Boeing -more disturbing reading

Back to Forum

This topic contains 33 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  cwoodward 29 Aug 2019
at 05:03
.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)

  • MarcusGB
    Participant

    I have a friend who is a 737 Captain, also having flown most large long haul Aircraft.
    Currently, none of his colleagues would be prepared to fly a Max of any sort.
    His Airline Are set to receive these, but this will be useless if Pilots refuse.

    There are shortage of Pilots in Europe, so do not think they could not move to another Airline!

    As a Customer, neither would i fly one at the moment, and probably not for some time after they were re-introduced, If they ever are!

    2 users thanked author for this post.

    JohnnyG
    Participant

    Even more bad news today is that another airline has cancelled its proposed Max order.

    https://news.sky.com/story/boeing-setback-after-saudi-airline-scraps-59bn-order-for-737-max-planes-11758393


    capetonianm
    Participant

    Boeing setback after Saudi airline scraps $5.9bn order for 737 MAX planes
    After two deadly crashes involving Boeing 737 MAXs, budget airline flyadeal will take delivery of a fleet of 30 Airbus A320 jets.


    K1ngston
    Participant

    If this has been discussed then I apologise but just read the last post saying that the Saudi airline had cancelled their order for the Max and low and behold the only airline (group) who have ordered are IAG now that’s either brilliant bit of business or one more in the eye for WW! Apparently they are not to be delivered until 2023 at a vastly reduced rate….


    capetonianm
    Participant

    On 30 JUN I wrote :

    ……….. I suspect it is only a matter of time before similar revelations begin to emerge about Airbus. In this day and age of cut-throat rivalry, nobody and nothing is squeaky clean.

    I was rapped over the knuckles :

    transtraxman
    Participant
    That comment about Airbus is, as yet, unfounded and unjustified mudslinging speculation.

    I may have been a little premature but my words were somewhat prescient. I realised that this is not quite of the same severity as the 737MAX problems, but I have no doubt there will be people who won’t want to fly on the A321 NEO.

    EASA Warns of Airbus A321neo Control Anomaly


    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/new-airbus-suffers-control-fault-like-grounded-boeing/news-story/c374700817ae1f59e5ec79c870e43029

    The Airbus A321neo Has An Excessive Pitch Problem


    https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/a321neo-operators-alerted-over-excessive-pitch-ano-459718/

    3 users thanked author for this post.

    capetonianm
    Participant

    https://extra.ie/2019/07/22/business/irish/ryanair-boeing-737-max-boycott/amp

    Ryanair’s plans to buy the controversial Boeing 737 Max aircraft could lead to a customer boycott.

    And the Consumers Association of Ireland says it’s ‘buyer beware’ for Ryanair passengers when the aircraft enters service as expected later this year.


    openfly
    Participant

    On another thread I was told by a senior manager that he had had secret directives with regard to loading and trim problems with the A321-neos and excessive pitch demands. Airbus are not in a position to rectify this problem until the current builds are finished. It’s amazing what comes out in the wash!


    cwoodward
    Participant

    There are perhaps some misunderstanding re the any A321 neo issue and the directive issued.

    There is no ‘issue’ only a “potential” relatively minor one.
    The continued A321neo operation is not in question.
    The aircraft is totally airworthy and the issue does not exist in the normal day to day operation of the aircraft. It could (but never has) emerge under extreme conditions and in rare circumstances when extreme maneuvers are undertaken.
    The aircraft has been in service since 2016 and there has never been any issue or incident with any operator

    Airbus only identified that there was any ‘potential’ issue during ongoing development testing and past-on the information to the regulator

    Airbus then also issued a temporary revision to the flight control manual to provide operational limitations on the plane to address the “potentially unsafe condition”.

    In every possible way to compare a minor future ‘potential’ issue to the very severe issues on the B737MAX that have killed hundreds of passengers makeit unflyable would be misleading in the extreme.

    I am not any great advocate of Airbus and I only offer the above simply because I want to allay any concerns that my fellow business travelers may have as to the operational safety of the A320 neo.

    10 users thanked author for this post.

    canucklad
    Participant

    I’m not an expert on aeronautical design, however my gut instinct says that the issues with these aircraft( including any minor issues with the Neo0 are a direct consequence of manufacturers pushing the envelope on aircraft that were designed for a totally different purpose.


    cwoodward
    Participant

    I don’t altogether agree with canucklads post (imm above)

    Most aircraft types,in say the past 50 years have been pushed and pulled to maximise size and or performance.
    The B747 had very significant issues and groundings more than once over its life cycle from the type 100 through to the 400.
    Similarly there were issues with the A340 when the fuselage length was further extended and the extended versions A500 and A600 was never popular or great aircraft.
    The B737 has had previous safety issues during its several incarnations also.

    My point being that aircraft manufacturers have always pushed the envelope and always will. Some said that the B747 would never fly!

    With B737 max Boeing have just pushed too hard too fast,have behaved irrisponsibley and with poor judgement ignoring the accepted checks and balances of aircraft development.
    As a result they have killed several hundred passengers and crew,virtually destroyed their reputation and caused a degree of chaos to the aircraft industry.

    6 users thanked author for this post.

    canucklad
    Participant

    Hi cwoodward, I probably should have expanded on my premise…
    You quite rightly have mentioned all the previous issues that have bedevilled various types of aircraft that we confidently fly on.
    My gut simply tells me that 737’s and 321’s were not designed to fly long haul and that the manufactures are taking the cheap and seemingly lazy/easy way out by pushing the boundaries to suit the budgets of an increasingly demanding and competitive airline industry

    3 users thanked author for this post.

    capetonianm
    Participant

    I have to say I agree with the previous two postings, however they are probably borderline libellous!


    TiredOldHack2
    Participant

    Most aircraft types,in say the past 50 years have been pushed and pulled to maximise size and or performance.

    The DC10 comes to mind though, apart from the cargo door issue, which was resolved, it was a fine aircraft. Problem was that the cargo door issue, and then the lost engine on take-off (which was a maintenance error, not a design error) rather finished it.


    cwoodward
    Participant

    The were in fact 11 versions of the DC10 which started life as a short-mid haul domestic aircraft.
    It was extensively pushed and pulled into what finally became large long haul aircraft.

    A total of 55 crashes and 32 total hull-loss crashes up to 2015 was clearly unsustainable and must have been one of the worst safety records of any American aircraft as a percentage against sales

    1 user thanked author for this post.

    AFlyingDutchman
    Participant

    A total of 55 crashes and 32 total hull-loss crashes up to 2015 was clearly unsustainable and must have been one of the worst safety records of any American aircraft as a percentage against sales

    To be accurate, a total of 55 crashes and incidents, 9 of those were hijackings, and 1 a bombing, total loss of life on board 1261. The one main fault with the DC-10 was the cargo door, which after the tragic THY crash was finally addressed and rectified (there had bneen an earlier incident on AA also with the Cargo door). Faulty engineering was the blame for many of the accidents and incidents, in particular the most famous crash of the DC-10 being the AA crash where an engine had not been reattached appropriately (faulty maintenance and using a fort lift to assist in re-attaching the engine to the pylon). The commercial jet with the worst safty record is the 707. The DC-10 certainly lost it’s luster following the AA crash, with the public wary of flying on them, so maybe not a great omen for the 737Max, but in and of itself, was a safe aircraft, just extremely fuel hungry and couldnt compete against the widening field of more efficient aircraft.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Business Traveller September 2019 edition
Business Traveller September 2019 edition
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