CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

Every day it seems more leaks out. I’m now starting to seriously think the upcoming PR battle airlines will face to convince the travelling public this air frame is safe is bordering on unwinable?

The supreme irony is that when it does return to service it’ll be arguably the safest aircraft ever due to the unprecedented levels of regulatory scrutiny it will have (very belatedly) been subjected to.

I also find it interesting that Airbus have been very quiet. Rumours abound that their new A320 neo family of aircraft are far from perfect to the extent that there’s a fair bit of “there but for the grace of God” going around.....
Bloody amazing that Boeing has agreed to simulator training on the new variant only this week. How can they not have realised months ago that not having pilots simulator-trained was the definition of a false economy?
 
Last edited:
@Toastie - I think theyre learning from the Boeing experience. If not, they'd be wise to. As would any aircraft manufacturer.
 
Bloody amazing that Boeing has agreed to simulator training on the new variant only this week. How can they not have realised months ago that not having pilots simulator-trained was the definition of a false economy?
“Aviation” and “false economy” in the same sentence?

Surely some mistake?
 
Every day it seems more leaks out. I’m now starting to seriously think the upcoming PR battle airlines will face to convince the travelling public this air frame is safe is bordering on unwinable?

The supreme irony is that when it does return to service it’ll be arguably the safest aircraft ever due to the unprecedented levels of regulatory scrutiny it will have (very belatedly) been subjected to.

I also find it interesting that Airbus have been very quiet. Rumours abound that their new A320 neo family of aircraft are far from perfect to the extent that there’s a fair bit of “there but for the grace of God” going around.....
I have been wondering what problems the airlines are going to face when, or even if, this model returns to service in their fleets. Will there be demands from passengers to know what aircraft they're going to be booked on to, and further demands that they won't be getting on board if they turn up at the gate and discover it's a 737 MAX 8 they're about to board (albeit there will likely be very few who know one aircraft from another, and another group who won't even have heard about the scandal). But all it would take is for one hysterical fellow traveller to start wailing about the 'them planes wot killed all them poor babbies' and the mass hystrionics will ensue. I asked a female friend, in her mid-30s, who is planning a trip to Cyprus in May if she'd heard about the Boeing scandal and she hadn't a clue. And I think Boeing are hoping that, as time wears on, fewer and fewer airline passengers will have heard of, or remember, what all the fuss was about. Perhaps the airlines will offer cut-price seats, subsidised, by Boeing, to fly on them.

A costly, long term, time for the world's largest aeroplane company.
 
I have been wondering what problems the airlines are going to face when, or even if, this model returns to service in their fleets. Will there be demands from passengers to know what aircraft they're going to be booked on to, and further demands that they won't be getting on board if they turn up at the gate and discover it's a 737 MAX 8 they're about to board (albeit there will likely be very few who know one aircraft from another, and another group who won't even have heard about the scandal). But all it would take is for one hysterical fellow traveller to start wailing about the 'them planes wot killed all them poor babbies' and the mass hystrionics will ensue. I asked a female friend, in her mid-30s, who is planning a trip to Cyprus in May if she'd heard about the Boeing scandal and she hadn't a clue. And I think Boeing are hoping that, as time wears on, fewer and fewer airline passengers will have heard of, or remember, what all the fuss was about. Perhaps the airlines will offer cut-price seats, subsidised, by Boeing, to fly on them.

A costly, long term, time for the world's largest aeroplane company.
A very good question. I don’t think anyone really has the answer. The travelling public are generally motivated by cost ad take safety for granted in the same way we go to restaurants and generally expect not to be poisoned.

A restaurant that gives someone food poisoning gets talked about locally and people go elsewhere and the same is true of the Max saga, it is in the public consciousness. Where the analogy diverges is that most people will know The Ganges* restaurant in their local town, few as you say will know the aircraft they’re looking at from the departure lounge window is a Max.

I know for a fact that my management are certain they will need to work hard to reassure the public and have wisely thought that they need to include crew in that. With the greatest respect to my Cabin Crew colleagues, they are not much more technically aware re aircraft systems than the average member of the public.

I’m willing to bet though that some chancer will find out they’re on a Max, raise the issue supposedly seeking reassurance and will then go loud on not being reassured in fact they were terrified, ruined holiday, PTSD, compo.

It is going to be a big headache and absolutely needlessly so because it will be so thoroughly scrutinised. The problem is perception is an individual version of reality.

* other restaurants of unspecified genre are available
 
(...) I also find it interesting that Airbus have been very quiet. (...)
Airbus saying anything about Boeing's safety record would look a bit crass at the moment, given the deaths involved. If they say anything later, it may be along the lines of a PR campaign emphasising "safe", "reliable", "peace of mind", etc., and let people fill in the blanks themselves.
 
Genuinely one of the funniest things I read today...


In another document, an employee ridicules colleagues involved in the development of the troubled plane, saying, "This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys."

 

Blogg

LE
Bloody amazing that Boeing has agreed to simulator training on the new variant only this week. How can they not have realised months ago that not having pilots simulator-trained was the definition of a false economy?
Almost certainly a Lawyer driven decision because that would amount to admission of everything rotten, which is now in the open.

it is the US corporate mindset., Deny, obfuscate, kick can down road
 
Almost certainly a Lawyer driven decision because that would amount to admission of everything rotten, which is now in the open.

it is the US corporate mindset., Deny, obfuscate, kick can down road
That makes sense. I hadn't thought of that angle.
 
Bloody amazing that Boeing has agreed to simulator training on the new variant only this week. How can they not have realised months ago that not having pilots simulator-trained was the definition of a false economy?
old saying...”if you think training is expensive, you should see how much an accident costs”

Boeing gave the airline bean counters what they wanted.
 
old saying...”if you think training is expensive, you should see how much an accident costs”

Boeing gave the airline bean counters what they wanted.
It looks that way. This is shaping up to become a textbook example of how to mismanage a crisis.
 
It looks that way. This is shaping up to become a textbook example of how to mismanage a crisis.

And I'm sure after all the bluff and bluster, the industry will NOT cancel its MAX orders…

"Whats that Big and Cheap Airlines? You are cancelling your order and buying Airbus?
"Well, remember when your CEO said that if we certified it as a '737' to reduce you training budget, you could see your way to buying 200 MAX…?
"You don't recall him saying that? Well our sales execs do, its in their contemporaneous notes…
"I knew you'd see the wisdom of proceeding with the order!

Its a dirty business and Boeing will play as dirty as it needs
 
And I'm sure after all the bluff and bluster, the industry will NOT cancel its MAX orders…

"Whats that Big and Cheap Airlines? You are cancelling your order and buying Airbus?
"Well, remember when your CEO said that if we certified it as a '737' to reduce you training budget, you could see your way to buying 200 MAX…?
"You don't recall him saying that? Well our sales execs do, its in their contemporaneous notes…
"I knew you'd see the wisdom of proceeding with the order!

Its a dirty business and Boeing will play as dirty as it needs
I'm not so sure. The Comet never really recovered after the series of crashes and, much as there may be commercial pressures, people know the Max has some basic design flaws. I wouldn't fly in one. Would you be happy to, if an alternative aircraft type served your route?
 
Yes, the first Comet was such a great success in terms of safety...
Comet 4s were as good as any early jet liner. Iirc The Comet 1 disaster was one of the last times the aviation industry got together and shared information. Boeing and Douglas learnt what not to do from De Havilland . It was really cutting edge stuff and they didn't want to repeat mistakes.
 
I'm not so sure. The Comet never really recovered after the series of crashes and, much as there may be commercial pressures, people know the Max has some basic design flaws. I wouldn't fly in one. Would you be happy to, if an alternative aircraft type served your route?

By the time the Comet was redesigned, it had missed the boat, the future had arrived in the form of the 707 and DC-8
 
old saying...”if you think training is expensive, you should see how much an accident costs”

Boeing gave the airline bean counters what they wanted.
Sod all to do with Airline bean counters being tight (this time)

Boeing skimmed it through certification because that kept the Combined Unit / support / Introduction / conversion costs down - that was done to make it competitive against the NEO.

That was Boeings call not the Airlines - They would have accepted training but driven down unit price
 

Latest Threads

Top