of LGW). The A320neo's VX now operates could easily be transferred to other airlines within the IAG group, like Iberia. IAG re-allocated another 2 A321neo from VX to IB in Airbus' April order lists.

keesje · Wed May 11, 2022 11:15 am

Opus99 wrote:
Blotto wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think FAA / EASA experts reviewed the 737 crew alerting system after the MAX crashes. Then independent specialists (reviewed all emergency situations of the last 50 years that involved the 737 CAS and the roll it played. And then it started to shine through how this questionable functionality was downplayed, avoided and dismissed. But at the same time the cleaned up CAS trackrecord was used to grandfathered it on the 737NGa nd 737MAX, saving modification & certification costs.

A group of truly independent specialists (JATR, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... t_2019.pdf) addressed this issue in objective and sober words. Since then a string of additional national reports tried to burry the conclusions and recommendations and it was hoped time would do its thing. But Boeing - FAA can no longer fix this between them, things changed. E.g. China & EU authorities want solid solutions & compliance instead of promises, exemptions and compensations. And they are big & rich.

Opus99 · Wed May 11, 2022 11:22 am

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
Blotto wrote:

I think FAA / EASA experts reviewed the 737 crew alerting system after the MAX crashes. Then independent specialists (reviewed all emergency situations of the last 50 years that involved the 737 CAS and the roll it played. And then it started to shine through how this questionable functionality was downplayed, avoided and dismissed. But at the same time the cleaned up CAS trackrecord was used to grandfathered it on the 737NGa nd 737MAX, saving modification & certification costs.

A group of truly independent specialists (JATR, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... t_2019.pdf) addressed this issue in objective and sober words. Since then a string of additional national reports tried to burry the conclusions and recommendations and it was hoped time would do its thing. But Boeing - FAA can no longer fix this between them, things changed. E.g. China & EU authorities want solid solutions & compliance instead of promises, exemptions and compensations. And they are big & rich.

If what you’re saying is true then EASA should’ve requested it then. Why didn’t they? Why are they allowing 737s to fly with this deadly CAS system? Or is EASA as much of a pushover at their job as the FAA was?

If your analysis is true, I have many questions

keesje · Wed May 11, 2022 12:20 pm

Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:

I think FAA / EASA experts reviewed the 737 crew alerting system after the MAX crashes. Then independent specialists (reviewed all emergency situations of the last 50 years that involved the 737 CAS and the roll it played. And then it started to shine through how this questionable functionality was downplayed, avoided and dismissed. But at the same time the cleaned up CAS trackrecord was used to grandfathered it on the 737NGa nd 737MAX, saving modification & certification costs.

A group of truly independent specialists (JATR, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... t_2019.pdf) addressed this issue in objective and sober words. Since then a string of additional national reports tried to burry the conclusions and recommendations and it was hoped time would do its thing. But Boeing - FAA can no longer fix this between them, things changed. E.g. China & EU authorities want solid solutions & compliance instead of promises, exemptions and compensations. And they are big & rich.

If what you’re saying is true then EASA should’ve requested it then. Why didn’t they? Why are they allowing 737s to fly with this deadly CAS system? Or is EASA as much of a pushover at their job as the FAA was?

If your analysis is true, I have many questions

Boeing pushed the FAA for relaxing requirements on the crew alert system. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ew-alerts/.

In 2021 EASA set conditions when allowing the 737-8 back in service:
- Design changes proposed by Boeing to address the issues highlighted by the accidents are EASA approved and their embodiment is mandated.
- An independent extended design review has been completed by EASA
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... ice-europe

The 737-10 is a new aircraft and it's logical to implement the long overdue improvements from the start. Safety First.

sxf24 · Wed May 11, 2022 12:27 pm

keesje wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
keesje wrote:

I think FAA / EASA experts reviewed the 737 crew alerting system after the MAX crashes. Then independent specialists (reviewed all emergency situations of the last 50 years that involved the 737 CAS and the roll it played. And then it started to shine through how this questionable functionality was downplayed, avoided and dismissed. But at the same time the cleaned up CAS trackrecord was used to grandfathered it on the 737NGa nd 737MAX, saving modification & certification costs.

A group of truly independent specialists (JATR, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files ... t_2019.pdf) addressed this issue in objective and sober words. Since then a string of additional national reports tried to burry the conclusions and recommendations and it was hoped time would do its thing. But Boeing - FAA can no longer fix this between them, things changed. E.g. China & EU authorities want solid solutions & compliance instead of promises, exemptions and compensations. And they are big & rich.

If what you’re saying is true then EASA should’ve requested it then. Why didn’t they? Why are they allowing 737s to fly with this deadly CAS system? Or is EASA as much of a pushover at their job as the FAA was?

If your analysis is true, I have many questions

Boeing pushed the FAA for relaxing requirements on the crew alert system. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ew-alerts/.

In 2021 EASA set conditions when allowing the 737-8 back in service:
- Design changes proposed by Boeing to address the issues highlighted by the accidents are EASA approved and their embodiment is mandated.
- An independent extended design review has been completed by EASA
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... ice-europe

The 737-10 is a new aircraft and it's logical to implement the long overdue improvements from the start. Safety First.

The link you posted lays out a very different timeline and fact set than you previously claimed.

You do raise a fundamental question about grandfathering: should exist or is any derivative or enhancement re-certified? There’s a key question that needs to accompany this: is it appropriate to change the rules (or remove previously granted waivers) mid-evaluation?

FiscAutTecGarte · Wed May 11, 2022 3:06 pm

keesje wrote:
In 2021 EASA set conditions when allowing the 737-8 back in service:
- Design changes proposed by Boeing to address the issues highlighted by the accidents are EASA approved and their embodiment is mandated.
- An independent extended design review has been completed by EASA
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... ice-europe

This is all hindsight. They still allowed the present crew alerting system when they originally certified it... following FAAs lead. At that time, they failed to do proper diligence as well. Of course after two deadly accidents you do a retake and then set new conditions. I'm grateful to EASA for taking the tougher stance now, but they didn't do that during the original certification.

ILNFlyer · Wed May 11, 2022 3:51 pm

SEU wrote:
How much would it cost boeing to bite the bullet, upgrade the cockpits of the 737s and pay for airlines training of pilots? Would that not be cheaper than holding out for something else?

As a publicly traded company, if there were certification issues, those would have been required to reveal already.

JerseyFlyer · Wed May 11, 2022 4:52 pm

As I understand it, if BA want 10's for LGW, certification of the aircraft in UK would be for the CAA, not EASA, as the post-Brexit transition arrangements will have expired.

Another wrinkle - but one that could be exacerbated by UK press headlines about safety and not being dictated to by the EU.

Does anyone with relevant knowledge have a view?

Prost · Wed May 11, 2022 5:03 pm

LAX772LR wrote:

If you'll notice, none of DL's aircraft equipped with the Delta One suites has a row that goes past the A-zone.
It's a self-imposed limitation, but one that they're consistent with.

But the 78X's long A-zone, would allow it to easily fit well over 40 suites, and thus become the airline's hi-premium model, for routes such as LHR/GRU/HND/PVG/SYD.... the majority of which it'd need a range bump to reliably do with cargo.

DL A330-200 D1 suites extend past door 2.

Vicenza · Wed May 11, 2022 5:06 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

I'm grateful to EASA for taking the tougher stance now, but they didn't do that during the original certification.

Largely because the FAA were the primary regulator and, as per normal practices in such cases, other regulatory bodies followed the FAA's lead. At original certification there was no known need for EASA to certify separately.

LAX772LR · Wed May 11, 2022 5:19 pm

Prost wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

If you'll notice, none of DL's aircraft equipped with the Delta One suites has a row that goes past the A-zone.
It's a self-imposed limitation, but one that they're consistent with.

But the 78X's long A-zone, would allow it to easily fit well over 40 suites, and thus become the airline's hi-premium model, for routes such as LHR/GRU/HND/PVG/SYD.... the majority of which it'd need a range bump to reliably do with cargo.

DL A330-200 D1 suites extend past door 2.

Incorrect.

The A332s feature the reverse herringbone seat, not the D1 Suite.

smartplane · Wed May 11, 2022 7:27 pm

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:
keesje wrote:
In 2021 EASA set conditions when allowing the 737-8 back in service:
- Design changes proposed by Boeing to address the issues highlighted by the accidents are EASA approved and their embodiment is mandated.
- An independent extended design review has been completed by EASA
https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and ... ice-europe

This is all hindsight. They still allowed the present crew alerting system when they originally certified it... following FAAs lead. At that time, they failed to do proper diligence as well. Of course after two deadly accidents you do a retake and then set new conditions. I'm grateful to EASA for taking the tougher stance now, but they didn't do that during the original certification.

JATR representatives agreed a series of conditions precedent, to apply, before they would recommend lifting the MAX grounding.

Further modifications / improvements were required for all MAX models, which for want of a better timetable, and based on Boeing's own, became a condition precedent for the certification of the 10. These were to be retrofitted in other models delivered and to be delivered, as a condition subsequent.

Some representatives considered this agreement to be loose, in particular, if Boeing delayed, or shelved the 10. As a result, JATR will re-group, if it's likely the agreed milestones and conditions will not be actioned.

N649DL · Wed May 11, 2022 7:44 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BoeingVista wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I’m also surprised DL-Boeing can’t come to an agreement that includes penalties for not getting certification and ability to switch.

The ability to switch to an aircraft they don't want? Thats a hard sell.

That's how they lost DL's interest in the 787 as well:

Almost 4yrs ago, Boeing sent a team to DL led by then-787 program directors Justin Hale and Emily Silvester, with basically "Don't come back, without getting a 787 order from them!" instructions.

DL made it clear from day-1 that the only thing they'd be interested in, is a 78X with 789-like range/performance.

The sales team tried everything: including 789+78X with the promise of unspecified future performance increases in the latter... combined with a sell plus buyback-guarantee of additional 77Ls, to make up for any lacking performance until increased 78X numbers could be officially ironed out.

DL wouldn't bite.

Which I always found to be pretty interesting considering DL straight up cancelled the ex-NW 787 orders. Yet they took delivery of new A333 with "NW" registration numbers, so perhaps Airbus gave DL a deal that they couldn't walk away from. Obviously there is a lot of Northwest influence at Delta who's maintenance department know best practices for repairing Airbus aircraft as well.

SEU · Thu May 12, 2022 9:28 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
As I understand it, if BA want 10's for LGW, certification of the aircraft in UK would be for the CAA, not EASA, as the post-Brexit transition arrangements will have expired.

Another wrinkle - but one that could be exacerbated by UK press headlines about safety and not being dictated to by the EU.

Does anyone with relevant knowledge have a view?

Lets say CAA approves it, but EASA doesn't, where is BA Flying its -10s to? Cant land in EASA Countries, or overfly them so domestic?

DaCubbyBearBar · Thu May 12, 2022 10:31 am

Why is no one talking about the MAX7?? We are in the middle of May and there is no talk of it being certified this year, right now. Can the MAX7 potentially suffer the same fate of the MAX10 and not be certified for at least a year or more if it doesn’t get approval before the end of 22??

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net