737 max... what now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was aware of that … but they can only stay grounded for so long. No new training needed for 800/900 if a company refused the Max … My company will no longer accept a certain Airbus helicopter even though its approved for service again in some places. Golden rule takes gold.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Political posts have been removed.

For reference, there are methods for reporting your concerns:

One is the "Report" button on the lower right side.

Problems and Violation Notification Process: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...olation-notification-process#Post5130217

Complaint Process: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/5130204/complaint-process#Post5130204


Thanks.

I would like to keep this thread open and on topic.

If it continues to wander into political opinion, that won't happen.
 
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by 4WD
Probably provide a few 800NG's plus cash ?

Unlikely, due to the fact that the last NG was delivered this month and production has since stopped. Credits towards parts/maintenance is the most likely compensation for the airlines, with discounted A/C pricing coming in second and cash compensation being the least likely (although airlines will fight for this one the most- it helps the bottom line immediately).

Boeing has been entering the services market as well - they could offer something for the 737 Max with a heavy discount or even free as they do for the 787, a SaaS app that takes live data from the plane(not just ACARS messages) and helps with MRO. Boeing guarantees a SLA and parts availability. GE and RR have been going that way for a while.
 
Boeing is already selling cancelled MAX orders at below market value, but they're facing an odd time in the aircraft leasing market. Historically, leasing a wide-body aircraft would cost between 2-3X what leasing a narrow-body aircraft would. However, as the market sits now, airlines are picking up wide-body leases for just a few 10's of thousands more per month than what narrow-bodies are going for currently. A lot of airlines that would be interested in picking up the cancelled MAX orders are opting to take out more wide-body leases instead to take advantage of these lower rates.
 
Originally Posted by JustN89
Boeing is already selling cancelled MAX orders at below market value, but they're facing an odd time in the aircraft leasing market. Historically, leasing a wide-body aircraft would cost between 2-3X what leasing a narrow-body aircraft would. However, as the market sits now, airlines are picking up wide-body leases for just a few 10's of thousands more per month than what narrow-bodies are going for currently. A lot of airlines that would be interested in picking up the cancelled MAX orders are opting to take out more wide-body leases instead to take advantage of these lower rates.


I have little doubt that Boeing is selling MAX delivery positions for well below A32XNEO prices, since only a bold and financially secure lessor or airline would put any money down on a program with an uncertain RTS date as well as an uncertain delivery date for the frames ordered. It also isn't an either/or proposition, since most of the city pairs linked by the world's airlines cannot support widebody service at decent yields, which is the reason that single-aisles are ordered in the hundreds by the larger airlines with two-aisle frames ordered in one or two figure quantities. Other than Emirates, who has more than a hundred and change in widebody aircraft?
The widebody market does look weak. If anyone has any use for an A380, there are frames to be retired fairly young from AF and LH available in the near future and I'm sure one could get a killer deal in leasing one. The outlook for this type is so bleak that Airbus has already stopped offering it. Boeing is having to reduce the production rate of the 787 and sees soft demand for the 777X. Airbus struggles for A330NEO orders and the A350 isn't doing all that great either.
A further straw in the wind is that airlines with MAX exposure in both grounded aircraft that had been in service as well as aircraft built but not delivered and in storage don't seem to have had any great impact in their earnings.
This leads me to conclude that there is a capacity glut. If the world's airlines can post good financial results with more than a year of Boeing single aisle production sitting on the ground and if two-aisle aircraft really are as cheap as JustN89 posted, then there may well be more seats potentially available than there are butts to fill them at positive yields.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
 
Natasha Frost writing in Quartz has an article that lays out the strategic decisions that caused Boeing to head down the road that lead to the MAX. Boeing technically acquired McDonnell Douglas, but aviation reporters (as in this article) use the term "merger" interchangeably. Ms. Frost manages to do it in one sentence of the first paragraph. Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times told me about ten years ago the term merger was preferred by Boeing itself. The term acquisition is effectively correct; who exactly did the acquiring is the question.
https://qz.com/1776080/how-the-mcdonnell-douglas-boeing-merger-led-to-the-737-max-crisis/

The photograph at the top of the Quartz article shows stored 737 MAX aircraft on the site of the old Plant 2 near Boeing Field. Technically now within Tukwila, WA, the eastern bank of the Duwamish River is visible in upper left. Plant 2 was famous for the camouflaged fake town on the roof, and produced thousands of B-17 bombers during WW2. The first three 737s were assembled there over 50 years ago.
 
Quote
The term acquisition is effectively correct; who exactly did the acquiring is the question.



"Reverse acquisition" is the phrase I've heard for this deal over a decade, as I mentioned above a while back. For the financially familiar, those two words strike a bit of fear and surprise as they shouldn't happen. It should have been a clue - and it's a clue that's been around a very long time...
 
The A380 would never be economically viable for most carriers, even if it was lighter and with more efficient engines. Especially considering the 777X that is around the corner. You just do not give up enough ASM to justify the expense of carrying more fuel, operating and maintaining two more engines, etc. Not that there wasn't ever a time for the A380, but the landscape of the industry has changed a lot with new regulations (ETOPS) and the huge jumps in technology we've enjoyed. The way things are now, airlines will almost always enjoy a higher RPASM with 2 engine aircraft over 4 engine aircraft. That's not even considering that the A380 has no value as a freigher- a huge hit to its value.
 
There is quite a bit of talk in the "Corporate Aviation" world about the fact that the Max is now heavily discounted. The price is now on par with Gulfstream's finest jets. Of course, converted airliners often fall very short in range.

To address the range issue, it's been common for business jet conversions of airliners to use part (or even all) of the baggage area for fuel. The MAX, with it's better fuel economy is becoming very attractive. I suspect the 3800 mile range could be almost doubled with the use of 9 aux tanks.

I suggest that Boeing fix the problems and re-name the "fixed" aircraft to something else.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by JustN89
The A380 would never be economically viable for most carriers, even if it was lighter and with more efficient engines. Especially considering the 777X that is around the corner. You just do not give up enough ASM to justify the expense of carrying more fuel, operating and maintaining two more engines, etc. Not that there wasn't ever a time for the A380, but the landscape of the industry has changed a lot with new regulations (ETOPS) and the huge jumps in technology we've enjoyed. The way things are now, airlines will almost always enjoy a higher RPASM with 2 engine aircraft over 4 engine aircraft. That's not even considering that the A380 has no value as a freigher- a huge hit to its value.


Well, we'll never know now, since the program is done so no further developments will come.
Consider high volume TATL routes like most from JFK. Consider also that the A380 can accommodate vast premium real estate within its huge floor space and that it's these premium passengers who really make the flight pay.
Had Airbus built the plane for optimal performance on maybe 6K max segments and leaned on the engine makers for better offerings, then this type might have made economic sense for a lot of carriers. As built and operated, it only made real sense for exactly one.
Too bad for this massive and costly project. It is a shame that spotting or flying opportunities for the type are going to go away rather quickly.
Wife and I will need to plan to get at least one flight on this type.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by JustN89
The A380 would never be economically viable for most carriers, even if it was lighter and with more efficient engines. Especially considering the 777X that is around the corner. You just do not give up enough ASM to justify the expense of carrying more fuel, operating and maintaining two more engines, etc. Not that there wasn't ever a time for the A380, but the landscape of the industry has changed a lot with new regulations (ETOPS) and the huge jumps in technology we've enjoyed. The way things are now, airlines will almost always enjoy a higher RPASM with 2 engine aircraft over 4 engine aircraft. That's not even considering that the A380 has no value as a freigher- a huge hit to its value.


Well, we'll never know now, since the program is done so no further developments will come.
Consider high volume TATL routes like most from JFK. Consider also that the A380 can accommodate vast premium real estate within its huge floor space and that it's these premium passengers who really make the flight pay.
Had Airbus built the plane for optimal performance on maybe 6K max segments and leaned on the engine makers for better offerings, then this type might have made economic sense for a lot of carriers. As built and operated, it only made real sense for exactly one.
Too bad for this massive and costly project. It is a shame that spotting or flying opportunities for the type are going to go away rather quickly.
Wife and I will need to plan to get at least one flight on this type.

The problem was never "can we find a route for this aircraft", it was whether or not there were enough high density routes between hubs to justify purchasing enough of the aircraft type and establish maintenance programs and training programs. The A380 was essentially doomed from its design- it was simply too big and airlines (specially the non-subsidized ones) were already looking to smaller, more efficient aircraft on routes that they can operate more often. Airports needed to change (thus increasing how much it cost to operate the A380 in those airports), hangars needed renovation, all new tools needed purchasing, etc. That doesn't even touch the man hours needed to create the maintenance programs, perform the maintenance, train flight crew, train ground crew for the handling of the Super Jumbo, maintaining and operating 4 engines on an aircraft, and so on. All 3 U.S. major airlines (not including SWA because I think they are too point-to-point) have a route or three where an A380 could be operated profitably, but it was just never going to be economically feasible. An airline can't go through all that effort and expense for a handful of aircraft on its own. It's too bad as it's an incredible engineering feat and cool to see flying- I love watching them land here in Dallas- but there was just too much stacked against it to offer a lot of staying power.
 
Plus in addition to all the above the first batch of A380's were problematic. Engines, plumbing, wing cracks, etc. Airlines that counted on these aircraft to serve high density routes had to scramble when the aircraft went tech. A couple of other aircraft had to be found to serve all the passengers.
 
Boeing could find a way to flood the fire fighting tanker market with converted unwanted 737 Maxes .
15.gif
 
Companies get so large and overblown, overstaffed it falls over its own feet and no longer viable until a major event.
Boeing is a classic example.

The world leader is now looked upon as dysfunctional, they have been for some time, but for such a disaster to happen it got so bad it came to the surface where people started losing lives.
Once they started losing lives from the first plane, they still didnt stop it, until the second plane full of people lost their lives, add to that, many pilots reporting issues before two plane loads of people died.

Good god.
 
Originally Posted by JustN89
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by JustN89
The A380 would never be economically viable for most carriers, even if it was lighter and with more efficient engines. Especially considering the 777X that is around the corner. You just do not give up enough ASM to justify the expense of carrying more fuel, operating and maintaining two more engines, etc. Not that there wasn't ever a time for the A380, but the landscape of the industry has changed a lot with new regulations (ETOPS) and the huge jumps in technology we've enjoyed. The way things are now, airlines will almost always enjoy a higher RPASM with 2 engine aircraft over 4 engine aircraft. That's not even considering that the A380 has no value as a freigher- a huge hit to its value.


Well, we'll never know now, since the program is done so no further developments will come.
Consider high volume TATL routes like most from JFK. Consider also that the A380 can accommodate vast premium real estate within its huge floor space and that it's these premium passengers who really make the flight pay.
Had Airbus built the plane for optimal performance on maybe 6K max segments and leaned on the engine makers for better offerings, then this type might have made economic sense for a lot of carriers. As built and operated, it only made real sense for exactly one.
Too bad for this massive and costly project. It is a shame that spotting or flying opportunities for the type are going to go away rather quickly.
Wife and I will need to plan to get at least one flight on this type.

The problem was never "can we find a route for this aircraft", it was whether or not there were enough high density routes between hubs to justify purchasing enough of the aircraft type and establish maintenance programs and training programs. The A380 was essentially doomed from its design- it was simply too big and airlines (specially the non-subsidized ones) were already looking to smaller, more efficient aircraft on routes that they can operate more often. Airports needed to change (thus increasing how much it cost to operate the A380 in those airports), hangars needed renovation, all new tools needed purchasing, etc. That doesn't even touch the man hours needed to create the maintenance programs, perform the maintenance, train flight crew, train ground crew for the handling of the Super Jumbo, maintaining and operating 4 engines on an aircraft, and so on. All 3 U.S. major airlines (not including SWA because I think they are too point-to-point) have a route or three where an A380 could be operated profitably, but it was just never going to be economically feasible. An airline can't go through all that effort and expense for a handful of aircraft on its own. It's too bad as it's an incredible engineering feat and cool to see flying- I love watching them land here in Dallas- but there was just too much stacked against it to offer a lot of staying power.


First off, to make the A380 viable would require that an airline adopt an operating model that would enable it to use a decent number of the type. Emirates has obviously done this and BA has indicated that they would take more although not at the prices Airbus was asking. BA will have the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment as low cycle mid time frames become available.
It should also be remembered that given engine out requirements the twins are way overpowered relative to quads so it may very well not cost less to maintain two big honkers than four hairdriers.
WRT the airlines, none of the surviving Big 3 US carriers were in a financial position to seriously consider an A380 fleet when the type entered service and they might have had input into its design and development had they had the wallet to seriously consider the type.
Did Airbus even bother to pitch this aircraft to the US legacy carriers? I don't think that they did.
Anyway, we're way off topic here, so I'll stop making the case for the A380.
Still, it's interesting to think of what might have been with this now demonstrably failed type.
As I wrote above, wife and I will have to plan a trip around flying in one while they're still in service.
 
So did the recent revelation of Boeing company emails paint a systemic problem with the FAA or was it a few employees boasting? It seems as if the matrix was to reduce necessary training to help bump up sales of the 737 redesign.

While the number was the same (737) I doubt they were as similar as one might think after the change and relocation of engines. This could have all been avoided with the proper training of pilots on this airframe.
 
Here's a link to the NYT story. Webcached to avoid the evil paywall:

http://web.archive.org/web/20200110155049/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html

*darn it..it might still come up.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top