Where would one go on Avsim to discuss Boeing's latest 737 Max issues, e.g., the in flight blow out of an emergency exit?

I would put it exactly here: in hangar chat. The worst thing that could happen if I am wrong about it is that a moderator will move your thread to the appropriate category.

Peter

put it wherever ... according to navigraph's  latest survey, xbox users would love to contribute

The latest round of issues with Boeing planes, particularly 737 Max models, seems to confirm ;the deterioration in quality control and general consciousness of the company and its workers,-- that they are building products - passenger airplanes -  that will be used by millions of passengers who are trusting the company to build aircraft that are safe. Clearly not the same Boeing of years ago before its leadership was taken over by accountants and its headquarters moved away from Seattle, where the planes are made. 

Second issue I believe is in the conception of the 737 Max line. Supposed to be the company's small/short haul model for the world today. But it is based upon keeping the general 737 airframe design which was created in 1967. Boeing could have created a completely new aircraft designed for today's world and needs, as Airbus did with its Neo models, but they decided to base the new plane on a 57 year old design!  For financial reasons! So that the airlines could save money on training pilots! Well that has to go down in history as one of the worst corporate strategic decisions every made. With all of the money lost by the company and the airlines who bought these planes for grounding of the planes, and redesign, reworking etc, not to mention that many passengers now avoid flights that use the 737 Max. By the way, there is even an aesthetic issue here - the 737 Max planes do not even look good. They look like they were designed in the 1960's! It is really sad what the leaders of the company have done to an American icon;  

So bottom line, the company is not what it used to be and some soft of complete corporate makeover is in order.

54 minutes ago, AviatorMan said:

Boeing could have created a completely new aircraft designed for today's world and needs, as Airbus did with its Neo models

The neos are not clean-sheet aircraft. Airbus' advantage with them is they are extending an early 1980s design as opposed to an early 1960s design.

Cheers

The MAX must surely be the last iteration of the 737? I sure hope that Boeing have a team working on its replacement. I would have preferred to see a 757 NEO than the almost stupidly stretched MAX 10, but who am I to argue with the experts?

Edited February 4, 20242 yr by Christopher Low

Boeing has definitely fallen quite a ways over the past 10 years or so.  Clearly, the mission, vision, and priorities of the company shifted from innovation, safety, and reliability, to profit, profit, and more profit.

I hope that the management at Boeing have learned their lesson and that the company will turn around and become great as it once was, but I am skeptical.

The shareholders need to step up and revolt, as they are the actual owners of the company and have the power to get rid of the clearly corrupt, greedy, and shortsighted board members.

Dave

Hello,

Boeing 737 Max's latest problem is quite serious. The inner part of the engine nacelle does not withstand the temperature of the deicing system! It could lead to a catastrophic engine failure. To benefit from the old 737 certification, they 've kept the deicing manual control but the new nacelle material can be damaged when the aircraft is no longer in icing condition. To mitigate the risk there is an airworthiness directive which requires the pilot to switch off the deicing system after 5 minutes in no icing conditions. There is no sensor to detect the icing of the aircratft, it is for the pilot to asses the situation. Under pressure from a senator, Boeing has decided to halt the certification process for the Max 7 and max 10 pending a solution to this problem which affects the entire Max fleet.

It could take up to one year.

Not reassuring to fly on a Max!

When an engineer designs a heat generating system, is wise to make sure that it can withstand the temperature at which  it is supposed to work. Clearly, not for a Boeing engineer.

 

 

6 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

The MAX must surely be the last iteration of the 737? I sure hope that Boeing have a team working on its replacement. I would have preferred to see a 757 NEO than the almost stupidly stretched MAX 10, but who am I to argue with the experts?

Juan Brown had said the same thing....

Here is the thing about Renton Tubes, there were 5 airliners produced in Renton that were 12'4" Diameter Tubes, First one being the 707, second one was taking a 707 tube and shortening it and you had the 720 (the forgotten airliner). Next one was taking a 707 tube and shortening it as well, but changing the wings, landing gear stabilizers and engine quantity and you get the 727, which still had some common components to the original 707 like fuselage bulkheads, pressure bulkhead, cockpit footprint, windscreens in the front, windows, doors etc etc etc. Next up was the 737, which was the same concept taking a 707 fuselage, shorten it but keep the common components, change the wings, landing gear, and stabilizers, make it twin engine, make it much lower to the ground for easier ground handling in regional airports, and that was the 737, it still had common components to the original 707 as well but modified to suit its needs.

The 757 was the one produced in Renton that also had a 12'4" tube diameter but that was about it, they redesigned everything else and had common components to the 767, flight deck, windscreens, windows, doors, avionics were all modernized, it was meant to be interchangeable for pilots flying between a 757 and 767 as the operations were similar. Therefore common sense would have dictated to use this platform over the 737 for a New Engine Option because it was a far more modern airliner then the 737??????

Will no the airlines wouldn't accept that, the 757 has a higher clearance then the 737, and a higher clearance means airlines need to replace infrastructure like hangar doors, maintenance facilities etc to accommodate a larger height, truth is Airliners drive orders and the MAX was what the Airlines wanted, this mess isn't on anyone party it is a combination of interests that led to the MAX

My view is the MAX should never have happened in the first place. Boeing was working on Boeing Yellowstone Project to replace the old 7-Series with three new ground up aircraft,  and only one phase was complete being the 787, the other two phases were replaced with the MAX and the 777X. I would have preferred a new 737 replacement aircraft based on the technology from the 787 instead, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.

15 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

My view is the MAX should never have happened in the first place. Boeing was working on Boeing Yellowstone Project to replace the old 7-Series with three new ground up aircraft,  and only one phase was complete being the 787, the other two phases were replaced with the MAX and the 777X. I would have preferred a new 737 replacement aircraft based on the technology from the 787 instead, but that ship has sailed a long time ago.

I think that would have destroyed Boeing. This is a great article that talks about the economics of new airliners:
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/a-cycle-of-misery-the-business-of

A whole new family/design is a "bet the company" kind of activity, which is why it happens so rarely.

Cheers

2 hours ago, Luke said:

A whole new family/design is a "bet the company" kind of activity, which is why it happens so rarely.

A perfect example is the Bombardier C-Series...now the A220.

1 minute ago, rmeier said:

A perfect example is the Bombardier C-Series...now the A220.

Which could have been a great way for Boeing to get their hands on a new design to replace the 737 with, if they hadn't been so shortsighted and tried to kill it. Now Airbus owns it and has the option to use it to replace the A320, which is getting old itself, if they choose to.

2 hours ago, Luke said:

A whole new family/design is a "bet the company" kind of activity, which is why it happens so rarely.

I agree.  It would have been a very risky move to try to develop a 737 replacement with no guarantee of success, plus it would have taken several years longer than simply upgrading the existing 737, all while Airbus would have been raking in more orders for the A320neo and 321neo.

It looks to me that they rushed the 737Max development to try to catch up with Airbus, thus making some tragic mistakes like the MCAS issues and now this latest screw up.

I have said from the beginning that Boeing should have updated the 757 instead of the 737.  Simply making some avionics upgrades, minor structural and aerodynamic upgrades, and new engines would have made the 757 a winner.  It would have filled the gap between the smaller narrow-body airliners and the 787 and A330/350 airliners.  An upgraded 757 would have outperformed the Airbus A321 and been hugely popular IMO.

Dave

Edited February 5, 20242 yr by dave2013

13 minutes ago, goates said:

Which could have been a great way for Boeing to get their hands on a new design to replace the 737 with, if they hadn't been so shortsighted and tried to kill it. Now Airbus owns it and has the option to use it to replace the A320, which is getting old itself, if they choose to.

Here in 2024, we have the benefit of hindsight. If I recall, both the Max program and C-Series program were launched at or about the same time. That being the case, the C-Series would've been in competition with the Max rather than a business opportunity.

Secondly, if the reports/rumors are accurate, Boeing was under extreme pressure to develop an aircraft for their (low-cost) customers that would not add additional pilot training costs.

Here we are today...a successful C-Series (A220) aircraft that has booked <1,000 airframes vs the Max series that has booked about 6,000 airframes.

The real world numbers would tend to support the "bean-counter" belief that Boeing's "learning opportunities" with the Max development are just a cost of doing business.

22 minutes ago, rmeier said:

Here in 2024, we have the benefit of hindsight. If I recall, both the Max program and C-Series program were launched at or about the same time. That being the case, the C-Series would've been in competition with the Max rather than a business opportunity.

Boeing launched the MAX program in 2011, a few years after the CSeries launched in 2008.

I wasn't suggesting Boeing buy the CSeries from the start as no one knew at that time how Bombardier's design was going to work out, if it worked out at all. Boeing tried to kill it with the anti-dumping claims in 2016 when it was clear that the CSeries was a strong competitor. Bombardier, however, wasn't doing very well financially having sunk a lot of money into a brand new airliner design and likely would have been open to a deal of some kind, especially as Boeing didn't actually have a competitor to the smaller CSeries model. This would have been a better opportunity for Boeing to pick up a new clean sheet design that they could use in the long run to replace the 737 series. Keep building out the 737s they sold, including the then existing MAX models, but start nudging airlines to the new design. As it stands, those A220s are building up a good base of pilots and support for the new plane that other airlines could draw on to switch, if Airbus decides to go that way.

27 minutes ago, rmeier said:

Secondly, if the reports/rumors are accurate, Boeing was under extreme pressure to develop an aircraft for their (low-cost) customers that would not add additional pilot training costs.

And those airlines are going to have to make the change sooner or later, unless they're hanging on for pilotless aircraft.

30 minutes ago, rmeier said:

The real world numbers would tend to support the "bean-counter" belief that Boeing's "learning opportunities" with the Max development are just a cost of doing business.

It's looking like the real world is starting to say going with the bean counters was not a great long term plan given the many, many issues that keep coming up at Boeing across several of their products (including the MAX, Starliner, and KC-46). So maybe this is a great argument for the CSeries being better off under Airbus's wings.