Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Boeing 737 MAX returns to commercial service

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
Brazilian airline GOL has the dubious honour of flying the first Boeing 737 (Mad) MAX flight of the decade with flight 4104 today.

More here,

MAX back in commercial service (scramble.nl)

Those wishing to end it all may want to make their bookings now...
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
I don't follow the "first of the decade" bit ?

The MAX has been grounded from March last last year, so this is the first commercial flight of the current decade.
 
With regard to the grounding of the Max in a strange way it may have helped some companies. TUI had ordered a number and was operating five with a sixth due for delivery when the UK grounded them. They also had intended on getting many more.

In July of this year Tui agreed a deal with Boeing over compensation for the grounding of its delivered 737 Max’s, and deliveries of 61 new ones will be delayed by two years on average, with Boeing paying most of the compensation agreed on within the next two years. This has boosted their share prices.

Its been a very slow time for them but they have kept all their pilots so far, huge relief to me as my son flies for them. Hoping as people get vaccinated and people start travelling again things will pick up. With fewer aircraft deliveries they will have time to adapt to the new conditions

Tui have realised that people may be concerned and will make allowances for this. Before reintroducing the 737 Max they will be looking at the best way to inform customers and accommodate changes. If a customer is due to fly on a 737 and would like to change ‘they will be allowed to move without an amendment fee’. It is also taking steps to indicate to customers making future bookings if the flight may be operated by the 737 Max.
 
Brazilian airline GOL has the dubious honour of flying the first Boeing 737 (Mad) MAX flight of the decade with flight 4104 today.

More here,

MAX back in commercial service (scramble.nl)

Those wishing to end it all may want to make their bookings now...

Why dubious? Stick crews up front who are not unsure of their own skills and fly the bloody aircraft. Sheep like reliance on automation will always have consequences.
 
Less than good news so soon after its return to service...

737 Max: Air Canada flight in unscheduled landing after engine issue

An Air Canada Boeing 737 Max aircraft has been forced to make an unscheduled landing after developing engine trouble, the airline has said.

The plane was en route from the US state of Arizona to Montreal in Canada when it was diverted shortly after take-off, Air Canada said.​

The plane was carrying three crew members at the time and landed safely.​
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Less than good news so soon after its return to service...

737 Max: Air Canada flight in unscheduled landing after engine issue

An Air Canada Boeing 737 Max aircraft has been forced to make an unscheduled landing after developing engine trouble, the airline has said.

The plane was en route from the US state of Arizona to Montreal in Canada when it was diverted shortly after take-off, Air Canada said.​

The plane was carrying three crew members at the time and landed safely.​
Hahahaha, Ryanair have just bought loads of them too!
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
Less than good news so soon after its return to service...

737 Max: Air Canada flight in unscheduled landing after engine issue

An Air Canada Boeing 737 Max aircraft has been forced to make an unscheduled landing after developing engine trouble, the airline has said.

The plane was en route from the US state of Arizona to Montreal in Canada when it was diverted shortly after take-off, Air Canada said.​

The plane was carrying three crew members at the time and landed safely.​

That airplane suffered an engine failure/issue soon after take-off from wherever it had been in store. Airplanes don't take to being stored, and further issues with the hundreds of MAX's that have been sitting around for over 18 months can be expected as they are being returned to service.
 
That airplane suffered an engine failure/issue soon after take-off from wherever it had been in store. Airplanes don't take to being stored, and further issues with the hundreds of MAX's that have been sitting around for over 18 months can be expected as they are being returned to service.
That is as it may be but nonetheless, it is really poor and unwanted publicity for an aeroplane with a seriously toxic rep amongst the world's travelling public.

Tui has said that it is 'their intention' to inform passengers if they are due to fly on a Boeing 737 Max before it is re-introduced to its fleet and to let them change flights for free if they don't feel able to fly on one.

News channels carrying stories of emergency landings are not going to do anything to enhance confidence in the grievously tainted product.
 

Le_addeur_noir

On ROPS
On ROPs
That is as it may be but nonetheless, it is really poor and unwanted publicity for an aeroplane with a seriously toxic rep amongst the world's travelling public.



News channels carrying stories of emergency landings are not going to do anything to enhance confidence in the grievously tainted product.

Personally I'm not keen on flying on one. Not that one can go flying anywhere any time soon.

The media are going to love every incident involving the MAX, especially on a slow news day. And that is something Boeing have brought upon themselves.
 
That is as it may be but nonetheless, it is really poor and unwanted publicity for an aeroplane with a seriously toxic rep amongst the world's travelling public.



News channels carrying stories of emergency landings are not going to do anything to enhance confidence in the grievously tainted product.

No arguing with that at least on face value. There are other factors in the travelling public psyche at play though, principally money.

There is a concerted and ongoing effort to ease the term “MAX” out of the public consciousness and replace it with -8 etc. There is a precedent here dating back to 1989, if not further. A 737 crashed on the M1 just short of East Midlands. There are some parallels in that it was an early Classic 737-400 and a contributing factor was poor ergonomic design of instrumentation in an essentially new variant of an old design that had not been properly trained and the pilots consequently mishandled the emergency.

Can anyone name that accident?*

Meanwhile, passengers will get leary about flying on it and no doubt some shyster will try the “I was traumatised, the airline never told me and it was only when the lawyer said I’d have a case that I realised, I fink it’s disgusting, I want compensation”. But people will still happily fly on it with RYR etc because it’s cheap. There are daily reports of how shit RYR are but people still beat a path to their door. Because they’re cheap.

As it happens, crew training is just ramping up in the U.K. at one airline and it is a hell of a lot more involved training package than previously mandated.

For the record, I’d happily get on one, certainly one operated by my employer because I have absolute faith in my colleagues and in the training system behind that. For sure, any idiot news outlet will get a hard on whenever there’s an incident for a few months but notice with this latest 737 crash in Indonesia, a -500 variant Classic as it happens, many news outlets have been at pains to say it is not a MAX.

To put this in perspective, on a fleet of 60+ aircraft we probably have a tech divert or delay several times a week. That’s not indicative of poorly maintained aircraft, that’s indicative of highly complex machines with multiple redundancy built into every system that are required to be maintained at the very highest standards and the slightest degradation in that is cause for investigation and rectification. It also indicates that crews are willing and enabled to cause huge and expensive disruption to busy flying schedules because it’s the right thing to do, not the commercially preferable thing to do.

* How many of you correctly identified “The Kegworth Accident”? Except you didn’t correctly identify anything other than the location, it was The British Midland Boeing 737 Accident which happened to occur at Kegworth (47 people died btw, the second most serious loss of life in a U.K. air accident**). By some very clever PR, the airline, the aircraft type and the manufacturer have been essentially expunged from the record.

** The most serious loss of life was a British Airtours Boeing 737-200 Jurassic at Manchester in 1985 where a combustion chamber in an engine ruptured causing a devastating fire. 56 of the 137 on board died, mainly from smoke inhalation caused by burning cabin materials that had been designed in (by Boeing) because they were light, cheap and easily maintained. That accident is known as The Manchester Air Disaster, not the British Airtours Boeing 737 disaster at Manchester.

I can keep this up all day. The Munich Air Disaster / Manchester United Air Disaster in 1958. It was a BEA Airspeed Ambassador and it crashed because the pilots were concerned about delaying the flight still further after two previous take offs had been aborted because of, Yep, you guessed it, technical issues (boost surge in the engine). They then tried to take off on a slush covered runway without understanding the implications of that on Take Off Performance (because there was no understanding in the industry, nobody knew, a fact that changed in light of the accident).

In all these accidents there were lots of reasons they happened, if you boil it down, principally fault can be found in the airline, the manufacturer and the Regulatory Authorities. None are historically remembered in the name, that dubious distinction goes to an anonymous and shitty little village in the East Midlands, a fabulous city in the North West, a truly shit football team and possibly the best city in the world (if beer and women in Dirndls is your thing. It should be, Google it).

A very long winded but hopefully well illustrated way of saying “the MAX will easily shrug off its reputation”. A lot of people with a serious interest in it and very deep pockets are quietly but persistently working on just that as you read this.
 
Last edited:
Kegworth.


I thought it was a few years later than that though.
8 January 1989. As it happens, I teach this several times a week in our ongoing Annual Recurrent Training courses at present. This year’s course revisits it as it is an archetypal demonstration of how not to do it.

Now read the rest of the post (where I give the answer anyway :razz: )

ETA. Bastard, yes, just spotted the typo. Thanks for that :mrgreen:
 
Now read the little snippet I quoted in which you said 1898 and to which I said, "I thought it was a few years later than that."


I noticed your subsequent edit though
Now read the corrected post and my acknowledgment of your proof reading skills.

I noticed you’ve noticed my edit.

I can keep this up all day too.

Your move :love:
 
You bottled. I thought I’d preserve your subsequently deleted post for posterity though, that’s just the kind of twat I am.
 
Top