CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

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

end users are as implicated. Boeing gave the market what it wanted.


 
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…?
Nobodies CEO demanded that - that's Boeings decision

Oh they will have expressed a preference for commonality some may even have had a requirement for it - (at which point Boeng should have sold NGs which met the requirement - rather than fudging paperwork and certifying with a wink and a nod so the Max "met" the requirements.

As for your conversation - I think you will find it will go more along the lines of

"Why yes I recall agreeing to purchasing several certified aircraft - (That are regarded as safe and popular with passengers) What you provided doesn't meet our demands - its also late** and will cost more in service than we signed up to.
Its time to renegotiate this contract or potentially cancel it.


**Isnt it funny that the man who bangs on about the A380 and customers walking away because of its problems - doesn't believe the same will happen to Boeing in fact is adamant it cant because - well lets be honest it amounts to little more than his usual USA USA crappy Europe products wibble
 
end users are as implicated. Boeing gave the market what it wanted.


Nope youre still talking bollox

Oh yes theyre driving costs down especially on the engineering side - blame Ryan airs model for that its not good for the industry.

But here youre spouting shite - yes the airlines want cheaper to operate aircraft and yes commonality is king but it was Boeing alone who are responsible for the decision to mislead everyone over commonality and certification -

I want a cheap car low price cheap to run and reliable - Ive picked up a clio - its built to a price -
That doesn't mean im in anyway responsible for the fact that the door sensor goes off when I turn left - nor am I responsible for the accident that occurs when it stops the turn to prevent the door opening - because I didn't purchase an optional indicator light.

Nor was I being irresponsible by not buying an optional light for which I was not given any idea of its importance to a critical system they didn't tell me about - just a quick entry on page 25685 of the drivers manual.
 
Nobodies CEO demanded that - that's Boeings decision

Oh they will have expressed a preference for commonality some may even have had a requirement for it - (at which point Boeng should have sold NGs which met the requirement - rather than fudging paperwork and certifying with a wink and a nod so the Max "met" the requirements.

As for your conversation - I think you will find it will go more along the lines of

"Why yes I recall agreeing to purchasing several certified aircraft - (That are regarded as safe and popular with passengers) What you provided doesn't meet our demands - its also late** and will cost more in service than we signed up to.
Its time to renegotiate this contract or potentially cancel it.


**Isnt it funny that the man who bangs on about the A380 and customers walking away because of its problems - doesn't believe the same will happen to Boeing in fact is adamant it cant because - well lets be honest it amounts to little more than his usual USA USA crappy Europe products wibble
In one of my previous posts I posted a story which noted that Boeing will be paying compensation to one of their airline customers of $1 million per plane for simulator training costs now that simulator training will be required.

It's up to the manufacturer to tell their customers what training is required to safely operate the planes. The airlines themselves are in no position to evaluate this as they don't have the design knowledge of the plane required to make such a decision. What is up to the airlines is to read the training requirements and to see that their employees receive the training specified by the manufacturer.
 
A lot of people are smiling quietly to themselves over Boeing's difficulties, as Boeing were and are notoriously hard people to negotiate with and they would sell their mothers to avoid paying for anything. Back in the day, the early 737-200 was selling like hotcakes but it had the bare legal minimum for IFR flight and was barely more suitable for intense commercial IFR flight than a basic Navajo or King Air (one of everything, unless you paid extra) so when people like the UK CAA insisted on a minimum of two VOR or two ADFs and the UK airlines had to follow suit, Boeing were furious and threw all sorts of shit but the CAA stuck to their guns and even organisations like the FAA made Boeing fit two of each of the important navaids as standard. This mentality wasnt unique to Boeing but they had honed it to a fine sharpness and made more than a few enemies.
 
Airbus blindsided Boeing with the fuel efficient A320 neo

industry say, want!

Boeing say, hold up, we’ll sell you 737’s at giveaway prices while we design an all new plane, the 797.

industry say, (well two US majors with big 737 fleets) don’t want! We’ll need to retrain everyone, money!

Boeing say, ok, we can put new fuel efficient engines in the 737, but it will still need retraining

Industry say, want! But not retraining

Boeing say, OK, we’ll fit a kludge to the MAX so you can pretend it’s just another 737.

and the rest as they say, is history.


moving forwards?

The MAX line will be quickly run out, the airlines that wanted the MAX to save money will develop corporate amnesia - and everyone will focus on its Boeing 797 replacement.
 
A lot of people are smiling quietly to themselves over Boeing's difficulties, as Boeing were and are notoriously hard people to negotiate with and they would sell their mothers to avoid paying for anything. Back in the day, the early 737-200 was selling like hotcakes but it had the bare legal minimum for IFR flight and was barely more suitable for intense commercial IFR flight than a basic Navajo or King Air (one of everything, unless you paid extra) so when people like the UK CAA insisted on a minimum of two VOR or two ADFs and the UK airlines had to follow suit, Boeing were furious and threw all sorts of shit but the CAA stuck to their guns and even organisations like the FAA made Boeing fit two of each of the important navaids as standard. This mentality wasnt unique to Boeing but they had honed it to a fine sharpness and made more than a few enemies.
Your above is even more cutthroat if you consider that for a long time Boeing was able to undercut Airbus in the single aisle market because there was no competitor to the 74 and so a little mark up there subsidised 73 production.

Seem to recall the CAA mandated a larger fin as well to bring it on the UK register.
@Toastie - because hes the man that will know and will tell me if im confused (or talking bollocks)
 
Airbus blindsided Boeing with the fuel efficient A320 neo

industry say, want!

Boeing say, hold up, we’ll sell you 737’s at giveaway prices while we design an all new plane, the 797.

industry say, (well two US majors with big 737 fleets) don’t want! We’ll need to retrain everyone, money!

Boeing say, ok, we can put new fuel efficient engines in the 737, but it will still need retraining

Industry say, want! But not retraining

Boeing say, OK, we’ll fit a kludge to the MAX so you can pretend it’s just another 737.

and the rest as they say, is history.


moving forwards?

The MAX line will be quickly run out, the airlines that wanted the MAX to save money will develop corporate amnesia - and everyone will focus on its Boeing 797 replacement.
Liar
 
Boeing were and are notoriously hard people to negotiate with and they would sell their mothers to avoid paying for anything.
point of order, Boeing would arrange financing for you to buy their mothers, then charge their mothers a commission.
 
What goes around, comes around. Boeing waited too long to generate a successor to the 737 and now they will probably buy in an Embraer as the 737 replacement. Airbus is also having problems with the NEO, that are not unlike the Max's problems, as it was meant to displace a lot of the older airframes, such as the 757, from Atlantic and other long routes. The LEAP engine uses less fuel and oil than the older CFM 56 and weighs less but this has affected the C of G of the new NEO so they are having to fly it with four rows of seats blocked off, which, of course, hits the seat/mile revenue. Also, using small narrowbodies like the NEO across the Atlantic means you can't carry cargo, which other operators can do, in the A330 and 757, which makes money and reduces seat costs. They are also losing favour with the punting public as the narrow aisles mean that you can't get up to ease your legs as you immediately jam the aisle or the cabin crew have to ask people to go to the toilet before dinner service, as there is no chance of doing so once the dinner service trolley has the aisle blocked. Fun and games,it is not.
 
What goes around, comes around. Boeing waited too long to generate a successor to the 737 and now they will probably buy in an Embraer as the 737 replacement. Airbus is also having problems with the NEO, that are not unlike the Max's problems, as it was meant to displace a lot of the older airframes, such as the 757, from Atlantic and other long routes. The LEAP engine uses less fuel and oil than the older CFM 56 and weighs less but this has affected the C of G of the new NEO so they are having to fly it with four rows of seats blocked off, which, of course, hits the seat/mile revenue. Also, using small narrowbodies like the NEO across the Atlantic means you can't carry cargo, which other operators can do, in the A330 and 757, which makes money and reduces seat costs. They are also losing favour with the punting public as the narrow aisles mean that you can't get up to ease your legs as you immediately jam the aisle or the cabin crew have to ask people to go to the toilet before dinner service, as there is no chance of doing so once the dinner service trolley has the aisle blocked. Fun and games,it is not.
gotta love the bean counters and their spreadsheets, everyone charging down a dead end.

Be interesting to see who’s first out of the blocks with the sexy new hotness. All eyes on Farnborough?
 
What goes around, comes around. Boeing waited too long to generate a successor to the 737 and now they will probably buy in an Embraer as the 737 replacement. Airbus is also having problems with the NEO, that are not unlike the Max's problems, as it was meant to displace a lot of the older airframes, such as the 757, from Atlantic and other long routes. The LEAP engine uses less fuel and oil than the older CFM 56 and weighs less but this has affected the C of G of the new NEO so they are having to fly it with four rows of seats blocked off, which, of course, hits the seat/mile revenue. Also, using small narrowbodies like the NEO across the Atlantic means you can't carry cargo, which other operators can do, in the A330 and 757, which makes money and reduces seat costs. They are also losing favour with the punting public as the narrow aisles mean that you can't get up to ease your legs as you immediately jam the aisle or the cabin crew have to ask people to go to the toilet before dinner service, as there is no chance of doing so once the dinner service trolley has the aisle blocked. Fun and games,it is not.
It was reported in the press that Boeing did yet another upgrade to the 737 rather than a new design because of their current focus on bean counting rather than engineering, and they didn't want to sink the investment money into a new design which would to a great extent cannibalise sales of their existing and very profitable 737.

When Airbus came out with new versions of their smaller planes that were much better than the 737 Boeing was caught with their trousers down and had to slam out an upgrade to the 737 in a hurry - the Max. Hence the big push to get the plane out on schedule and to make it as smooth a transition for existing 737 customers to switch to instead of buying Airbuses.

Meanwhile Boeing had been courting Embraer, trying to put a deal together which would make the shareholders happy and satisfy the Brazilian government as well. Boeing also launched a bogus trade complaint against Bombardier to try to keep them out of the American market until they had a deal with Embraer sewn up.

And of course Airbus countered that by buying the rights to the Bombardier C Series, which is more advanced than anything Boeing is going to get from Embraer and addresses the passenger comfort issues.

There's a lot of headline issues in all this which are interrelated and which make more sense once you connect the dots.
 
The 737 MAX situation, does seem to be as incomprehensible, as so unintuitive, as so contrary to common sense, as is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

There was/is great publicity, that the Eurofighter is basically, inherently, so unstable that it could not/cannot fly with its computers switched-off. Apparently, this is embraced, exploited, by the designers (and pilots!), as it allows greater manoeuvrability than other competitor fighter aircraft. It is understood that there have been no crashes/fatalities involving Eurofighter aircraft, due to this design feature.


+ + + + + + + + + +

It is understood that the 737 MAX’s new engines(**), were selected as they provide far greater, enhanced, fuel efficiency.

(**) “ . . . more (fuel) efficient CFM International LEAP-1B engines . .”.

However, the engines - and, the nacelles that enclose them - are so much bigger than previous engines, that they would not fit in the conventional position under the wing. It would seem that the “quick and dirty” solution that was decided upon by Boeing, was to attach the engines to the wing by longer, more forward projecting pylons. This has resulted in the 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), moving so far forward, as to make the aircraft unstable in certain circumstances.

This instability is regarded as undesirable in a civilian airliner, and Boeing thought/hoped that they had countered/rectified this anomaly, by (again) designing computer programmes . . . The “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

Note: "The new nacelles being larger and more forward posses aerodynamic properties which act to further increase the pitch rate. The larger engine is cantilevered ahead of and slightly above the wing . . . To mitigate the pitch-up tendency of the new flight geometry from the engines being located further forward and higher than previous engines, Boeing added the new “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

+ + + + + + + + + + +

The inter-web has been searched. There are numerous photos of 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility, including on employees’ staff car-parking areas, at the Renton factory, and also at a civilian airfield. The 737 MAX production line has been stopped.

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX, that are on the ground, parked-up all around the production facility, etc. ? ( . . with more than 400 of the aircraft awaiting delivery. ).

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX already with airlines - that it is understood have also been grounded ? ( . . end 2019, a total of 791 deliveries. ).


What is to be done with all of them . . . ?


A). Re-write the computer programmes, and/or train pilots not to fly the aircraft as instinctively - as they would have done in the past - and, to allow the computer to do its work?

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine(***), even if this is less fuel efficient?

(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!


C). Re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient (but physically bigger), engines ABOVE the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier aircraft?!


D). Employ lengthened landing legs(*), that allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, but still BELOW the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), aircraft?

(*) It is acknowledged, that this will require (expensive) structural changes to the wings/fuselage to allow the longer landing legs to retract -or- an additional, hydraulically extendable, telescopic, section within the landing legs, to lift the whole aircraft the required amount when on the ground . . . but :

Note: The 737 MAX’s . . 8” (20cm) taller nose-gear strut keeps the same 17 inch (43cm) ground clearance of the engine nacelles. New struts and nacelles for the heavier engines add bulk, the main landing gear and supporting structure are beefier, and fuselage skins are thicker in some places . ..

Note: . . the proposed MAX 10 included a (even still) larger engine, stronger wings, and telescoping landing gear in Mid-2016 . . . The semi-levered landing gear design has a telescope oleo-pneumatic strut with a down-swinging lever to permit a 9.5 inches (24cm) taller gear. Driven by the existing retraction system, a shrink-link mechanical linkage mechanism at the top of the leg - inspired by carrier aircraft designs - allows the gear to be drawn in and shortened while being retracted into the existing wheel well . . .
 
Last edited:
What is to be done with all of them . . . ?

C). Re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient (but physically bigger), engines ABOVE the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier aircraft?!
Illustration of what is possible, if a little inelegant . . . the Honda Business Jet,

1578825101121.png


1578825159828.png




And, with thanks to @oldsoak . . . .

 
Last edited:
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
No they won’t. At the end of the day the airline is the customer and when it comes to playing dirty, nobody does it better. When you buy an aeroplane or increasingly nowadays an “option”, all you’re doing is booking a slot on a production line. Airlines need delivery dates months if not years in advance and with a high degree of certainty on those dates being met so they can do silly things like train crews, tool up and train engineers, sell seats and plan flying programmes, book airport slots and generally bugger up all of the above.

Boeing will be desperate not to piss off the airlines and even now, they will be laying new, much deeper pile red carpets in Seattle. They will also be laying off future purchase costs and flinging about freebies like a mad woman’s shite. Buy a Max, get 10 free Type Ratings on top of the 10 you’d usually get. Everything in fact except putting their corporate foot on the customer’s throat.

This is not a car purchase, Boeing will be looking to purchases 15 years or more from now when airlines are doing fleet rollovers to new types. This is a Balls Up of epic proportions but Boring and the airlines will both be viewing this as nothing more than a temporary state of affairs.
 
The 737 MAX situation, does seem to be as incomprehensible, as so unintuitive, as so contrary to common sense, as is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

There was/is great publicity, that the Eurofighter is basically, inherently, so unstable that it could not/cannot fly with its computers switched-off. Apparently, this is embraced, exploited, by the designers (and pilots!), as it allows greater manoeuvrability than other competitor fighter aircraft. It is understood that there have been no crashes/fatalities involving Eurofighter aircraft, due to this design feature.


+ + + + + + + + + +

It is understood that the 737 MAX’s new engines(**), were selected as they provide far greater, enhanced, fuel efficiency.

(**) “ . . . more (fuel) efficient CFM International LEAP-1B engines . .”.

However, the engines - and, the nacelles that enclose them - are so much bigger than previous engines, that they would not fit in the conventional position under the wing. It would seem that the “quick and dirty” solution that was decided upon by Boeing, was to attach the engines to the wing by longer, more forward projecting pylons. This has resulted in the 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), moving so far forward, as to make the aircraft unstable in certain circumstances.

This instability is regarded as undesirable in a civilian airliner, and Boeing thought/hoped that they had countered/rectified this anomaly, by (again) designing computer programmes . . . The “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

Note: "The new nacelles being larger and more forward posses aerodynamic properties which act to further increase the pitch rate. The larger engine is cantilevered ahead of and slightly above the wing . . . To mitigate the pitch-up tendency of the new flight geometry from the engines being located further forward and higher than previous engines, Boeing added the new “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

+ + + + + + + + + + +

The inter-web has been searched. There are numerous photos of 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility, including on employees’ staff car-parking areas, at the Renton factory, and also at a civilian airfield. The 737 MAX production line has been stopped.

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX, that are on the ground, parked-up all around the production facility, etc. ? ( . . with more than 400 of the aircraft awaiting delivery. ).

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX already with airlines - that it is understood have also been grounded ? ( . . end 2019, a total of 791 deliveries. ).


What is to be done with all of them . . . ?


A). Re-write the computer programmes, and/or train pilots not to fly the aircraft as instinctively - as they would have done in the past - and, to allow the computer to do its work?

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine(***), even if this is less fuel efficient?

(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!


C). Re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient (but physically bigger), engines ABOVE the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier aircraft?!


D). Employ lengthened landing legs(*), that allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, but still BELOW the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), aircraft?

(*) It is acknowledged, that this will require (expensive) structural changes to the wings/fuselage to allow the longer landing legs to retract -or- an additional, hydraulically extendable, telescopic, section within the landing legs, to lift the whole aircraft the required amount when on the ground . . . but :

Note: The 737 MAX’s . . 8” (20cm) taller nose-gear strut keeps the same 17 inch (43cm) ground clearance of the engine nacelles. New struts and nacelles for the heavier engines add bulk, the main landing gear and supporting structure are beefier, and fuselage skins are thicker in some places . ..

Note: . . the proposed MAX 10 included a (even still) larger engine, stronger wings, and telescoping landing gear in Mid-2016 . . . The semi-levered landing gear design has a telescope oleo-pneumatic strut with a down-swinging lever to permit a 9.5 inches (24cm) taller gear. Driven by the existing retraction system, a shrink-link mechanical linkage mechanism at the top of the leg - inspired by carrier aircraft designs - allows the gear to be drawn in and shortened while being retracted into the existing wheel well . . .
the 737 MAX is a plane too far.

look at it, it’s now a narrow body carrying as many or more passengers as a 707 did in the 60’s.
its also facing the same issues the 707 and all the other big narrow bodies did when they grew from @100 seats, single isle and 150-200 seats = take an age to load and unload, and they were replaced by wide bodies

Boeing knew the answer was a clean paper twin isle design, (the 737 is the same cross section as a 707), with a higher set wing, but bean counters carried the day.

as was posted above.... Boeing will assuredly push Embraer E Jets as the run of the mill 737 replacement to hold the line while going full ahead on the 797 like they should have 10 years ago.

And the bean counters?

the development costs for the 797 were estimated @$15 Billion, much the same as the MAX grounding has cost Boeing
 
Last edited:
The 737 MAX situation, does seem to be as incomprehensible, as so unintuitive, as so contrary to common sense, as is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

There was/is great publicity, that the Eurofighter is basically, inherently, so unstable that it could not/cannot fly with its computers switched-off. Apparently, this is embraced, exploited, by the designers (and pilots!), as it allows greater manoeuvrability than other competitor fighter aircraft. It is understood that there have been no crashes/fatalities involving Eurofighter aircraft, due to this design feature.


+ + + + + + + + + +

It is understood that the 737 MAX’s new engines(**), were selected as they provide far greater, enhanced, fuel efficiency.

(**) “ . . . more (fuel) efficient CFM International LEAP-1B engines . .”.

However, the engines - and, the nacelles that enclose them - are so much bigger than previous engines, that they would not fit in the conventional position under the wing. It would seem that the “quick and dirty” solution that was decided upon by Boeing, was to attach the engines to the wing by longer, more forward projecting pylons. This has resulted in the 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), moving so far forward, as to make the aircraft unstable in certain circumstances.

This instability is regarded as undesirable in a civilian airliner, and Boeing thought/hoped that they had countered/rectified this anomaly, by (again) designing computer programmes . . . The “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

Note: "The new nacelles being larger and more forward posses aerodynamic properties which act to further increase the pitch rate. The larger engine is cantilevered ahead of and slightly above the wing . . . To mitigate the pitch-up tendency of the new flight geometry from the engines being located further forward and higher than previous engines, Boeing added the new “Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS).

+ + + + + + + + + + +

The inter-web has been searched. There are numerous photos of 737 MAX aircraft parked-up all around the production facility, including on employees’ staff car-parking areas, at the Renton factory, and also at a civilian airfield. The 737 MAX production line has been stopped.

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX, that are on the ground, parked-up all around the production facility, etc. ? ( . . with more than 400 of the aircraft awaiting delivery. ).

Does anyone know the number of 737 MAX already with airlines - that it is understood have also been grounded ? ( . . end 2019, a total of 791 deliveries. ).


What is to be done with all of them . . . ?


A). Re-write the computer programmes, and/or train pilots not to fly the aircraft as instinctively - as they would have done in the past - and, to allow the computer to do its work?

B). Re-engine the aircraft with an earlier - proven - type of engine(***), even if this is less fuel efficient?

(***) Such as the CFM International CFM56-7 series engine, successfully used on the predecessor Boeing 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), of which it is understood (at 30 November 2019), a total of 7,092 x 737NG have been ordered, and of which 7,046 have been delivered!!


C). Re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient (but physically bigger), engines ABOVE the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier aircraft?!


D). Employ lengthened landing legs(*), that allow Boeing to re-mount, re-locate, the new fuel-efficient, engines more rearwards, but still BELOW the wing, on conventionally short(er) pylons, that bring 737 MAX CoG (centre of gravity), back to the benign, neutral, position of earlier 737 Next Generation (737NG, or 737 Next Gen), aircraft?

(*) It is acknowledged, that this will require (expensive) structural changes to the wings/fuselage to allow the longer landing legs to retract -or- an additional, hydraulically extendable, telescopic, section within the landing legs, to lift the whole aircraft the required amount when on the ground . . . but :

Note: The 737 MAX’s . . 8” (20cm) taller nose-gear strut keeps the same 17 inch (43cm) ground clearance of the engine nacelles. New struts and nacelles for the heavier engines add bulk, the main landing gear and supporting structure are beefier, and fuselage skins are thicker in some places . ..

Note: . . the proposed MAX 10 included a (even still) larger engine, stronger wings, and telescoping landing gear in Mid-2016 . . . The semi-levered landing gear design has a telescope oleo-pneumatic strut with a down-swinging lever to permit a 9.5 inches (24cm) taller gear. Driven by the existing retraction system, a shrink-link mechanical linkage mechanism at the top of the leg - inspired by carrier aircraft designs - allows the gear to be drawn in and shortened while being retracted into the existing wheel well . . .
Primarily the above led to unpleasant handling characteristics as the wing approached the stall. Essentially most wings stall fairly benignly and the control forces are roughly linear. In the Max there was a soft spot in the control forces that coincided with an angle of attack just short of the stall. This meant that you could pull through that much faster and that the stall would therefore be both sudden and dramatic.
 
the 737 MAX is a plane too far.

look at it, it’s now a narrow body carrying as many or more passengers as a 707 did in the 60’s.
its also facing the sane issues the 707 and all the other big narrow bodies did when they grew from @100 seats, single isle and 150-200 seats = take an age to load and unload, and they were replaced by wide bodies

Boeing knew the answer was a clean paper twin isle design, (the 737 is the same cross section as a 707), with a higher set wing, but bean counters carried the day.

as was posted above.... Boeing will assuredly push Embraer E Jets as the run of the mill 737 replacement to hold the line while going full ahead on the 797 like they should have 10 years ago.

And the bean counters?

the development costs for the 797 were estimated @$15 Billion, much the same as the MAX grounding has cost Boeing
So why are the airlines flocking to buy the Max, including Ryanair who have the shortest turn around in the industry?

Why are Airbus developing the neo variants of the A320 family which are direct competitors in the single aisle 150-200 seat market?

Because they perfectly fit the biggest and fastest growing sector of the market, the Low Cost carriers.

The boarding time argument is overcome by boarding front and back and /or by seat row number. What does bugger it up is the obsession with charging for hold baggage that leads the mouth breathers to attempt to jam suitcases apparently holding dismantled gasometers into the overheads. This slows up boarding because they don’t fit and gate staff have given up trying to control it because everyone wants to get on first to access the limited overhead space. It’s the single biggest stupidity aviation management have come up with this decade.

Interestingly, the most successful Lo Co, Southwest, doesn’t charge for hold baggage and boards by very strict number from 1-189. Frequent flyers get early numbers, you can buy for virtually nothing the next batch of numbers and everyone else gets a number based on when they checked in. At the gate you line up by number and off you go in a big crocodile. On board it’s free seating so sit where you want and because it’s hassle free everyone is chilled and if you ask a solo traveller if they wouldn’t mind moving so you can sit with your family it’s always no problem. It’s such a pleasant way to travel. I’ve never had to wait for my hold baggage either as by the time I’ve walked from the aircraft to baggage claim the bags are there. It works brilliantly well.
 
No they won’t. At the end of the day the airline is the customer and when it comes to playing dirty, nobody does it better. When you buy an aeroplane or increasingly nowadays an “option”, all you’re doing is booking a slot on a production line. Airlines need delivery dates months if not years in advance and with a high degree of certainty on those dates being met so they can do silly things like train crews, tool up and train engineers, sell seats and plan flying programmes, book airport slots and generally bugger up all of the above.

Boeing will be desperate not to piss off the airlines and even now, they will be laying new, much deeper pile red carpets in Seattle. They will also be laying off future purchase costs and flinging about freebies like a mad woman’s shite. Buy a Max, get 10 free Type Ratings on top of the 10 you’d usually get. Everything in fact except putting their corporate foot on the customer’s throat.

This is not a car purchase, Boeing will be looking to purchases 15 years or more from now when airlines are doing fleet rollovers to new types. This is a Balls Up of epic proportions but Boring and the airlines will both be viewing this as nothing more than a temporary state of affairs.

that would be the airlines terrified of an Airbus monopoly if Boeing took a development holiday to get its 797 built while soldiering on with building bargain priced NGs in the meantime?
Their are a more than few CEOs who aren’t in any position to throw mud at Boeing. they will do anything now up to and including sucking Seattle dick to get a new low range plane to out Airbus Airbus out the door ASAP.
the airlines wanted a bigger better 737, Boeing gave them what they wanted, even though they knew it was the wrong answer.
 

Latest Threads

Top