Jump to content
Male HQ

WIll you fly a Boeing 737 Max when it returns to the sky?


Guest InBangkok

Recommended Posts

Guest InBangkok

Few now will be considering air travel any time soon. But eventually international travel will slowly open up again. Eventually, too, Boeing is likely to announce a successful certification flight for is Boeing 737 Max aircraft. 387 of these aircraft have been parked at various airports since the production line was stopped at the end of last year. Some airlines have since cancelled orders. Apparently if an aircraft can not be delivered within one year of the contracted date, airlines can cancel without penalty and so far around 150 have indeed been cancelled. But the 737 Max remains one of the most booked aircraft for many airlines' future fleets. More than 4,700 remain on order.

 

Apart from the original commercial jet aircraft, the British made Comet which suffered three fatal crashes (a result primarily of metal fatigue around its square-shaped windows) before it was withdrawn from service for several years in the 1950s, no other aircraft has been grounded anywhere near as long as the 737 Max. The root of the problem seems to be that when Airbus announced its longer haul A320 Neo, Boeing was caught off guard. It had been thinking of a similar aircraft for years but done little about it. Rather than spend years designing a new aircraft, it decided to upgrade its basic and highly successful 737. But to fly longer distances like the A320 Neo, it needed larger engines. The fuselage of all 737 models are identical and based on its 50 year old airframe. This had been set quite close to the ground because not many airports had air bridges in the 1960s. With the new engines for the Max being larger they could not be hung fully under the wing as in previous models. Part of the engine had to jut above the wing thereby disrupting the airflow. 

 

It was to counter this that the MCAS system was devised, a computer programme to correct the aircraft's tendency to pitch the nose down in certain situations. It was this which caused the two total loss crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, despite the Boeing spin doctors trying to place part of the blame on the pilots. Since then, Boeing has announced almost monthly that the problem had been fixed and the 737 Max would be quickly back in the air. That has not happened. In the meantime, Boeing has fired its Chairman and a host of other problems have been slowly discovered in the Max, including another computer problem and problems with wiring. The earliest it is likely to fly is not estimated until October. Meanwhile, after a series of hearings, the US Congress issued a withering Report that slammed both Boeing and its too cosy relationship with the US air regulator, the FAA. Certification of airlines in the USA will be a lot more complex in future.

 

The Seattle Times was recently awarded a 2020 Pulitzer Prize for its extensive coverage of the 737 Max fiasco and many of the articles are available on line.

 

But - and it is a big 'but' - however safe the Max has now become, how many passengers will be prepared to fly in an aircraft described in a 2016 internal Boeing document by one of the pilots who worked on it as an aircraft "designed by clowns who are in turn supervised by monkeys"? Personally I do not care how many 'fixes' have been made to the Max or how cheap the fares, I will never fly it. If I find I am on a flight where the airline has switched aircraft, I will simply refuse to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mate69 said:

yes i will

More preferable a way to go than of the latest China Syndrome.

Certainly to, during flood, getting sucked down a man hole the cover of which has been stolen.

Mentality/Attitude of loss cutting may be highly advisable these days of age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May longevity be with you. 

鍾意就好,理佢男定女

 

never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want.

 

结缘不结

不解缘

 

After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say.

 

看穿不说穿

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, wilfgene said:

More preferable a way to go than of the latest China Syndrome.

Certainly to, during flood, getting sucked down a man hole the cover of which has been stolen.

Mentality/Attitude of loss cutting may be highly advisable these days of age. 

 

12 minutes ago, fab said:

May longevity be with you. 

Time's up, time's up.

I myself am still toying with the idea of allowing myself to be fixed with a ventilator, if available, this time around,

considering the side effect. 

 

By the way, Pusheenpika did not reply, could you relate how Fang Xiao Ru died?

As comparison, since it is beyond my literature capacity. 

Edited by wilfgene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gast

Considering how much attention there has been plus the attention that there will be when the Max is returned to the skies, surely the Max would have been tested to the hilt and therefore would be one of the safer planes to fly?  The US FAA would certainly be very cautious on approving it for flight so on that basis, I think it would be safe to fly.  Having said that, I would not the first person to fly, (haha) maybe after it has been in service for 6 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Airplane Guest

The issue with the Boeing 737 MAX is that Boeing took shortcuts and insisted on attaching bigger engines to a small & old airplane fuselage. It's like adding extra floors to a building without strengthening the foundation. No amount of engineering can fix a deadly flaw in the design. 

 

I will certainly not fly on the Boeing 737 MAX because I don't want to die. The US FAA has proven that it is motivated by politics and money as opposed to actual safety, and I cannot take their re-certification at face value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Airplanes can be 100% safe.  But other factors come into play.

Even a perfect 737 would have been shut down in Iran this last January.

Even a perfect 777 would have been shut down in Ukraine in 2014

Even a perfect 777 would have disappeared without a trace in 2014

Even a perfect Airbus 320 would have been crashed by a suicidal German copilot in 2015

...  etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest InBangkok
11 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Airplanes can be 100% safe.  But other factors come into play.

Even a perfect 737 would have been shut down in Iran this last January.

Even a perfect 777 would have been shut down in Ukraine in 2014

Even a perfect 777 would have disappeared without a trace in 2014

Even a perfect Airbus 320 would have been crashed by a suicidal German copilot in 2015

...  etc. etc.

 

You are correctly pointing out that external factors and pilot error can bring down aircraft. You could go further back, The series of crashes of that grounded the McDonnell Douglas DC10 for 37 days in 1979 (principally maintenance issues and airport staff inaccurately forcing the closure of cargo doors). Or the Japan Airlines 747 that crashed in the mountains due to faulty repair of a crack in the bulkhead. Or the worst crash so far with two 747s crashing into each other at Teneriffe airport due to bad ground control equipment and a KLM pilot attempting to take off without clearance from the tower. Yet I still flew both aircraft types very regularly thereafter and always enjoyed them.

 

But the issues you raise are totally different from the construction of a new aircraft that has now been proven not to have been airworthy when put into service, that was grounded because of the MCAS computer fault and yet is still not back in the air 14 months later. Why not? Because several other major problems have been discovered, including another computer software problem. How many more will be discovered? The fact is Boeing was panicked into rushing the development of the 737 Max and we also now know that saving money for Boeing was the the prime motivator all along the design and production lines. Boeing did not even tell the pilots who were to fly them of the MCAS changes. This is not the first time a Boeing aircraft has been put in the air without full testing. Some of the early 787 Dreamlilners automatically burst into flames, although mercifully not in the air. This again led to a grounding for 123 days and a redesign of the battery compartment. 

 

Boeing used to make great aircraft. With its latest two designs both having had to be grounded for long periods, something is rotten within the company. Perhaps after 10 more years the 737 Max will be a hugely successful aircraft. Perhaps! In the meantime I'll take the words of the pilot who described it in 2016 it as an aircraft "designed by clowns supervised by monkeys"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
On 5/9/2020 at 1:06 PM, Guest InBangkok said:

Few now will be considering air travel any time soon. But eventually international travel will slowly open up again. Eventually, too, Boeing is likely to announce a successful certification flight for is Boeing 737 Max aircraft. 387 of these aircraft have been parked at various airports since the production line was stopped at the end of last year. Some airlines have since cancelled orders. Apparently if an aircraft can not be delivered within one year of the contracted date, airlines can cancel without penalty and so far around 150 have indeed been cancelled. But the 737 Max remains one of the most booked aircraft for many airlines' future fleets. More than 4,700 remain on order.

 

Apart from the original commercial jet aircraft, the British made Comet which suffered three fatal crashes (a result primarily of metal fatigue around its square-shaped windows) before it was withdrawn from service for several years in the 1950s, no other aircraft has been grounded anywhere near as long as the 737 Max. The root of the problem seems to be that when Airbus announced its longer haul A320 Neo, Boeing was caught off guard. It had been thinking of a similar aircraft for years but done little about it. Rather than spend years designing a new aircraft, it decided to upgrade its basic and highly successful 737. But to fly longer distances like the A320 Neo, it needed larger engines. The fuselage of all 737 models are identical and based on its 50 year old airframe. This had been set quite close to the ground because not many airports had air bridges in the 1960s. With the new engines for the Max being larger they could not be hung fully under the wing as in previous models. Part of the engine had to jut above the wing thereby disrupting the airflow. 

 

It was to counter this that the MCAS system was devised, a computer programme to correct the aircraft's tendency to pitch the nose down in certain situations. It was this which caused the two total loss crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, despite the Boeing spin doctors trying to place part of the blame on the pilots. Since then, Boeing has announced almost monthly that the problem had been fixed and the 737 Max would be quickly back in the air. That has not happened. In the meantime, Boeing has fired its Chairman and a host of other problems have been slowly discovered in the Max, including another computer problem and problems with wiring. The earliest it is likely to fly is not estimated until October. Meanwhile, after a series of hearings, the US Congress issued a withering Report that slammed both Boeing and its too cosy relationship with the US air regulator, the FAA. Certification of airlines in the USA will be a lot more complex in future.

 

The Seattle Times was recently awarded a 2020 Pulitzer Prize for its extensive coverage of the 737 Max fiasco and many of the articles are available on line.

 

But - and it is a big 'but' - however safe the Max has now become, how many passengers will be prepared to fly in an aircraft described in a 2016 internal Boeing document by one of the pilots who worked on it as an aircraft "designed by clowns who are in turn supervised by monkeys"? Personally I do not care how many 'fixes' have been made to the Max or how cheap the fares, I will never fly it. If I find I am on a flight where the airline has switched aircraft, I will simply refuse to fly.

I will not fly boeing max. Thats final. I will not allow my dollars to fuel the lies and deepen the pockets of these greedy airline executives. In their pursuitbof profits and fatten up their ready fat wallets.

 

I am boycotting any airline that flues boeing max. These airlines have a choice, they can keep me and heed my feedback as a valued customer who takes multiple trips a year to bangkok, KL and JKt or the words of boeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

I will not fly boeing max. Thats final. I will not allow my dollars to fuel the lies and deepen the pockets of these greedy airline executives. In their pursuitbof profits and fatten up their ready fat wallets.

 

I am boycotting any airline that flues boeing max. These airlines have a choice, they can keep me and heed my feedback as a valued customer who takes multiple trips a year to bangkok, KL and JKt or the words of boeing. 

 

If you don't fly Boeing max, how can Boeing survive? 😢

Edited by koolkai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest InBangkok
1 hour ago, koolkai said:

 

If you don't fly Boeing max, how can Boeing survive? 😢

 

Boeing has a huge number of defence contracts for the US military. Even without its commercial aircraft divisions, it would survive. But it also has a large backlog of orders for its new longer range 777 and 787s. Boeing will survive quite nicely as long as it refocuses its mindset on to engineering and safety rather than exclusively on profits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2020 at 6:13 PM, Guest InBangkok said:

 

Boeing has a huge number of defence contracts for the US military. Even without its commercial aircraft divisions, it would survive. But it also has a large backlog of orders for its new longer range 777 and 787s. Boeing will survive quite nicely as long as it refocuses its mindset on to engineering and safety rather than exclusively on profits.

 

OK! The information you have provided is comforting! 

Edited by koolkai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest InBangkok

We should also remember in these days of covid19 that the estimate of planes still flying is only around 5% of total fleets. Even with oil at near historic lows, many airlines are in serious trouble, are deferring orders for new aircraft and plan to extend the use of older ones. It's not just Boeing that has a bleak immediate future. Airbus is also suffering badly and its staff has been told to expect deep job cuts. Last year it announced it would cease production of its iconic A380 many years ahead of schedule because most airlines just did not want such a big plane. To my thinking, the A350 beats the similar-sized Boeing 787 hands down but there are markets for both. Even orders for the A320 Neo which prompted the hasty production of the 737 Max are drying up. Estimates vary, but the earliest air travel will get anywhere near normal is expected to be the end of 2021.

 

One other covid19 issue I have not seen discussed is air miles. Surely the reduction in the number of flights and a reduction in the number of seats on passenger aircraft will result in less seats being available for mileage redemption for some years. Then, what if your airline goes bust? Nearly 20 years ago the Australian airline Ansett went bust. A friend in Sydney had over 300,000 Ansett miles. He lost them all as he could not use them on other Star Alliance carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Guest InBangkok said:

We should also remember in these days of covid19 that the estimate of planes still flying is only around 5% of total fleets. Even with oil at near historic lows, many airlines are in serious trouble, are deferring orders for new aircraft and plan to extend the use of older ones. It's not just Boeing that has a bleak immediate future. Airbus is also suffering badly and its staff has been told to expect deep job cuts. Last year it announced it would cease production of its iconic A380 many years ahead of schedule because most airlines just did not want such a big plane. To my thinking, the A350 beats the similar-sized Boeing 787 hands down but there are markets for both. Even orders for the A320 Neo which prompted the hasty production of the 737 Max are drying up. Estimates vary, but the earliest air travel will get anywhere near normal is expected to be the end of 2021.

 

One other covid19 issue I have not seen discussed is air miles. Surely the reduction in the number of flights and a reduction in the number of seats on passenger aircraft will result in less seats being available for mileage redemption for some years. Then, what if your airline goes bust? Nearly 20 years ago the Australian airline Ansett went bust. A friend in Sydney had over 300,000 Ansett miles. He lost them all as he could not use them on other Star Alliance carriers.

 

Let's pray that COVID19 will be over soon! Then everyone can continue flying again! 🙏 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, the risk of flying in a re-certified Boeing 735 Max is much lower than the risk of contracting covid-19 from passengers who don't wear a mask during flight , in those flights where the airline does not mind filling them up.

 

If we are planning to fly soon (something to be discouraged) we should have at hand a good N95 mask, goggles, and we should go to the lavatory frequently to wash our hands.  Exactly like if we are caring for covid-19 patients in an emergency room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest InBangkok
On 5/13/2020 at 9:06 AM, Guest InBangkok said:

Surely the reduction in the number of flights and a reduction in the number of seats on passenger aircraft will result in less seats being available for mileage redemption for some years. Then, what if your airline goes bust? Nearly 20 years ago the Australian airline Ansett went bust. A friend in Sydney had over 300,000 Ansett miles. He lost them all as he could not use them on other Star Alliance carriers.

 

There is a long article in Forbes magazine on this very issue. Apparently, airline mileage programmes in most parts of the world are not part of the relevant airlines. They are separate companies and make loads of cash through partnerships with commercial enterprises. Some are even owned by other airlines! So if an airline goes bust, your miles may still have some value. However, it depends very much on the airline and the mileage programme. When Air Berlin collapsed in 2017, it had been a member of the One World Alliance. But its Topbonus mileage members were eventually advised that their miles could be used on only one other airline - Etihad which is not a One World carrier! But less than a year later, there was another email informing members that their mileage accounts were being reset at zero. Bye bye to all your miles!

 

US airlines are different. Their mileage programmes are integrated with the individual airlines. In the last 20 years all major American airlines have been involved in Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganisation yet their mileage schemes continued. Because of all the partnerships these mileage schemes have, especially with banks and hotel chains, the schemes themselves are worth more than the value of the airlines! The article suggests that as a result, if an airline does declare bankruptcy, your miles are likely to retain their value. It makes only one recommendation. if your have a credit card where spending helps accrue mileage, make sure that the mileage is not linked just to one airline. Financial companies like American Express and Citibank allow you to retain miles and then distribute them to one of a variety of airlines. That way you won't get stuck with miles you cannot transfer. 

 

Finally, it suggests that once air travel is back at a reasonable level, air miles schemes may have some special offers to try and get aircraft filled - even with social distancing on the aircraft. So watch out for special deals at the end of 2020 and through 2021.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2020/05/15/what-happens-to-your-miles-when-an-airline-declares-bankruptcy/#6c05e5fc2a16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The Boeing 737 Max fiasco has thrown up another problem. Presently the US Senate Commerce Committee is investigating how the aircraft was certified and the much too cosy relationship between Boeing and the FAA. A former Boeing engineer, Curtis Ewbank, has written to the Senate advising that there are more systemic problems with the 737 Max design that need to be acknowledged and fixed before the aircraft should fly again. 

 

Quote

". . . given the numerous other known flaws in the airframe, it will be just a matter of time before another flight crew is overwhelmed by a design flaw known to Boeing and further lives are senselessly lost," Ewbank wrote.

 

The responses from both Boeing and the FAA have angered some of the senators on the Committee. Ewbank has also suggested that some of the problems also affect the new long range 77X aircraft which is not yet in service. Boeing has declined to comment!

 

https://www.investors.com/news/boeing-737-max-certification-faa-chief-senate-committee-hearing/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2020 at 4:19 AM, Guest Guest said:

I will not fly boeing max. Thats final. I will not allow my dollars to fuel the lies and deepen the pockets of these greedy airline executives. In their pursuitbof profits and fatten up their ready fat wallets.

 

I am boycotting any airline that flues boeing max. These airlines have a choice, they can keep me and heed my feedback as a valued customer who takes multiple trips a year to bangkok, KL and JKt or the words of boeing. 

 That mean boycott SQ bcos they taking over Silkair and future fleet is all 737 Max. They throwing 737-800 to Scoot after Max arrive. The CEO say he has faith in Max and will not cancel order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2020 at 6:13 PM, Guest InBangkok said:

 

Boeing has a huge number of defence contracts for the US military. Even without its commercial aircraft divisions, it would survive. But it also has a large backlog of orders for its new longer range 777 and 787s. Boeing will survive quite nicely as long as it refocuses its mindset on to engineering and safety rather than exclusively on profits.

 It is true Boeing having defence contracts. But you better read up on those, because the military section having problems too. there have been many orders on hold and cancellations.

Boeing has a general issue to deliver well designed products being "market ready". It's a corporate issue mixed with closing eye US authorities checking on the output.

But to me the corporate internal issues seem bigger. Boeing is pushing products on the market which do not seem fit for release.

 

The 350 airbus had many problems too,  and the delivery was delayed but it seems you can trust the European aircraft security authorities more than the US counterpart. Or the difference in corporate culture comes obvious: safety first.

 

From a military magazine:

Boeing delivered 35% fewer military aircraft year-on-year in the first quarter of 2020.

However, the 2020 first quarter total was still more than the company’s slowest quarter last year. In the second quarter of 2019, it only delivered 36 aircraft, partly reflecting production problems with its KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling aircraft.

In the most-recent quarter, Boeing’s production of the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter was down by 12 units in the quarter compared to a year earlier. Production quantities of the company’s other aircraft were also all down by a few units.

Boeing’s production facilities were not impacted by the coronavirus for most of the first quarter of 2020,

Partly reflecting production problems with its KC-46A Pegasus in-flight refuelling aircraft.

 

Boeing has more problems than the 737 Max, Rep. John Garamendi warns

Published Tue, Oct 29 2019
 

In September, the Air Force determined KC-46s could no longer carry passengers or cargo until issues with floor cargo restraints are resolved.

The KC-46 “doesn’t yet work. There are ongoing problems,” Garamendi said, before incorrectly saying the plane has been delayed four years. “So we’ve got a lot of problems with Boeing.”

 

What’s Wrong with Boeing?

On the military side, Boeing’s KC-46 Pegasus aerial refueling tanker is $3 billion over budget, three years behind schedule, and still has technical challenges whose repair bill has been estimated at $300 million by the Government Accountability Office. These include problems with the remote vision system needed to operate the refueling boom – the 767 variant’s raison d’etre! Then there are the tools and other debris that Air Force maintainers began to find inside the walls, floors, and wings of delivered aircraft. The service acquisitions chief halted deliveries the following month, allowed them to restart in March, then halted them again after more debris was found. Meanwhile, the existing fleet is currently banned from carrying cargo and passengers until faulty cargo restraints are fixed. These delays mean the KC-46 is now slated to fly its first combat missions no sooner than 2022 – eleven years after Boeing was selected over rivals to build the tanker. All this suggests a deeper problem with Boeing’s commitment to quality and a continued disregard for the potential risk to our men and women in uniform—unfathomable for a company like this.  

These have all dented Boeing’s reputation and could threaten its longer-term value as a reliable partner in the U.S. defense establishment. Indeed, the company recently withdrew from the competition to replace the Minuteman III, likely preventing the Air Force from using competition to reduce the cost of its next ICBM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally avoided taking the 787 dreamliner and never took the 737 Max. I will wait for the 737 to be fit for air travel. Hopefully there will be options to avoid the plane.

 

I don't mind the troubles with the 737 Max because I find the Airbus models more accommodating in space and noise reduction (and fuel consumption).

 

Airbus seems to be working on a hybrid model, that would be a good step forward.

 

Currently it seems the big planes Boeing 787 and Airbus 380 are out of range due to the huge capacity. But I think the usage of bigger planes will come sooner or later again. We are all too hungry to travel and it seemed to be the business model of those Mid East airlines to fly most wanted routes with the big planes.

 

In my personal view it is not so much the airplane but what airlines make out of the space. Many airlines cramped people into the planes until you have lost mood to fly. I think the future will be to reduce the passenger count and create more space for even Economy passengers. I actually never understood those people who flew budget airlines to Athens or Berlin from Singapore (or other long haul parts)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, singalion said:

The 350 airbus had many problems too,  and the delivery was delayed but it seems you can trust the European aircraft security authorities more than the US counterpart. Or the difference in corporate culture comes obvious: safety first.

 

I fully agree that Airbus has had its problems with a few of its models. The A380 had wing crack issues as well as two near catastrophic engine failures (although that is probably more the fault of Rolls Royce than Airbus).

 

Personally I am very sad that the A380 production line is being shut down and some existing operators are trying to get rid of their A380s. I think it's a fantastic plane. Like @singalion, I avoided the Boeing 787 for 3 years after several burst into flames due to a battery fault. I have now flown it several times. But for reasons I cannot really explain I prefer flying on the similar A350  I also wish Boeing could keep open its production line for the latest 747-800 passenger model. Apart from some delivered to Lufthansa, most now seem only to be freighters. Airlines want only twin engined long haul aircraft now.

 

The B787 was grounded for 4 months before reentering service. The 737 Max has now been grounded for more than 15 months and there is still no indication when it will be back in service - probably not till next year. How Boeing believed it could keep a basic airframe that is over 50 years old and very low to the ground, two flight computers that were designed 24 years ago and just attach larger engines that completely change the flight envelope of the plane without having huge problems is something I totally fail to understand. Unless, of course, cash took precedence over safety.

Edited by InBangkok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any airline would be crazy to fly that if the problems it faces are not dealt with. The kind of law suits, insurances claims and thin profit margins will not make good business sense to use those planes. SIA too kiasu to buy and fly that if it was still so bad.

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

I fully agree that Airbus has had its problems with a few of its models. The A380 had wing crack issues as well as two near catastrophic engine failures (although that is probably more the fault of Rolls Royce than Airbus).

 

Personally I am very sad that the A380 production line is being shut down and some existing operators are trying to get rid of their A380s. I think it's a fantastic plane. Like @singalion, I avoided the Boeing 787 for 3 years after several burst into flames due to a battery fault. I have now flown it several times. But for reasons I cannot really explain I prefer flying on the similar A350  I also wish Boeing could keep open its production line for the latest 747-800 passenger model. Apart from some delivered to Lufthansa, most now seem only to be freighters. Airlines want only twin engined long haul aircraft now.

 

The B787 was grounded for 4 months before reentering service. The 737 Max has now been grounded for more than 15 months and there is still no indication when it will be back in service - probably not till next year. How Boeing believed it could keep a basic airframe that is over 50 years old and very low to the ground, two flight computers that were designed 24 years ago and just attach larger engines that completely change the flight envelope of the plane without having huge problems is something I totally fail to understand. Unless, of course, cash took precedence over safety.

 

Maybe when German technology comes together with French design. ha ha.

 

I thought Singapore Airlines used to have some 747-800. They were flying to New York previously, but I think they phased them out.

 

I took the 787 once on Scoot from Bangkok, but don't know the usual non budget type. Only once, ha ha.

 

All planes in future will have certain issues at start, because the manufacturers started using those mixed materials and you can only test once the plane is done. The manufacturers are trying to get the planes lighter to save fuel. That caused the wing cracks on the 380.

 

The Airbus 350 is quite capable and managing a longer distance.

 

The 380 is not dead yet, the production line is not stopped, there are still 281 orders for the A380. I m quite sure the manufacturing will not end by December 2021. Emirates just over expanded. The unfair part is they order huge numbers and get big discounts, but later then don't call off the planes. You must know the European airlines (and Americans) fighting off the Middle Eastern as they take market share. However, the pricing has seemed flawed as the UAE has "sponsored" the airline, benefits the European can't receive from their governments similar benefits. Emirates caused many European airlines to fall.

 

This is exactly the difference: the delivery of the A380 was delayed during testing. But Boeing releases the planes and then always the troubles started. There is nothing worse than airlines having to ground planes and people died in accidents.

 

The next thing is the Airbus 330 Neo....

 

but I m still quite cautious to take any newer Boeing models....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, upshot said:

Any airline would be crazy to fly that if the problems it faces are not dealt with. The kind of law suits, insurances claims and thin profit margins will not make good business sense to use those planes. SIA too kiasu to buy and fly that if it was still so bad.

But my point is:

with Boeing it happened 2 times for the 787 and 737 Max to have serious problems after being released to the airlines. That makes a huge difference.

 

The Qantas issue with the engine was maybe not an issue of airbus but more on maintenance and on the type of engine , the cracks on the wings were having probably same cause (vibration from the engine). The engines were delivered by Rolls Royce. Airbus has since switched the manufacturer.

 

The advantage is the A380 has 4 engines, and the probably for all 4 to fail at the same time should be rare. The plane can land using two engines in an emergency.

 

For a Boeing 737 Max  that would not be the case.

 

Further, if you compare Boeing and Airbus, Airbus seems to have a regular complete overhaul program. The A350 is just flying 5 years but Airbus is working on many overhaul programs (now 350-1000, around 400 pax and 16000 km stretch). And airbus is integrating the experience from the newer models into the overhauls.

You don't see so much on Boeing overhauls, once an aircraft is out.

 

If you compare the direct competitor to the 737-10 max (was supposed to be delivered in mid 2020) (maximal seating 230 pax), the A320neo, the Airbus manages 1,100 km longer distance and in one class (economy) has 240 seat capacity, 206 for 2 classes).

 

I will wait at least some years to see what happens with the 737 Max. Anyway I never took Lion Air, Batik....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, singalion said:

I thought Singapore Airlines used to have some 747-800. They were flying to New York previously, but I think they phased them out.

 

As far as I am aware, only Lufthansa, Korean and Air China purchased the passenger version with its ultra extended upper deck.

 

Re the Qantas A380 engine blowout, from what I read it illustrated that with experienced cockpit crew that aircraft can take a great deal of punishment and yet still land safely. And it landed considerably in excess of the maximum landing speed with a damaged undercarriage and landing flaps plus many of its hydraulics all but destroyed.

 

Boeing is certainly now in a desperate mess. And it has dragged the FAA down with it. Even if the 737 Max is cleared to fly again, quite a number of airlines have now used the delay to cancel or modify their orders. I suspect that a lot of the flying public will be concerned about flying it for some years. Then there are the costs to airlines in having to train pilots in simulators which Boeing promised would not be necessary. Add to that a large number of lawsuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InBangkok said:

 

As far as I am aware, only Lufthansa, Korean and Air China purchased the passenger version with its ultra extended upper deck.

 

Re the Qantas A380 engine blowout, from what I read it illustrated that with experienced cockpit crew that aircraft can take a great deal of punishment and yet still land safely. And it landed considerably in excess of the maximum landing speed with a damaged undercarriage and landing flaps plus many of its hydraulics all but destroyed.

 

Boeing is certainly now in a desperate mess. And it has dragged the FAA down with it. Even if the 737 Max is cleared to fly again, quite a number of airlines have now used the delay to cancel or modify their orders. I suspect that a lot of the flying public will be concerned about flying it for some years. Then there are the costs to airlines in having to train pilots in simulators which Boeing promised would not be necessary. Add to that a large number of lawsuits.

 

you are right, it was the old 747-400 which was phased out in 2012. Singapore Airlines never had the 747-800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, singalion said:

But my point is:

with Boeing it happened 2 times for the 787 and 737 Max to have serious problems after being released to the airlines. That makes a huge difference.

 

The Qantas issue with the engine was maybe not an issue of airbus but more on maintenance and on the type of engine , the cracks on the wings were having probably same cause (vibration from the engine). The engines were delivered by Rolls Royce. Airbus has since switched the manufacturer.

 

The advantage is the A380 has 4 engines, and the probably for all 4 to fail at the same time should be rare. The plane can land using two engines in an emergency.

 

For a Boeing 737 Max  that would not be the case.

 

Further, if you compare Boeing and Airbus, Airbus seems to have a regular complete overhaul program. The A350 is just flying 5 years but Airbus is working on many overhaul programs (now 350-1000, around 400 pax and 16000 km stretch). And airbus is integrating the experience from the newer models into the overhauls.

You don't see so much on Boeing overhauls, once an aircraft is out.

 

If you compare the direct competitor to the 737-10 max (was supposed to be delivered in mid 2020) (maximal seating 230 pax), the A320neo, the Airbus manages 1,100 km longer distance and in one class (economy) has 240 seat capacity, 206 for 2 classes).

 

I will wait at least some years to see what happens with the 737 Max. Anyway I never took Lion Air, Batik....

 You can compare until the cow's come home hehehe If you let that be your fear without considering other factors that might have now gone on to rectify them and you still harbor the same fear well only time will tell if you got it wrong or right. Hold that thought, and we get back to it when the next one falls out of the sky. Every airplane or vehicle has a certain percentage of failure for whatever the reason and if that is what stops you. It your choice. You make your case. Others will too. But I am betting on that factor that there have been many developments, recalls and other technical work done including varies authorizes pressuring top rectify this before getting a clean bill to carry on.

 

You know me from long way back (we were talking airplanes ) like you I am into flying machines and such and I keep track of such stuff and especially of late all the newer gen 5 fighter jets..etc I am taking all my years of travelling and what I know and the regulations that will take place... to gamble with my own life, I will take the 737 Max if any one of the destinations I travel to uses them. heheheh.

 

I still have not taken a flight on the A350... one day I hope to. Love the A380.

Edited by upshot

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have another issue with the 737-Max,  which should help to make a criminal case against the Boeing management.

The two fatal crashes were the consequence of an air speed sensor that failed.  This failure made the automatic stabilization system believe that it had to take over control from the pilot.

There must have been some suspicion of this failure mode, because the plane had prevision for a second redundant air speed sensor whose reading,  if different from the first, would alert the pilot about a malfunction. The planes that crashed had their stabilization system dependent on only the one sensor, and no check with a second one was done.  And here is the criminality:  the use of the second sensor was made optional, available for a surcharge.  This made the increased reliability of the plane dependent ... on a surcharge.

HOW CAN THEY MAKE THE RELIABILITY OF AN AIRPLANE dependent on a surcharge?  The real cost of this improvement is trivial compared to the cost of the airplane.

 

This malfeasance of a company's management is enough to eliminate all trust in the company.  Some similar case is the one of Volkswagen and their cheating with the testing of their diesel engines.  I have no intention of owning a Volkswagen again  (I once had an Audi). 

 

Now about the DANGER of flying in a 737-Max after it is re-certified:  there has not been an accident due to the physical structure, aerodynamics of the plane.  The two accidents were caused by the introduction of automatic systems that took over control, and the inability/ignorance to disable such systems if they went haywire.  Had they stayed under human control they would not have crashed.  With today's technology the airplanes can be made sufficiently safe and reliable.   With the experience in aeronautical engineering the chances of producing a dangerous physical design are minimized.  Something different is to allow cyber systems to take over, given the difficulty of exhaustively testing computer software.   Something similar is facing the introduction of self-driving cars.

 

About the likeness of aircraft:  I had big hopes that the 787  with its functional advantages would bring a noticeable improvement to the experience of flying.  I have flown many times in the 787s of the United and ANA airlines.  I still have to find a big noticeable improvement,  but I noticed immediately a disadvantage:  the seats of the 787 in economy are NARROWER.  For a man with wide shoulders like me this makes a difference.  Today, I prefer to travel in a 777 over a 787.  But this disadvantage is not intrinsic of the plane itself, but the way the airline arranges its seating scheme.  While I think that there is no need today to fabricate new commercial airplanes,  I hope that the airlines will modify their accommodations of passengers so as to improve and optimize safe distancing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, upshot said:

 You can compare until the cow's come home hehehe If you let that be your fear without considering other factors that might have now gone on to rectify them and you still harbor the same fear well only time will tell if you got it wrong or right. Hold that thought, and we get back to it when the next one falls out of the sky. Every airplane or vehicle has a certain percentage of failure for whatever the reason and if that is what stops you. It your choice. You make your case. Others will too.

 

Of course you are correct. But I and many others, including aircraft specialists, believe the real problem with the 737 Max is that there was a major change in Boeing's culture about 10 years ago. From a company where engineering and safety were paramount, the company bosses were on the point of considering designing a completely new narrow body plane as a successor to the 737 series when it learned that Airbus was quite advanced in the development of a similar aircraft, the A320 Neo. Both aircraft would have larger engines, fly further  - even transatlantic - on much less fuel. Worse there was talk that traditional Boeing customers were being actively wooed by Airbus. The A320 Neo was due for introduction in 2016. Boeing had no chance of getting a totally new aircraft  into the air until the 2020s. Besides, designing a totally new aircraft costs billions.

 

So, the bean counters at Boeing vetoed a new aircraft,  deciding instead on yet another upgrade to the 50 year old 737. But that created a huge problem. For the new 737 to fly further and cheaper, the new plane would need larger engines. The original 737 and all its future derivatives had a fuselage that was closer to the ground than most other aircraft. This made it popular as passengers could easily use steps for entry and exit at the USA's many smaller airports that did not have airbridges. But a larger engine could not be fully slung under the wing. It would then be too close to the ground. So instead of substantial modifications to the basic airframe to allow for a longer landing gear, Boeing decided that the engine could be affixed so that part extends above the front surface of the wing. This has been the biggest error, for the new engine placement disturbs the flow of air over the wings and thus the lift below them.

 

Worse, though, Boeing had promised its customers - and the FAA - that the new aircraft was merely a derivative of the older 737-800. So pilots would not require expensive simulator training. Instead, it stated all that would be required of pilots was a one hour course using an iPad. It even promised its main US customer Southwest that if simulator training was indeed required, if would offer a refund of US$1 million per aircraft. As if that was not bad enough, the iPad information failed to include information about the MCAS system. As Steve5380 points out above, the MCAS system was developed along with an air speed sensor to stop the sudden pitch up/pitch down that could be caused by the new engine placement. There was no such requirement in any previous version of the 737 and Boeing did absolutely everything possible to avoid informing its customers and pilots of the new technology. In all aircraft there have to be redundant systems built in. In this case, Boeing made the second system optional - at a cost. It thereby broke a cardinal rule of aircraft manufacture. It also lied to the FAA.

 

And it gets even worse. Since the grounding, new computer programme problems have been discovered, dirt has been found in the engines of grounded planes and wires have been found bundled in a fashion that could generate a fire. Is it any wonder that one engineer who worked on the 737 Max called it an aircraft "designed by clowns who are in turn supervised by monkeys"? I don't care how many modifications are made to the Max or how successful it becomes, I will do everything possible to avoid flying it.  

 

 

12 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

Now about the DANGER of flying in a 737-Max after it is re-certified:  there has not been an accident due to the physical structure, aerodynamics of the plane.  The two accidents were caused by the introduction of automatic systems that took over control, and the inability/ignorance to disable such systems if they went haywire.  Had they stayed under human control they would not have crashed.  With today's technology the airplanes can be made sufficiently safe and reliable.   With the experience in aeronautical engineering the chances of producing a dangerous physical design are minimized.  Something different is to allow cyber systems to take over, given the difficulty of exhaustively testing computer software. 

 

I have all but answered Steve5380's point earlier in this post. Today's technology is a massive advance on 50 years ago. Yet exactly 50 years ago the Lockeed L1011 Tristar made its maiden flight. This was a great wide-body 3-engine aircraft that pilots loved and was regarded as a technological marvel. In May 1972 it made the first fully automated flight. From take off to landing its computers handled everything. Yet 48 years later Boeing cannot design a plane without its technology resulting in two crashes with the loss of all on board. And it had the gall to believe pilots did not need to know what new technology it had incorporated!  

 

As I noted above in my post on Tuesday at 7:16 pm a whistle blower, an engineer who worked on the 737 Max in 2014, sent a letter to the House Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. In addition to the quote in my earlier post about "other known flaw in the airframe", he states "

 

Quote

“If the FAA was truly regulating in the public interest, it would take action against Boeing for its continued deception and gross errors in the design and production of the 737 MAX by withdrawing Boeing’s production certificate” 

 

Have you ever heard anyone who worked on any other aircraft make such an allegation? I haven't. And that's another reason why I believe Boeing put cash ahead of safety and that the 737 Max should never take to the skies again. 

Edited by InBangkok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Of course you are correct. But I and many others, including aircraft specialists, believe the real problem with the 737 Max is that there was a major change in Boeing's culture about 10 years ago. From a company where engineering and safety were paramount, the company bosses were on the point of considering designing a completely new narrow body plane as a successor to the 737 series when it learned that Airbus was quite advanced in the development of a similar aircraft, the A320 Neo. Both aircraft would have larger engines, fly further  - even transatlantic - on much less fuel. Worse there was talk that traditional Boeing customers were being actively wooed by Airbus. The A320 Neo was due for introduction in 2016. Boeing had no chance of getting a totally new aircraft  into the air until the 2020s. Besides, designing a totally new aircraft costs billions.

 

So, the bean counters at Boeing vetoed a new aircraft,  deciding instead on yet another upgrade to the 50 year old 737. But that created a huge problem. For the new 737 to fly further and cheaper, the new plane would need larger engines. The original 737 and all its future derivatives had a fuselage that was closer to the ground than most other aircraft. This made it popular as passengers could easily use steps for entry and exit at the USA's many smaller airports that did not have airbridges. But a larger engine could not be fully slung under the wing. It would then be too close to the ground. So instead of substantial modifications to the basic airframe to allow for a longer landing gear, Boeing decided that the engine could be affixed so that part extends above the front surface of the wing. This has been the biggest error, for the new engine placement disturbs the flow of air over the wings and thus the lift below them.

 

Worse, though, Boeing had promised its customers - and the FAA - that the new aircraft was merely a derivative of the older 737-800. So pilots would not require expensive simulator training. Instead, it stated all that would be required of pilots was a one hour course using an iPad. It even promised its main US customer Southwest that if simulator training was indeed required, if would offer a refund of US$1 million per aircraft. As if that was not bad enough, the iPad information failed to include information about the MCAS system. As Steve5380 points out above, the MCAS system was developed along with an air speed sensor to stop the sudden pitch up/pitch down that could be caused by the new engine placement. There was no such requirement in any previous version of the 737 and Boeing did absolutely everything possible to avoid informing its customers and pilots of the new technology. In all aircraft there have to be redundant systems built in. In this case, Boeing made the second system optional - at a cost. It thereby broke a cardinal rule of aircraft manufacture. It also lied to the FAA.

 

And it gets even worse. Since the grounding, new computer programme problems have been discovered, dirt has been found in the engines of grounded planes and wires have been found bundled in a fashion that could generate a fire. Is it any wonder that one engineer who worked on the 737 Max called it an aircraft "designed by clowns who are in turn supervised by monkeys"? I don't care how many modifications are made to the Max or how successful it becomes, I will do everything possible to avoid flying it.  

 

 

 

I have all but answered Steve5380's point earlier in this post. Today's technology is a massive advance on 50 years ago. Yet exactly 50 years ago the Lockeed L1011 Tristar made its maiden flight. This was a great wide-body 3-engine aircraft that pilots loved and was regarded as a technological marvel. In May 1972 it made the first fully automated flight. From take off to landing its computers handled everything. Yet 48 years later Boeing cannot design a plane without its technology resulting in two crashes with the loss of all on board. And it had the gall to believe pilots did not need to know what new technology it had incorporated!  

 

As I noted above in my post on Tuesday at 7:16 pm a whistle blower, an engineer who worked on the 737 Max in 2014, sent a letter to the House Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. In addition to the quote in my earlier post about "other known flaw in the airframe", he states "

 

 

Have you ever heard anyone who worked on any other aircraft make such an allegation? I haven't. And that's another reason why I believe Boeing put cash ahead of safety and that the 737 Max should never take to the skies again. 

Like Singlion., I agree with your rationale. In the end, everything is a risk. Crossing the road is a risk. People who use seat belt can still die on an alarming percentage in fact.. But yet i the end, people still take them for example. Life goes on as unemotional as we get. As someone maybe you even or Singlion, we like engineering subject and well we then to want things precise or perfect  before we let it pass heheh.. so we overthink things more than we should. I know we are talking about planes here that drops from the sky and literally everyone is going to die but I feel even in such scenarios, check and balances can be stopped till it is perfect. I am sure every step is taken including the buyers of the planes who have their own team of engineers who will scrutinize all the details especially a plane with a record of two crashes. Will this prevent future crashes? I doubt as another factor could be at play and nothing to do with the built of the plane can still happen. For me, the travel bug is too strong and I love flying on planes too much to over worry. A lot of time my happier point of travelling is getting on a plane. And when those of us who knows how planes works and fly, it is so amazing to see it all come together when you are on a plane.

 

Any of you into flight simulators? I am thinking of building one... I have a pretty good thrustmaster HOTAS but thinking about getting the warthog version and a proper cage. heheheh

Edited by upshot

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, upshot said:

In the end, everything is a risk. Crossing the road is a risk. People who use seat belt can still die on an alarming percentage in fact.. But yet i the end, people still take them for example.

 

Life itself is a risk. But I think it is more fair to talk about calculated risks. I was once a passenger in a car being driven on Highway 1 in California. I was in the back seat and did not wear the seat belt. Thanks to an idiot who crossed lanes, we had a crash. Mercifully I just had a few small cuts and bruises and a pair of mangled spectacles. Since then, though, I have always worn seat belts in cars. 

 

I probably wrote in an earlier post that I like planes and have several times taken detours just so I could fly a particular model. Once flying from LHR to JFK I even got an upgrade from biz class to Concorde which was was very special. I happily kept on flying DC10s and 747s after several accidents, most of which were eventually reported to be the result of pilot error or faulty maintenance - or both...

 

In assessing risk with the 737 Max, though, I just do not like the odds. Had the aircraft returned to the air within a few weeks of its grounding and there having been no more fatal crashes, I would not have thought much about it, apart from not flying it for the next three years. But for a new aircraft to be grounded for an entire 15 months with the real possibility of it not flying again for another seven, and with so many new faults discovered during the period of the grounding, for me the risk has become far too great. I realise millions will fly it and probably - hopefully - fly it in complete safety. But I won't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Life itself is a risk. But I think it is more fair to talk about calculated risks. I was once a passenger in a car being driven on Highway 1 in California. I was in the back seat and did not wear the seat belt. Thanks to an idiot who crossed lanes, we had a crash. Mercifully I just had a few small cuts and bruises and a pair of mangled spectacles. Since then, though, I have always worn seat belts in cars. 

 

I probably wrote in an earlier post that I like planes and have several times taken detours just so I could fly a particular model. Once flying from LHR to JFK I even got an upgrade from biz class to Concorde which was was very special. I happily kept on flying DC10s and 747s after several accidents, most of which were eventually reported to be the result of pilot error or faulty maintenance - or both...

 

In assessing risk with the 737 Max, though, I just do not like the odds. Had the aircraft returned to the air within a few weeks of its grounding and there having been no more fatal crashes, I would not have thought much about it, apart from not flying it for the next three years. But for a new aircraft to be grounded for an entire 15 months with the real possibility of it not flying again for another seven, and with so many new faults discovered during the period of the grounding, for me the risk has become far too great. I realise millions will fly it and probably - hopefully - fly it in complete safety. But I won't.

 

Damn... The Concord. Wish I had that opportunity. I remember that plane really well. Back then Singapore's international airport was at Paya Lebar Road. And For a limited time, the Concord (AirFrance/BA joint ownership) when it flies in or out, you know it is the Concord. We stayed like a few kilometers away but you can still hear the roar of the engines. Only vague connection I have to the Concord now is I use and have bought 2 in my life the Sennheiser Headphones DH-25 that was the choice for use all the passengers on the Concord. RThey get to keep it when they disembark. I still have one bought to replace my old one that lasted 15 yrs.. I am a bedroom DJ and it's also is an iconic OG headset for DJs. heheheh... Ya, that is one plane I will never get to ride on. But with all the new ones now, I would love to at least fly in one. Life's too short.

 

It has its problem, the Concord and remember the last one crashing due to a piece of metal strip on the runway. Man. Life's unpredictable. I can accept that. If it happens, it happens. I am a without-fail-wear-seatbelt person because I spent 2.5 yrs in the Police and I saw too many accidents where a simple thing as wearing a seatbelt would have saves a life. Anyway, too many instances for planes to fail. it will scare some off for a while but a few months later, its all back to normal. That's human nature for you.

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Life itself is a risk. But I think it is more fair to talk about calculated risks. I was once a passenger in a car being driven on Highway 1 in California. I was in the back seat and did not wear the seat belt. Thanks to an idiot who crossed lanes, we had a crash. Mercifully I just had a few small cuts and bruises and a pair of mangled spectacles. Since then, though, I have always worn seat belts in cars. 

 

I probably wrote in an earlier post that I like planes and have several times taken detours just so I could fly a particular model. Once flying from LHR to JFK I even got an upgrade from biz class to Concorde which was was very special. I happily kept on flying DC10s and 747s after several accidents, most of which were eventually reported to be the result of pilot error or faulty maintenance - or both...

 

 

I also respect safety and I use any device that increases it.  48 years ago when I started work as field engineer I had not driven before, and the company had a strong rule about use of seat belts. Less than a year later I had an accident with my pickup truck turning upside down, and the belt did its job.  My son's first car was the first model of Acura Integra that had air bags, and shortly thereafter he had a serious accident, and he and a friend riding with him walked away unharmed.

 

When I was younger I was also fascinated by airplanes.  My first long haul flight at 18 y.o. was in a 707, and I cherished the acceleration at takeoff and seeing the wings of this aircraft flapping nearly like a bird.  But over the years the experience of flying has turned into a necessary inconvenience.  Like I wrote before,  I didn't get too much satisfaction out of the LCD dimmed windows, the better air flow, the lighter carbon fiber frame, the better fuel economy of the 787, but I felt more cramped in economy.  Even a flight in the Concord would not have turned me on very much.  Maybe as a pilot,  but not as a passenger.  Yet I still enjoy some aspects of air travel,  the out of the ordinary experience at the departing and arriving airports, going through security, immigration, etc.  I always liked to arrive at Changi airport at midnight, and make time until taking the MRT to my hotel the next morning, walking in between and through its empty terminals and resting, sleeping on its comfortable couches.  

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that there are a few aviation specialists here...😉

I don't disagree with what has been said about the 737 Max certification and airworthiness monitoring. When a modification (or a special feature) is highly linked with safety, it should not be optional (paid by the operator), but managed via an airworthiness directive (i.e. mandatory, and paid by the manufacturer).

This being said, I suppose that this plane will be re-certified some day, and after all this mess, the FAA will be particularly careful. If, in addition, the certificate of airworthiness is also validated by the European EASA, I think we should have no problems and no fears for flying the plane again.

About the A380... it is a good plane, but it arrived on the market too late, because of some stupid problems with...German industry.

And Concorde... Aaaah! Splendid plane. Fantastic experience to fly it. But the market was very narrow, and after the accident, it was the end. You probably all know that it had been operated by Singapore Airlines too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, upshot said:

Back then Singapore's international airport was at Paya Lebar Road. And For a limited time, the Concord (AirFrance/BA joint ownership) when it flies in or out, you know it is the Concord.

 

The first few times I landed in Singapore it was at Paya Lebar. Didn't a road have to be closed when planes took off and landed because it went through the taxiway? I believe the Concorde Singapore service was a joint venture with SIA and BA. So there were SIA colours on one side and BA on the other. The problem was that no countries would permit it to fly supersonic over their land areas. The supersonic speed over the Indian Ocean did not justify the price because it lost time at a refuelling stop in the Middle East.

 

It was great landing in New York before leaving London (time wise). Passport clearance was done prior to departure in BA's Concorde Lounge, baggage was guaranteed on the carousel no later then 15 minutes after arrival and a free limo was laid on to take passengers to their hotels. I got the upgrade soon after the first Gulf War when  passenger loads had fallen. Luck!

 

But as Phil points out, it had a very small niche market. It was also not the most comfortable plane and the 2+2 across seating had only a few inches more leg room than economy on most larger aircraft. But the food and wines were wonderful! I saw a TV documentary about that crash in Paris which indicated that the metal strip on the runway that punctured the tyre and then the fuel tank was just one of a number of problems on that particular aircraft. It had a spacer missing from one set of tyres meaning they could not move forward in a dead straight direction, and it was considerably overweight with too much baggage.  

 

3 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

My first long haul flight at 18 y.o. was in a 707, and I cherished the acceleration at takeoff and seeing the wings of this aircraft flapping nearly like a bird.

 

Mine was also a 707, but my first ever flight was in an old pre war DC3 - a 15-minute hop between the North and South Islands of New Zealand. The plane was blown around because it was very windy but I loved every minute.

 

1 hour ago, Phil said:

About the A380... it is a good plane, but it arrived on the market too late, because of some stupid problems with...German industry.

 

Seems there may be a new market opening up for the A380 as a cargo aircraft. Such a shame that its days carrying passengers are numbered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concord was first class for all the seats... narrow target audience indeed.  LOL

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, InBangkok said:

 

 But the food and wines were wonderful! I saw a TV documentary about that crash in Paris which indicated that the metal strip on the

runway that punctured the tyre and then the fuel tank was just one of a number of problems on that particular aircraft. It had a spacer missing from one set of tyres meaning they could not move forward in a dead straight direction, and it was considerably overweight with too much baggage.  

 

 

Mine was also a 707, but my first ever flight was in an old pre war DC3 - a 15-minute hop between the North and South Islands of New Zealand. The plane was blown around because it was very windy but I loved every minute.

 

 

Seems there may be a new market opening up for the A380 as a cargo aircraft. Such a shame that its days carrying passengers are numbered.

Food and wines were better on Air France Concorde!😄

You are right about the other disfunctionments, but the main (and probably unique) cause of the accident was this metal strip. The spacer in place and a correct take-off weight would not have prevented the accident in my opinion.

Good old DC3 had its charm...

About the A380, a cargo market is less "glamour"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the Concord and the 380 represent excesses.  The strive of humanity to travel at ever higher speed,  or with ever larger capacity, size of the machines. Their successes and failures are being debated but maybe such experiences had to happen.  They add to a collection of dramatic engineering tragedies. 

 

From the Tower of Babel that lead to the multiple languages,  the tragedy of Icarus who flew too high, the burning of the Hindenberg that used H2, the sinking of the Titanic that traveled too fast,  all good material for dramas.  Should the grounding of the 737-Max be added to the "tragedies"?  Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Phil said:

Maybe the name of the Zeppelin LZ 129 was "Hindenburg"?😉

The 737 Max accidents were tragedies, not the grounding...

 

The grounding of the 737-Max is already a tragedy for the shareholders of Boeing and maybe some of their top managers.

And the bleeding hasn't stopped yet.  The FAA keeps nipping at the butt of Boeing,  like recently:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/faa-orders-fix-for-engine-covers-of-boeing-737-max-planes/ar-BB15VgMQ

 

But the retirement of the Concord and the A380 are not tragedies.  They are the prevalence of reason.

The Concord had little reason to exist.  It saved hours of transatlantic travel time?  Whose time is so precious to justify the extra noise and air pollution, the huge cost of development, maintenance?  An opportunity for exquisite meals?  With the added price over a regular flight one could pay for countless visits to the best French restaurants. A limousine waiting?  What is wrong with a taxi?   It did not fulfill a realistic need, except for the need of snobby rich people to show off their wealth and the fantasy of their worth by raising above the pebble.

 

The A380 had not much reason to exist either.  It did not fulfill a NEED.  It offered no realistic advantage to the traveler, except for the thrill of one being in the biggest passenger aircraft ever.  I flew it once,  and this what I felt, together with the ability to walk around longer distances than usual during flight, which I do often.  

 

(I regret if my comment disgusts someone.  My motto is "everything in moderation")

.

Edited by Steve5380
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steve5380 said:

They are the prevalence of reason.

The Concord had little reason to exist.  It saved hours of transatlantic travel time?  Whose time is so precious to justify the extra noise and air pollution, the huge cost of development, maintenance?  An opportunity for exquisite meals?  With the added price over a regular flight one could pay for countless visits to the best French restaurants. A limousine waiting?  What is wrong with a taxi?   It did not fulfill a realistic need, except for the need of snobby rich people to show off their wealth and the fantasy of their worth by raising above the pebble.

 

The A380 had not much reason to exist either.  It did not fulfill a NEED.  It offered no realistic advantage to the traveler, except for the thrill of one being in the biggest passenger aircraft ever.  I flew it once,  and this what I felt, together with the ability to walk around longer distances than usual during flight, which I do often.  

 

Now I cannot agree! First Concorde. In the 1950s and 1960s almost everyone in the  aircraft business believed that supersonic was the future of air travel. As Concorde was being developed, the American government certainly didi. After a design competition, it awarded the contract to Boeing which started design nd development of  the B2707. This was to carry almost three times more passengers than Concorde at Mach 3 compared to Concorde's Mach 2. Boeing actually had 122 orders for the aircraft from 26 airlines.  As the world was hit by the quadrupling of the price of oil at the start of the 1970s, the government cut back its funding and Boeing's two prototypes were abandoned, as was the entire project.

 

Concorde was not just a plaything for the rich and famous. It became an essential travel tool for business leaders. When I took my one flight, I was seated next to the UK boss of McDonalds! He was flying for the monthly evening meeting of the main McDonald's Board. He flew back the next morning.. He reckoned the cost more than paid for itself. Would you prefer a fleet of corporate jets and all their pollution to take those corporate passengers instead?

 

Second the A380. Remember back in mid-1990?. Air travel was mushrooming everywhere, Airports were not. Market predictions indicated that the then existing airports would not be able to take more planes early in the 21st century. With Asia being almost the only continent prepared to build large new airports, there was intensive negotiation for the expensive landing slots at existing airports in other parts of the world. Airbus decided that one way of coping with the increased demand along with the reduced airport capacity was one aircraft that could take the place of two. At the time, it was felt to be an ingenious and relatively inexpensive solution (for the airline industry) to a  problem which seemed insurmountable, even if some doubted such a large plane could actually fly! The benefit of its four engines was that - again at that time - twin engine aircraft could only operate routes where they could land within two hours if there was an emergency (ETOPS operation). That ruled out twin engine aircraft from long haul  flights over water.

 

And for a time the rationale seemed to work. I recall that about 7 years ago BA had three daily flights from London to Hong Kong - one 747 and two 777s. For a while, it replaced these three aircraft with two A380s. But the A380 had arrived too late. In mid-1990, the price of oil had dipped below US$20. By the time the A380 entered service, it was over $65. Within three years it was $144. Potential customers were put off by the cost of running such a large 4 engine aircraft when it was much cheaper to invest in the long range twin engine aircraft. After all, they already had the 747-400 for such routes. But the real blow came in 2007 when the regulation authorities changed that ETOPS rule and allowed twin engine aircraft to operate for four hours over water - and sometimes more, without alternate airports. Great plane! Extremely unfortunate timing!

Edited by InBangkok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel what brought the aircraft industry to its need and reveal much to the world is that it is a thin margin base business that is sensitive to market changes and oil prices. And nothing is more impactful than 911 which put a serious dent and saw the departure of a number of big brand name airlines. And then the onslaught of budget airlines cutting that pie further in some sense.

 

Not sounding snob but I have only travelled that kind of airline once and I felt like a cow being herded through from checkin-gate-to-plane-to-gate kinda travel experience. I rather pay the full price for a normal flight instead even for near distance flight.

 

A380's an extraordinary plane and pity. Again due to cost. Not just for airlines but remember when they had those documentary on how they went about picking parts from an international list of aeronautic companies and have it transport and assembled in one location. The image of the huge wing span portions and fuselage shipping on open trailers using roads as narrow as typical countryside single lane road and rivers ways comes to mind. The logistic had to have made quite an impact and filling orders then was balancing act.

 

I wonder if days the 'Romance of Air Travel' is truly dead. When I was in retail, one of my job was source the world for eclectic items to sell locally. We brought in SwissAir trolley and other flying memorabilia (when they liquidated their assets) to sell locally. Along with handmade airplanes of old which were favorites of mine, The Dakota DC-3, Ford Trimotor, Comet, Boeing Clipper, Sopwith Camel biplanes, The Goose Hughes H4, Tri-plane Red Baron..etc and also decorative items fashions from retired plane parts and material. When I look back at planes like those and today... imagine we did all this in about 120 yrs. That is a very short time span unlike cars. Amazing evolution to where it is today...even when there is the uncertainty of death by dropping from the sky heheh. Ya I laugh not that I am not emphatic to tragedies like that but when you pull back and take a macro view of things, we dare to try and keep doing it.

** Comments are my opinions, same as yours. It's not a 'Be-All-and-End-All' view. Intent's to thought-provoke, validate, reiterate and yes, even correct. Opinion to consider but agree to disagree. I don't enjoy conflicted exchanges, empty bravado or egoistical chest pounding. It's never personal, tribalistic or with malice. Frank by nature, means, I never bend the truth. Views are to broaden understanding - Updated: Nov 2021.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first flew long distance to Asia in 1979, I am certain the seat pitch on the Air France 747 must have been about 36 inches. If I was seated by the window on an overnight flight, I could ease past the two other passengers in the row without waking them. But then there were only two classes - first and economy. Business class had only just been started on BA but not the other European carriers.

 

The rise of the low cost carriers, whose success  must have been quite a surprise to the large legacy carriers, certainly had a lot to do with the big shake out in the airline business and the massive rise in air travel. Deregulation was another surprise. Until 1981 BA had exclusivity on the London/Hong Kong route. Then Cathay Pacific and the long- departed British Caledonian were also given rights to the route. Each offered one way fares at £99 - quite a bit lower than BA. I once flew to London CX outward and BCal return. I have no idea why, apart from turning up so late I almost missed the planes, I was upgraded to first both times!

 

I can't imagine why anyone would wish to run a full service airline nowadays. Most operate with a huge percentage of total costs being fixed costs leaving little room for differentiation of the product. Countries where wages are much less than average have a small advantage, as have airlines with government subsidies. Now market forces mean that at the back of the planes, it has become a race to the bottom. Only at the front is it a race to the top. 

 

I have taken Air Asia several times. Never again. One delay of 12 hours for Penang to BKK. A second flight to BKK was delayed by 5 hours as I was at the KLLCC check in. Flights to and from Hanoi were cancelled three months in advance with absolutely no notice to me. A week before I checked and discovered I was rescheduled from evening flights to morning flights, But on the morning of departure I was still in Singapore! Complete rerouting on other carriers cost me about US$600. Compensation from Air Asia? Nothing!

 

As to the "Romance of Travel", I have only taken biz class on the A380 on Emirates daily BKK/HKG service  The lounge offerings, on board offerings, flat bed seats, premium quality bar with canapés at the back - that's as near as I have come. Qatar's biz class Q Suites are great and there are often excellent fare sales for BKK/Europe tickets. Trouble is you can never guarantee to get aircraft fitted with the Q Suites! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, upshot said:

I wonder if days the 'Romance of Air Travel' is truly dead. ..... Ya I laugh not that I am not emphatic to tragedies like that but when you pull back and take a macro view of things, we dare to try and keep doing it.

I totally agree with what you say.

Let's go on, this "Romance" is not over yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, InBangkok said:

 

Now I cannot agree! First Concorde. In the 1950s and 1960s almost everyone in the  aircraft business believed that supersonic was the future of air travel. As Concorde was being developed, the American government certainly didi. After a design competition, it awarded the contract to Boeing which started design nd development of  the B2707. This was to carry almost three times more passengers than Concorde at Mach 3 compared to Concorde's Mach 2. Boeing actually had 122 orders for the aircraft from 26 airlines.  As the world was hit by the quadrupling of the price of oil at the start of the 1970s, the government cut back its funding and Boeing's two prototypes were abandoned, as was the entire project.

 

Concorde was not just a plaything for the rich and famous. It became an essential travel tool for business leaders. When I took my one flight, I was seated next to the UK boss of McDonalds! He was flying for the monthly evening meeting of the main McDonald's Board. He flew back the next morning.. He reckoned the cost more than paid for itself. Would you prefer a fleet of corporate jets and all their pollution to take those corporate passengers instead?

 

Second the A380. Remember back in mid-1990?. Air travel was mushrooming everywhere, Airports were not. Market predictions indicated that the then existing airports would not be able to take more planes early in the 21st century. With Asia being almost the only continent prepared to build large new airports, there was intensive negotiation for the expensive landing slots at existing airports in other parts of the world. Airbus decided that one way of coping with the increased demand along with the reduced airport capacity was one aircraft that could take the place of two. At the time, it was felt to be an ingenious and relatively inexpensive solution (for the airline industry) to a  problem which seemed insurmountable, even if some doubted such a large plane could actually fly! The benefit of its four engines was that - again at that time - twin engine aircraft could only operate routes where they could land within two hours if there was an emergency (ETOPS operation). That ruled out twin engine aircraft from long haul  flights over water.

 

And for a time the rationale seemed to work. I recall that about 7 years ago BA had three daily flights from London to Hong Kong - one 747 and two 777s. For a while, it replaced these three aircraft with two A380s. But the A380 had arrived too late. In mid-1990, the price of oil had dipped below US$20. By the time the A380 entered service, it was over $65. Within three years it was $144. Potential customers were put off by the cost of running such a large 4 engine aircraft when it was much cheaper to invest in the long range twin engine aircraft. After all, they already had the 747-400 for such routes. But the real blow came in 2007 when the regulation authorities changed that ETOPS rule and allowed twin engine aircraft to operate for four hours over water - and sometimes more, without alternate airports. Great plane! Extremely unfortunate timing!

 

The interest for America to have their own supersonic plane does not make such planes more justifiable.   If the Concord was "an essential travel tool for business leaders",  what do these business leaders do now that this "essential tool" does not exist anymore?  Is McDonald suffering?

 

If a regular flight between London and New York takes 7 hours and the Concord did it in 3 hours, how is the saving of 4 hours "essential",  especially considering that the 7 hours of flight in a regular plane in first class can be nicely spent sleeping?  Or the CEOs of McDonald don't sleep, don't bathe,  don't poop?

 

If the cost of fuel was a contributor to the doom of the A380,  how come it is not resuscitating now that the cost of fuel has dropped dramatically?  There must be other factors that make it undesirable.   If it was a solution in the 1990s to the boom in air travel,  how long would it have been such solution with an ever increasing desire for air travel?  This brings up a parallel in the bottleneck of data bandwidth between continents years ago,  with all the frequencies of the radio spectrum used at capacity.  Then came the satellites, significantly expanding the spectrum with microwaves,  and finally the laying of fiber-optic cables that completely removed such bottleneck.  My posts here travel under the oceans at practically zero cost. 

 

We should hope for dramatic improvements in long distance travel that go beyond having more travel machines floating in the air.  Projects by Elon Musk are creating underground tunnels to relieve congestion at the surface.  One idea that derives from there is that of hermetic tubes underground holding a near vacuum to allow travel through them at amazing speeds rivaling those of commercial planes, with potential for exceeding these speeds.  If bits now travel under the oceans in tubes that are the glass fibers at near the speed of light... maybe one day people will be able to do it too...  in slightly larger tubes?   :lol:  :thumb:

 

4 hours ago, Phil said:

I totally agree with what you say.

Let's go on, this "Romance" is not over yet!

 

This "Romance" will never be over.  The allure of flying in an airplane is constantly being renovated by new generations of young people who want this experience.  The "Romance" of travel will always exist for people who have all their existential problems resolved and want to use their living time exploring the four corners of the world. Unfortunately, the covid-19 has thrown a bucket of cold water over tourism.  From flying to remote lands we changed to being confined to our homes.  But this gives us time to reflect and realize that human society has bigger tasks to take on than making tourism easier.  That disadvantaged people can survive is more important than crossing the oceans faster.  Hopefully one positive action of the pandemic is to promote work from home,  maybe even education from home.  This will bring huge savings.  And for the corporate work,  teleconferencing is becoming ever easier. If it is a teleconference, there is no difference in having it between adjacent offices or between places on the other side of the world.  

 

I remember the many international business trips I made for meetings, conferences, seminars, schools.  My estimation of the results:  business = 10%,  education = 10%, tourism = 80%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

 

If a regular flight between London and New York takes 7 hours and the Concord did it in 3 hours, how is the saving of 4 hours "essential"?

 

Obviously there were enough business people and others for whom the time saving was worth it. If it was just up to me I'd prefer first class if I could afford it. I suppose one reason is the same as why countries like Japan, China, Germany, France and so on have very high speed trains and these speeds get faster every few years. There is a huge market for them.

 

1 hour ago, Steve5380 said:

If the cost of fuel was a contributor to the doom of the A380,  how come it is not resuscitating now that the cost of fuel has dropped dramatically?  There must be other factors that make it undesirable.

 

I thought I had already answered that. There were several other factors. ETOPS extension making cheaper to operate twin engine aircraft possible over long sea flights was unquestionably the key factor. Prior to February 2007 twin engine aircraft were not permitted to fly trans-Pacific for example. Then the price of oil did not come down fast enough. Remember , when work started on the A380 design, the price hovered around $30. By the time it entered service it had more than doubled to around $70. it was still around $100 in October 2014. It only started to plummet with the advent of covid19 - and we know what that did to demand. Then low cost carriers often using secondary airports (like at BKK and Don Mueang) freed up some additional parking slots for the smaller aircraft..

Edited by InBangkok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...