Max 10
 

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-...ication-delay/

When a FT update mentioned delivery of the first Max 10 in January I thought that was pretty optimistic. Sounds likely that Boeing will be needing a government extension to avoid significant delays if they miss the deadline.

Boeing can't even finish getting the 7 certified, never mind the 10. :eek:

Look at it as giving TK a chance to clear the training backlog. We only have 255 of them on order. 🙄

UAL could possibly increase the 321XLR orders rather than wait for this latest MAX debacle to play out. 🤷‍♂️

Is the pay rate going to be the same as the 9 or a few dollars more?

The deadline and/or a waiver for no EICAS will be granted. Absolutely no question about that.

God forbid you update that 1960’s engineer panel and make it A. Safer and B. Something resembling a modern aircraft.

A pay rate for the 737-10 has not been established.

UPA 3-J covers the establishment of pay rates for new aircraft types.

Have there been any accidents specifically attributed to the panel? I flew C130s in the USAF, and yes we had an engineer but the 737 panel really isn’t a big deal. Once you learn it that’s it, I don’t get the issue. The Max 10 not having EICAS should have no bearing on its cert, and the requirement was a classic knee jerk regulation free-for-all in response to untrained pilots not following procedure and crashing the other Max airplanes. In other words, “WE MUST DO SOMETHING!!”

if I recall correctly the panel was specifically not updated because the primary customer (SW) requested it be as close to the NG panel as possible, thus making an easier transition and less training required. Either way, the panel not having EICAS is simply not a safety issue, and makes almost no impact once a pilot learns the 737 panel of any type. My opinion obviously.

And get rid of all those cool buttons , lights and switches ? 😂

Alaska will go all 737 by the end of 2023
all Airbus and future orders (31) from Alaska are going to United

All of them? Source? 🧐

I wish they would, but speaking with a new hire coming from AS, they said Alaska got their MAXes for 8 million. There's no way Airbus could match come close to matching that on a 321.

Boeing will get an extension and get the 10 certified. It might be delayed 6 months or so, but we’ll probably be flying super guppies before the XLR is ready for delivery. The good news is that we only have 250+ of them ordered.🙄

I’d say Helios likely would’ve been averted with an EICAS. Didn’t they add a a light after that crash?

Yes, takeoff config and cabin altitude warning lights were added to all 737s on the fwd panels.

A annoyingly loud intermittent horn once already in the air for a while probably isn’t a takeoff configuration warning. Don’t know if even EICAS would have helped that degree of situational awareness.

Are you joking? You’ve never heard an erroneous clacker, shaker, GPWS warning or something else that won’t stop in flight? That’s no so uncommon. I don’t know what their training was but am pretty sure most pilots can interpret an EICAS.

It was meant to be tongue in cheek to a degree. Yes EICAS is nice, but when something like a loud intermittent horn is going off, perhaps people should stop and look around to figure out why. The intermittent horn is either a takeoff configuration warning on the ground, or a cabin altitude warning in flight. If only those guys had a big round dial with differential pressure and cabin altitude right over their heads when the horn went off in flight to enable them to verify if the horn was legit or erroneous……. The 737 definitely isn’t the most advanced or automated plane out there, but it isn’t exactly that hard to manage either.

Exactly right.

I get it. We're expected to be extremely competent and it's a reasonable expectation. That said, we can go through all of aviation's history and find stacks of pilot-error caused accidents. Hey, those guys (insert accident - and historically they essentially all were guys) should have known better. Hey, MCAS was fine, they should have been more competent. Who needs TCAS with see and avoid. Who needs GPWS with proper situational awareness for terrain, MOCAs, MORAS etc. Who needs a takeoff warning horn anyways... proper checklist adherence should fully address any issue.

Human factors are always a factor.

I'm not specifically disagreeing with your comment as much as saying it seems shortsighted from a design and certification perspective to not have better systems and system logic when it's reasonably possible to do so.

You’re right. Even with better warning systems, highly trained and experienced pilots make huge mistakes. The max is still just a 737 and every that comes with that. I’d much rather be on something more advanced, but the old turd still has a lot of mileage left in it. It will get certified without EICAS and we will have a ton of them. I’m all for bigger and better, but this isn’t exactly a safety hazard for properly trained crews. On the other hand, when a manufacturer sells a high workload plane with a major design flaw to anyone with a checkbook, they shouldn’t act surprised when someone balls one up.

might as well get a good chiropractor now, your back and neck will thank you

no need for the XLR. The standard 321NEO can do what a Max10 is planned to do.

An EICAS system should be mandatory because it’s much safer!!! End of discussion!!! The recall system that is currently on the Guppy dates back to the 1950s. That’s over 70 years of technological advances that have not been instituted. That BTW, is all to save some training costs!!! The Guppy has run its course and it’s now time for advances!!!

To say "End of discussion!!!" is a very immature response. Discussion on topics like aviation safety are always needed and a never-ending on going process. Simply trying to stifle and stonewall the opposing view is not productive, but counterproductive.

The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the FAA, not Boeing. The FAA makes it so onerous to change anything due to training and certification requirements that is just is not feasible for airlines or Boeing. The FAA created this problem themselves.

Boeing created this problem for themselves. Instead of creating a long overdue narrowbody from a clean sheet, they stretched the 737 yet again and are spending more time and losing more money by engineering work-arounds to get it working than it would have cost in R&D for a whole new jet.

Is that just a hunch or did you have the numbers? It is a staggering amount to create a clean sheet airplane, and obviously at the time Boeing decided it didn't make sense.

After 2 crashes and a couple hundred dead, kinda makes sense now.

yeah, training nowadays is just too difficult because of the FAA’s onerous rules

Oh jeez...

I'm talking about differences and type rating requirements, the whole reason the overhead hasn't changed. So yeah the airlines didn't want to pay for the training required by the FAA.

BS.

Boeing has done flight deck changes before so not sure how it’s on the FAA to blame for further inaction on Boeing’s part. Boeing, through the airlines desire for cheaper purchase prices, has chosen to do or not do changes, while in compliance with FAR’s.

They swapped from electromechanical/ round dials on the 737-200 to EFIS screens on the 737-300/500 (plus new engines) to the NG screens. They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines.

The 767-400 flight deck is different enough from legacy 757/767’s that currency is mandated in order to fly the 767-400.

Plenty of changes that required new certification but that didn’t stop Boeing from designing and building them. But it’s the FAA that is holding up a modern 737 flight deck?

if the Six pack was so great how come other Boeing’s since then weren’t designed with it?

The reason the 737 cockpit looks like it does is mostly due to the existence of Southwest Airlines during the time of the 737NG's development. Were it not for them, you probably would've seen a "real" NG with a cockpit more like that of the 777/AIMS.

untrained pilots crashing the Max. Pretty big balls statement considering the facts don't confirm your theory. Boeing made a massive and I would say criminal act by hiding the MCAS system from operators. I suggest you watch the Netflix show about this very issue. Unless you enjoy playing the role of a fool.

That was done in such a way that no additional training was required. Even the NGs required the 6 pack steam gauge emulation on our aircraft when we had the 300s and 500s for commonality reasons.

Quote:

---

They built a new wing for the NG. See all the airframe changes for the MAX in addition to the new engines.

---

The wing was reshaped and extended, improved performance, but neither have anything to do with cockpit commonality. The pilots only see faster speeds and less fuel burn.

A cost the airlines are willing to eat, given how few 767-400s are flying. Compare that to the number of 737s.

That is the whole reason the 757/767 have identical cockpits, for commonality and minimal training expense. Modernize it (like the 400) and all the sudden you throw a wrench in it and now you have all new training complexities. You proved my whole point.

My point being about the NG wing was it required certification and that it was not too big of a hurdle for Boeing to do.

Boeing chose not to do a new flight deck beyond the screens, not because it was too difficult per the FAA rules.

What's the most interesting about the Netflix show is not what was in it, but what they left out of it.

What you are missing is that the difficulty in doing an upgrade itself was not the problem, it was the training costs the airlines would incur due to having two different cockpits (much like the 764). It would have caused problems for the customers. Boeing does not want to willy nilly change things that will just create more problems for the customer, because Boeing knows that they will balk (as SWA did). They can't make changes in a vacuum.

You seem to forget. The discussion isn't A321XLR's v 737-10 Max. The XLR's were bought to replace the 757's. Despite the improved economics of both planes, neither can do what the 757 can. Heavy, short fields, while full. Granted this isn't the majority of the 757 missions, but the 15% remaining that won't be able to be done until Boeing designs the new narrow body. Not another stretched guppy.