"The model was grounded worldwide but has returned to service this year, with airlines including Ryanair taking deliveries of the aircraft."
Umm, remind me not to fly Ryanair. Even if it is safe now, it just is scary to even think that I am in the air on a model that has crashed twice within months killing 100s of people each time. Does anyone know which other airlines are flying this model ?
Also, "It paves the way for families of all victims of the crash, from 35 countries, to seek compensation in the US under Illinois law, in return for not seeking punitive damages against Boeing, limiting the potential financial liability for the manufacturer."
Of course. That's the fine print. Not seeking punitive damages. In other words "we will pay you cheap so you can shut up"
> Even if it is safe now, it just is scary to even think that I am in the air on a model that has crashed twice within months killing 100s of people each time. Does anyone know which other airlines are flying this model ?
There's a simple way to make it so you don't have to worry about this.
There's a documentary TV series that is available in much of the world. It's called Mayday in Canada where it is produced, but the name gets changed in some other regions and on some channels to Air Crash Investigations, Air Disasters, or Air Emergency.
Find it and binge watch all 200+ episodes over the course of a month or two.
When you are done you will either be fine with the 737 Max 8 or you will have given up altogether on flying on a commercial passenger service. Either way, problem solved!
Meh, I've watched most of the episodes and civilian aviation has advanced a lot. It actually reassures me. But then Boeing shat the bed with terrible things you'd expect of Soviet-era design by forced impossible objectives like the Tu-144 instead of a modern airliner. It's pretty much a Boeing and US ( the FAA shat the bed as well) problem.
They can't debug the airframe change (moved the new big fans forward). That should have triggered a new type certification. Instead we got a software coverup which the regulators OK'd so the airlines would not have to pay for pilot training on a new aircraft type.
> Does anyone know which other airlines are flying this model
I had planned on making a small website to show that info ( which airlines, routes have the 737 Max), but the main data providers ( Flightradar, Skyscanner) i thought of refused me access to that data. If anyone has another provider they can think of, don't hesitate to respond.
ADSB Exchange provides a list of all aircraft registrations they track. It's in the 100k's I think and would certainly include all commercial bulk passenger aircraft.
Maybe by cross-referencing with one of the many sites tracking ownership, and the scheduling data FlightAware or others would provide, it could be figured out.
The worst bit isn't even that it crashed - these things are complicated and they can can go wrong, and the setup of the aviation industry is supposed to (and historically did) result in a full blameless post mortem which identified root cause issues and made sure the same thing could never happen again.
That very clearly hasn't happened here, the system is broken, and I'd have difficulty trusting any new Boeing plane at this point
If you look up the DC-10's history, you'll see a grimmer picture than the 737 Max, as the DC-10 had several physical flaws that were covered up, some of which could lead to disabling of the control surfaces.
The Max has definitely been bad, especially for the modern era, but unfortunately, lack of training on the system at fault is also a significant factor in the crashes. Had pilots known more about the system, the crashes could have been prevented.
There's speculation that the acquisition of McDonnel Douglas brought in some bad company culture that lead to the Max issues.
Airlines don't want to have to commit to always using the same model of plane. It's pretty common they downsize the plane if not many tickets have sold or upsize if they're selling well. They also do swaps in case of mechanical failure or large delays.
It's the reason they won't let you get a seat reservation till near the flight date (since different planes might have differing seat layouts)
Taking away this flexibility could easily wipe out their entire margins.
> It's the reason they won't let you get a seat reservation till near the flight date (since different planes might have differing seat layouts)
I feel like I have been able to pick seats on all of my flights for the past 10+ years no matter how early I purchase the flight. There is always some language that the airline is not obligated to give you that seat.
That was already its name. Boeing 737 Max was the programme, with the 373-7, -8 and -9 models, like before 737 NG with -300 and -400 models. It's just that now they're heavily emphasising only on the -7,-8,-9 and skip the "Max" part.
To be fair, I wouldn't fly Ryanair even if they paid me. They have the absolute worst experience of any airline I've flown with. There's no reason to fly Ryanair unless you enjoy being treated like cattle, love filthy planes, like the thrill of the stampede to get a seat and the hordes of drunk people. There's something about Ryanair that brings out the worst in people.
It's only fitting they're gonna be buying these planes.
To be fair to Ryanair, their experience has improved.
No more stampede - 'a seat will be allocated to you (free of charge)'. Less strident attempts to sell you scratch tickets. Staff seem to have been told it's acceptable to smile at customers.
I have never been a fan, but my last few trips with them have been fine.
I'd say there's a lot of people who like you flew with them during their worst days, and will never give them another go.
You only get one chance to make a first impression.
I agree with everything you say, however as someone who lives in a smaller secondary city, Ryanair is often the only airline offering direct flights to many destinations. So unfortunately in many cases the choice is a €50 90 minute direct flight with Ryanair or a €250 3-5 hour trip with 1 or 2 changes.
I actually don't mind it too much. Their ops are usually good and direct flights are convienient.
I also like their honesty. You get what you pay for.
Lufthansa on the other hand removed everything (free checked luggage, free drinks, free food) and said that passengers would be much happier to personalise their flight experience by buying everything separately.
To be fair, when you fly to tiny regional airports 100 miles away from the city you're supposedly flying to, it's not hard to advertise destinations that larger airlines don't serve ... (only slightly joking).
They are not cheap at peak times, particularly if you dare bringing luggage with you, but they are definitely among the best if you want to reach smaller airports.
Plenty of people disagree with you and I'm one of them. If the upside is paying 10 euros for covering 1500 km I can handle the cattle-like experience for 2 hours.
That's not a coincidence though. They're responsible for closures of a good number of competing flights from destinations that are not big enough to sustain multiple large carriers at different price/quality levels. Thus everybody gets stuck with Ryanair-level service, even if you'd be willing to pay more for more humane treatment.
Luckily, a number of regional players have started to adopt to this in recent years by replacing fleets with smaller planes to offer more flexibility.
Is that why they don't have the seat pocket? I always wondered about that. I'm the type of person who travels with a bottle of water and a kindle and not having mesh is one of the most annoying parts of flying with them
"There's no reason to fly Ryanair unless you enjoy being treated like cattle, love filthy planes, like the thrill of the stampede to get a seat and the hordes of drunk people."
I mean there is also the whole 'order of magnitude cheaper than some competitors' thing they have going on. For a lot of people, it's worth being in a filthy plane treated like cattle for only an hour if it means they get to save £200.
There is certainly a reason why Ryanair carries more passengers every year than any other airline on earth.
Yes, people that have to. The existence of other constraints is implied, it would be reductive to take my original statement literally (IE people that are somehow forced to use RyanAir to go places).
If I have to fly within Europe I always opt for the cheap options, the time spent in air isn't long enough for me to bother sitting a little cramped. I'd say a lot of Europeans feel the same, so "nobody" might just as well be "most". Don't spread misinformation.
It's enough that several their birds fell out of the sky, refusing to admit it was their fault for this long was just salt in the wound for no reason other than legalease bullshit.
Adam Neumann got a 1.7 billion severance package from soft bank for basically making one or multiple bad choices. Even if you subtract stock, the pure monetary component was 185 million $.
It might have been an exaggeration, but on a certain level responsibility means large amount of pay if you mess up.
> In instant messages sent in April 2017 complaining about the Max’s flight management technology, an employee wrote: “This airplane is designed by clowns who in turn are supervised by monkeys.” They referred to its “piss poor design” and urged: “Let’s just patch the leaky boat”.
And this is also a big time gov Defense contractor and space ship designer. No wonder people worry US is being caught up / potential surpassed by China.
Yes exactly, at least now there is a push by places like JAIC, DIU, IQT to get more startups (or even companies like Google) involved in natsec but these legacy defense companies give me no comfort that they can deliver anything other than overpriced weapons systems only useful to fight an adversary like Iraq that had capabilities from generations before and no real defenses.
While that may be true, people who were just “following orders” still need to be held to account.
Tyrannical things happen when people simply follow orders and negate responsibility for their roles in society.
If you are a member of a professional organisation, there will normally be some professional ethics rules which, if broken, will lose you your licence to work as a professional. Software developers don't have that yet, but civil engineers certainly do. As do lawyers, accountants and other professionals.
If a manager makes a wrong call and the engineers know that it's so wrong it can lead to accidents, they absolutely do have a responsibility if they obey that call.
QA was getting squashed by Boeing at the time. One rampant thing I've noticed in the tech industry in particular is the QA group not actually being independent from the Engineering group. You can only pretend the conflict of interests doesn't exist for so long.
Also, hiring for legit QA, as in, you're getting people who can socially stand up and trade blows with engineers and management is hard. You have to have that unique blend of perseverance, quick thinking and attention to detail that is astonishingly hard to find.
Been in the situation when I was my own QA. You can just not do it at that point because you won't find the errors you made anyway, otherwise you might not have made them in the first place. Was glad that changed at some point and QA can be incredibly helpful. But management just sees a cost center and low risk. Story of fight club insurance logic I believe. Same with car autopilots, you just try to not belong to the unlucky few who will be affected by negligence.
There's a difference between responsibility at all levels for all types of calls, which is the one of the managers; and responsibilities for doing things they know can cause accidents. Engineers are not machines that carry on orders mindlessly without accountability.
Nope, not for me. If i were an aircraft engineer in Seattle, knowing very well i have little chance of employment outside of moving to Toulouse or Moscow, I'd maybe think twice before leaking the story anonymously. However, the current SRE me who doesn't have such limits, wouldn't even think twice. Those are human lives we're talking about here.
So every single engineer on this project is a total piece of shit? That is my only logical conclusion to your statement.
It's probably not as simple as you put it, then someone would've done something about it. (Assuming this system wasn't built by a very small engineering team, then they could statistically all be "bad" people).
Nope, but every single engineer who knew about this ( i doubt everyone was fully aware of this, it's very complex hardware and probably few engineers know everything about everything) and let it happen is a total piece of shit who deserves at least a couple of months in jail. How do these bastards sleep at night knowing they let a terribly poor aircraft design out of the door and that cost people their lives? And why, just so that someone higher level than them can get a higher bonus for delivering the plane faster?
Note: for me MCAS isn't a problem per se. It would have been better to have a new design from scratch, but that's a whole other issue. Lying about it(chances of failure, risk when it fails), hiding it, and to top it off using a single sensor that is known for occasional failure. And making it near impossible to override even when the pilots knew about it ( which they didn't, thanks to Boeing hiding it from them). That's criminal negligence by tens if not hundreds of people every step along the way. Every single one of them should be tried and have to explain why their manager's or their bonus matters more than human lives.
You're still sitting on the high-horse saying that you're somehow a lot better than the rest of these people.
It's an organizational/economical problem.
I would like to argue that because recertification requirements are as strict as they are, Boeing were forced to do this to get their product flying.
I don't condone Boeings behavior, but it's not hard to imagine why it happened, and it's definitely not the engineers fault. It's just capitalism in action.
I think we need to be careful about what "this" is. The common person is probably referring to the implementation details of the system, while most engineers I've met (or what tech calls an engineer) only look at their immediate slice of the pie. It's your older or more seasoned folks that tend to watch over and integrate those pieces and watch over process, but details can get lost in the shuffle.
It really comes down to failure to cooperate with the regulator. Perception management is often times easier than proactive compliance. I keep dreaming one day I'll end up somewhere where I can get more than platitudes when people say "we're here to do it right, even if it is hard".
At last! Now they need to admit full responsibility in their management pressing engineers to move the center of thrust, fundamentally changing the flight envelope.
That's more of an issue with two competing goals: higher efficiency (which larger engines help with), and keeping the same type certificate, which only requires difference training for the pilots, instead of a full training regimen.
Because the original 737 was low to the ground, the under wing engines have been a design issue since turbofan engines became common. Each time the plane has been updated with newer engines, they have been larger, because higher-bypass engines, which have larger fans, are more efficient. The only way to fit larger engines on the Max, while still having acceptable ground clearance, was to shift the engines forward. This changed the center of thrust.
I think we can assume that they just ran out of ideas on avoiding responsibility. 'Admit full responsibility' is another way of saying 'cant find anyone else to plausibly blame'
Umm, remind me not to fly Ryanair. Even if it is safe now, it just is scary to even think that I am in the air on a model that has crashed twice within months killing 100s of people each time. Does anyone know which other airlines are flying this model ?
Also, "It paves the way for families of all victims of the crash, from 35 countries, to seek compensation in the US under Illinois law, in return for not seeking punitive damages against Boeing, limiting the potential financial liability for the manufacturer."
Of course. That's the fine print. Not seeking punitive damages. In other words "we will pay you cheap so you can shut up"