Ethiopian 737 Max 8 crash and Fallout

The ones carrying the liability don’t get to say where the money should be spent. That’s just a marketing excercise

Though under the Mongreal Convention, the liability is limited to 113000 SDR (156000 USD) (but can be unlimited if fault is proven?)

This offer is about 290000 USD per person. Though it appears that it is to be doled out through multiple years,

Correct. 113K SDRs, but it's not a case of proving fault. The airline can maintain the cap only if it proves no negligence. Or if it can show a third party was entirely to blame. The onus of proof is on the airline to show no negligence, not the passenger to show there was.

For something like MH17, very hard for the airline to prove it wasn't negligent. But ET and Lion might be a bit different, and each of them might have quite diffeent outcomes. It might be that Lion can establish no negligence (it didn't know, no one knew), but did ET then have prior warning? (and therefore can't prove it wasn't negligent).
 
Given that Boeing and the FAA continued to tell every one that the aircraft was safe when it was clearly not the case, I can not see how ET could be considered negligent.
 
Given that Boeing and the FAA continued to tell every one that the aircraft was safe when it was clearly not the case, I can not see how ET could be considered negligent.

You could try a few arguments...

(a) was the plane 'safe' provided pilots had done MCAS training? Were the pilots trained?
(b) why were you flying a plane which you didn't actually know all the 'features'?
(c) if you are flying a very new model, one which has recently crashed, is a pilot of 200 hours suitable as a second in command? Or should you have rostered two very experienced pilots?
(d) if no one actually knew what caused the crash of Lion, why did you continue to fly your fleet of MAX?
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Given that the 737 is getting longer and longer ranges surely it is time to retire it and develop a new aircraft that allows for wider bodies and thus seats such as the A320 series. Surely the cost to build a slightly wider plane wouldn't be that much more and they could offer the replacement instead of the MAX series.

I appreciate that Boeing wanted to take shortcuts to keep development costs down and simplify integration into existing 737 operators, however one has to wonder how much this debacle is going to cost Boeing now.
 
Hindsight is always 20/20.

Though the A320 cabin is 7 inches wider than the 737, the seat width is not significant wider.
"Wouldnt cost much more" does not sit well in negotiations. Even a 1-2% change can be millions over the lifetime of a fleet.
That it had massive forward orders demonstrated how cost efficient the aircraft likely was ... on paper. Why have a wider cabin but still only fit 3-3 in a row?. Really the passenger does not care

But the "Grandfathering" is now going to cost the manufacturer significant moolah and also reputationally.

IAG (BA) and others are holding on to their orders. I suspect it will survive.
 
Last edited:
The Qantas 737 has a seat width of 17.2 inches versus 17.9 Inches for Jetstar A320 and the JQ A321 has 18 inch seat width, which is a reasonable difference. I know that I much prefer the A320 over the 737 especially as 737 range is being extended all the time. Even Qantas 717 has a seat width of 18 Inches.

The 787 also has 17.2 inch seat width which, whilst off topic, is a reason I dont fly the 787 and opt for the A380. The main difference I see between Boeing and Airbus is Boeing is more interested in cost savings over passenger comfort. Look at the 787....

Boeing should have stood up to Airlines and developed a product that was more advanced, comfortable and efficient in its own right rather than try and grandfather everything and make an aircraft that in the end is fundamentally unsafe.

Dimensions taken from SeatGuru
 
Ill bet most did not buy JQ seat because of the slightly wider seat.
A seat is a seat is a seat in Y for many. (Yes I understand discerning customers also exist). The 787 demostrates it every time.
As has been demonstrated, price wins everytime.

I dont think it is as simple as an airline standing up to the airlines".
Boeing was reactive with the MAX. They were behind the proverbial 8 ball when AB introduced its next generation A320 and had nothing to immediately offer. They came up with the MAX and the airlines loved it - especially the ones with lots of 737 pilots.
 
I agree with what you are saying Quickstatus all I am saying is that Boeing missed an opportunity and one has to ask why they were so behind the eight ball given surely that they would have been aware that AB was developing a new generation of the A320 yet it failed to move forward and had no option other than put more lipstick on the pig. :D:D:D
 
Any way getting back on topic I am betting that we wont see the MAX back in full operation till Next year.
 
No one is expecting a quick resolution to this, although Boeing is under pressure to fix this. The longer it takes the more orders they lose and the less carparking spaces they have left to park new 737. Maybe some airlines might also be anxious given their timetables with fleet renewal are likely delayed. When Boeing is forced to slow down production, is when the s*** is going to hit the fan.

But the general flying public should not be anxious. They can just sit back with their popcorn.
 
The following is a 'short' excerpt from the latest Aviation Week and Space Technology.


Latest 737 MAX Issue Seen Delaying Future-Year Production Increases
Jul 8, 2019

Michael Bruno | Aviation Week & Space Technology



Boeing
is not expected to raise its monthly production of 737 aircraft until next summer, commercial aerospace experts now say in the wake of the latest setback to the MAX program, and the chances of a further rate cut have grown significantly.

In late June, Aviation Week and other news outlets learned that FAA test pilots had flagged a new issue in the MAX flight-control system that must be addressed as part of changes underway to get the aircraft back into service (AW&ST July 1-14, p. 26). If necessary, a solution that requires changing computer chips could delay the MAX’s return to service (RTS) further as it likely would require new chip architecture as well as swapping out chips on nearly 500 MAXs in airline fleets or awaiting delivery.

As a result, financial analysts and industry consultants are prolonging their RTS outlooks for the MAX as well as when OEM Boeing can resume deliveries. Many do not see MAX passenger service resuming until at least the last quarter of 2019 and potentially not until 2020. Previous estimates were based on a RTS by early fall and certainly in time for traditional Western year-end holiday travel.

“We are only three and half months into the MAX crisis, but it may have twice as long again to run,” say analysts at Agency Partners.

What is more, many experts now believe Boeing may not raise its own monthly production rate to 52 new aircraft until the summer of 2020, and it might put off Rate 57 until late 2020 or even 2021. Currently, Boeing is building 737s at a rate of 42 a month—two of which are P-8s for the U.S. Navy—down from 52 before the MAX crisis erupted. The OEM had planned to be building 57 per month by now.

“News that Boeing is having to do additional work on the maneuvering characteristics augmentation system (MCAS) software, while the FAA is looking increasingly likely to move with other regulators (versus independently), means that correcting the issues on the aircraft are going to take longer than hoped,” Vertical Research Partners told its investor clients July 2.

For Boeing, Bernstein analyst Doug Harned estimates an additional one-month delay in the MAX’s return—beyond the previous September-October expected timeframe—would shift roughly $1 billion in revenue from 2019-20 and cut total cash in those years by $100 million per month. “An extended delay could add costs, such as fixed-cost coverage, progress payment recovery, airline compensation and airplane storage,” he said June 28.

Boeing has not given much guidance for MAX costs to date beyond adding a perfunctory $1 billion to its program cost accounting. But experts see the figures only growing as the issue endures. “While I don’t think additional recertification delays beyond the fourth quarter are terribly likely, just getting through the rest of the year will be expensive in terms of inventory,” Teal Group’s Richard Aboulafia tells Aviation Week.

Canaccord Genuity analyst Ken Herbert stresses the latest additional delay will affect second-half 2019 financial results, which will not be known fully until early next year. There also could be greater pressure on 2020 results, depending on how fast Boeing can work down its inventory once the MAX has returned to service.
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top