B737 MAX – Will You Fly on One ?

Back to Forum

This topic contains 38 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by  ontherunhome 26 May 2019
at 11:12
.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)

  • canucklad
    Participant

    I also remember flying on a KLM DC10 from LHR to AMS during the grounding.
    First time on it and I was impressed. As I remember the crew pointed out that this was DC10 -30? And not the type that was grounded in the US (after the Chicago crash)

    I’m sure there was a documentary about the original flaw in the design with the cargo door/hold . The fix was put in place after the Paris crash, but it turns out that Douglas knew about the design flaw (sound familiar) but pressures to beat the L1011 forced the manufacturer to negligently and tragically cover up the seriousness of the flaw from the airlines.
    This was resolved allowing KLM and other operators in Europe to fly whilst the AA type aircraft remained grounded in the US .

    I’m sure the subsequent law suits /pay-outs after the original cover up was investigated led to the demise of the manufacturer.

    What Boeing has been up to with the MAX seems to me criminally similar to Douglas’s actions back in the 70’s. I.e. Trying to beat a competitor into the market place.
    What concerns me, is that the aviation industry prides itself in learning from each other after a tragedy. First Impressions suggest that Boeing and the FAA has ignored lessons from the past and has been motivated by Corporate Shareholder greed rather than public safety.

    I wonder how many of the individuals who’ve financially benefitted from Boeing’s Max would be happy to sit their rich arses on a Max seat ?

    4 users thanked author for this post.

    capetonianm
    Participant

    I accept that flying is the safest form of transport in existence, even if that is a somewhat distorted statistic as often quoted based on miles flown rather than passenger journeys.

    I remember someone years ago working out that flying round the world 50 times on a combination of the airlines with the worst accident rates (Cubana and Aeroflot figured prominently) was less likely to result in a FATAC than driving 100 miles in your own car.

    That said, I would not willingly increase the likelihood of an accident by flying in a type known to have problems.


    Folium
    Participant

    I would. Many unacceptable mistakes were made, by the manufacturer and the certification body. At this stage though, the latter will far more demanding, as the others will. Once re-certified, it will be a safe aircraft.

    On a side note, I remember when I flew to Cairo from Larnaca in 1997, after the Luxor attack, I was told by the ground staff I was courageous. My reply was I could die missing a step and falling on my head. This is still my philosophy today…

    Funnily enough I also visited Luxor over Christmas 1997 precisely because security had been strengthened, prices and tourist numbers had dropped, and it remained a fascinating place to visit.
    It’s like the old financial market cliché, “buy on bullets and sell on cranes”. Human psychology tends to overshoot on both the ups and downs, thus creating opportunities.

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    SimonS1
    Participant

    I would too. The loss of 346 lives is regrettable but a very small percentage of flights.

    Statistically I believe I am 100x more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident than a flight, but I don’t deliberate extensively on whether travelling to the airport is a good idea.


    K1ngston
    Participant

    I would too. The loss of 346 lives is regrettable but a very small percentage of flights.

    Statistically I believe I am 100x more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident than a flight, but I don’t deliberate extensively on whether travelling to the airport is a good idea.

    But you might well if for instance the vehicle you were travelling in to the airport had multiple reports of faulty brakes or indeed would burst into flames…

    I am unsure myself if I will fly on the aircraft but in some instances you have no choice if the carrier you are using schedules the aircraft on the route you are flying! I noticed when I was arriving at Changi this morning about 6/7 B737Max’s lined up with the Silk Air logo, can’t be doing much for their business with that many planes on the ground with no end in sight for the ban! I wonder if they can return them and get their money back??


    SimonS1
    Participant

    I would too. The loss of 346 lives is regrettable but a very small percentage of flights.

    Statistically I believe I am 100x more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident than a flight, but I don’t deliberate extensively on whether travelling to the airport is a good idea.

    But you might well if for instance the vehicle you were travelling in to the airport had multiple reports of faulty brakes or indeed would burst into flames…

    I am unsure myself if I will fly on the aircraft but in some instances you have no choice if the carrier you are using schedules the aircraft on the route you are flying! I noticed when I was arriving at Changi this morning about 6/7 B737Max’s lined up with the Silk Air logo, can’t be doing much for their business with that many planes on the ground with no end in sight for the ban! I wonder if they can return them and get their money back??

    Well 2 out of 350 aircraft delivered, which in turn have operated several million flights, does not sound a massive level of risk to me.

    And with the focus of the world on it, I think we can all be fairly sure the aircraft will not reappear in service without detailed reassessment.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Today’s emerging news regarding the aircraft and Boeings behaviour is at the very least disturbing and contemptable and at if true should put the primary players in the certification process in line for corporate manslaughter proceedings


    capetonianm
    Participant

    Well 2 out of 350 aircraft delivered, which in turn have operated several million flights, does not sound a massive level of risk to me.

    Not sure about ‘millions’ of flights, but even so, if one looks simply at the 2 out of 350 (0.57%). Both accidents caused by what very much appears to be the same design feature which was not properly documented by the manufacturer and thus the flight crews were not trained.

    Would you buy a car knowing that there was a 0.57% chance that it could, without warning or possibility of an override, malfunction causing it to crash and kill the occupants?

    2 users thanked author for this post.

    alainboy56
    Participant

    Regarding various mentions of DC-10’s, I do remember it was not only a Turkish cargo door over Paris but more horrifically engines falling off, I tghink Western Airlines and one other in USA. My father at the time was flying for BOAC/BA but they had a ANZ DC-10-30 on lease for the LHR-LAX route, (he loved it)but told me pax were turning around on the airbridge when they saw it was DC-10 and refusing to fly on it.
    Now returning to the subject matter, I do remember also my father saying that in USA they have a terrible attitude in the equation ‘Safety versus the Bottom Line’. And if they could cut corners to save a buck they would! The DC-10 engine problem I understood was because they were loading up the engine under the wing using a forklift, something no British or reputable European airline would ever contemplate, as it was not textbook maintenance. There were many DC-10’s around Europe at that time operating with IB,AZ,SK,AY,SR,LH, in France with UTA and in UK with BCAL and Laker Airways. They all suffered badly when this aircraft was grounded for many, many months.
    Lastly to put my twopennyworth into the tragic recent accidents, as the Donald said recently, something along the lines of aircraft are becoming too computerised and he wishes to have an aviator up the front, and not a graduate from a computer tech college. This brings back another saying my father used to use which has stayed with me for decades. When there is a problem, pilots should firstly and most importantly AVIATE, then NAVIGATE and finally COMMUNICATE. Too many times we see/read that pilots are frantically checking their manuals on what to do when it should be just a matter of ‘turning all this computerised ‘shit’ off and FLYING the bl**dy Plane!
    This is how I felt myself on ‘popping by old blighty’ recently and hiring an Audi. It had too much electronic safety ‘advice’ which drove me mental! I have been driving for almost 45 years and drive daily normally 300kms plus, in I might say, NOT the safest most law abiding area of the world on the roads.
    When I arrived to my son’s house, I told him to go out to the car and ‘turn all that sh*t off’! He just sighed and said “Oh dad you are just so old”!

    So to summarise, Yes the MAX will suffer for perhaps a year and more. And as ‘captonianm’ said when the reputable airlines start using it again, perhaps its a good sign, but QR yesterday cancelled their orders so ……. And in the corporate/government hand-in-hand environment that exists in the US, will there ever be a clean and concise acceptance of guilt over this horrific safety flaw? I somehow doubt it, the whole issue will be ‘fudged’ as usual, just like with the impeachment of Presidents, (‘I never had sexual relations with that girl’ as Bill Clinton said under oath about Monica Lewinsky). Too much money involved!


    Cedric_Statherby
    Participant

    I am not an air safety expert. But in my own field, I worked quite closely with my industry regulators, and I have no reason to believe that air certification bodies are that different. Nor am I able to double-guess them or check their work.

    What this means is that, for me,
    > once the B737 MAX has been certified airworthy by a regulator who has no axe to grind, and
    > once that certification has been accepted by airlines that have a choice on whether to fly B737 MAXs or not, then
    > if they put a B737 MAX on a route I want to fly I will trust them.

    So while I would not fly on the plane on only the FAA’s word, or use an airline that has only B737 MAXs (because they have a vested interest in declaring it safe as soon as possible), once it has a general global certificate of airworthiness again and once an airline voluntarily chooses to use it, then who am I to say the regulators, the airline and the pilots rostered onto it are all wrong?


    InfrequentFlyer
    Participant

    Personally I will not fly on one and indeed I am planning a trip currently for a vacation in December – this involves an airline that has the MAX and i’m happily taking a longer route in order to avoid it (should it be deemed airworthy by then). I fully accept all the statistics, percentages, chances of anything happening etc, but from my knowledge of the situation, the MCAS system is essentially designed because of a fundamental flaw(s) in the design of the aircraft. And for that reason alone, I will never fly on one.

    4 users thanked author for this post.

    JEFFREY
    Participant

    I well remember the DC-10 saga in the 1970s. At that time many people said they would never fly on a DC-10.

    But Douglas changed the aircraft code to MD-11 and airlines continued to stay loyal to Douglas. Delta, Lufthansa and Laker are just three examples. Gradually the public forgot.

    Not correct re the DC-10/MD-11.
    The MD-11 was not a re-badging/branding at all, but simply a newer generation of aircraft based on the earlier DC-10. The MD-11 didn’t launch until 1990, and there is no correlation whatsoever to the period of DC-10 losses in the 70’s.

    2 users thanked author for this post.

    SimonS1
    Participant

    Well 2 out of 350 aircraft delivered, which in turn have operated several million flights, does not sound a massive level of risk to me.

    Not sure about ‘millions’ of flights, but even so, if one looks simply at the 2 out of 350 (0.57%). Both accidents caused by what very much appears to be the same design feature which was not properly documented by the manufacturer and thus the flight crews were not trained.

    Would you buy a car knowing that there was a 0.57% chance that it could, without warning or possibility of an override, malfunction causing it to crash and kill the occupants?

    Well 393 Boeing Max have been built. If we took 350 of those and said they flew on average 5 legs a day that is 1750 flights a day. Multiply by say 45 weeks and that is just over half a million flights year x 2 years = just over a million flights.

    2 of those flights have been affected, which is .0002%.

    Yes, 2 hulls in 350 have been written off, however the only way you would get a 0.57% change of a fatality is if you were sat permanently in the aircraft on every flight for 2 years. How many people would you say have done that?

    The example of a car is slightly different, as you take many more trips in a single vehicle, however I still maintain the chances of getting killed on the way to the airport (even if not driving) are much higher.


    AMcWhirter
    Participant

    Not correct re the DC-10/MD-11.

    Thanks for pointing this out. In fact this was mentioned in posting #3 which I acknowledged.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
May cover
May cover
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls