I'm curious to see how passengers will react to flying via 737-max. Will ticket prices be lowered to reflect the inevitable wariness of flying in one again?
It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.
That's as maybe, but is far from guaranteed to remain as-is - and how many people maintain an ExpertFlyer membership and enter their itinerary for aircraft change alerts? Unless a seat changes†, IME most airlines don't proactively send out change alerts to passengers already booked when one aircraft is swapped for another. Furthermore I would sincerely doubt anyone's ability to extract a refund because the airline changed to a plane they weren't willing to board.
† and even then it isn't guaranteed, and rarely do I notice the alerts highlighting the reason being an aircraft change
it's possible a last minute wet-lease could put you on a max, but it's unlikely.
is it? I've never noticed it.
I guess it's possible to infer it by the seat configuration when you get to choose it, but I never saw "you'll be flying XYZ" when I booked tickets in the past.
Note, though, that planes can be swaped on short notice, or no notice at all.
The 737 MAX needed to retain the unusual fuselage design of the 737 to retain the type rating, leading to the unusual positioning of the new, larger engines, leading to MCAS.
Even if they gave the 737 MAX a new type rating at this point, the fuselage would still be the same shape as a 737 with the engine positioning driving the need for MCAS.
The only way to get rid of the need for MCAS at this point, AFAICT, would be to create a new fuselage which doesn't inherit the historical baggage of the 737 (which was designed to support airstairs). That would be a whole new plane, not just a new rating. The 737 MAXes built so far would be scrap.
It's been remarked before, but if Boeing hadn't been so determined to keep the same type rating, reviving the 757 might have made more sense.
It may still have issues hence the “wait a few years” in my response.
Most jets have their quirks. I recall many 727 pilots telling me they put nose down pressure just before or at touchdown to make the plane land more nicely due to the relative location of center of lift and landing gear. Not something i usually do when flying a tricycle gear plane...
I'm not sure where the quirks bit comes in. Sure, all planes have their quirks but obviously taildraggers don't intentionally squat their props _closer_ to the pavement on landing. There's no danger of a prop strike on a jet-powered airliner, so reducing nose bounce with some elevator is not a problem. That's not a quirk.
Secondly, landing a taildragger on its wheels does involve a distinct “push the nose forward” on touchdown to keep the plane on the ground. Takes a bit of practice to get used to it. Even more fun is landing on just one wheel in a strong crosswind. Consider that if you don’t push the nose forward the tail will naturally sink (as it is still going down when the main gear hits the ground). This will increase the angle of attack causing the plane to take off again. Hence why we land on the wheels this way. (Or do a three point landing...)
I had never considered that aspect of increasing angle of attack on bringing the rear wheel down. Considering that and the fact that there is no rotation on takeoff, what is the appeal of a taildragger? I've even seen 152's converted to taildragger. Why would one do that? Do taildraggers have any advantage that I cannot fathom?
then you will never be able to fly one. It cannot get its own type certificate.
I am happy not flying on it as a 737-typed aircraft.
They also don't have the ability to differentiate between planes in general, so this is probably just as likely to affect their perceptions of the A320.
https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-want-to-fly-b...
"If you had a flight on a Boeing 737 Max next week, and the FAA decided to clear the aircraft for flight, given the issues the plane has experienced, what would you do?
53.1% of respondents said they would reschedule. Of those, the survey found that 18.7% of respondents would reschedule their flight only if it didn't require a fee. Another 4.4% of respondents said they would pay to reschedule their flight up to a certain monetary fee, which they then typed in. A full 30% of people would cancel or reschedule their flights, regardless of the cost to them"
The initial question should be - have you ever checked what aircraft you will be flying ?
99% of passengers have no idea.
It wasn't really a concern in the past because Boeing and the FAA didn't appear to be failing. They have impressive mountains of data that they hid behind while just operating with staggering negligence and incompetence, day after day.
I don't care how many agencies certify the max, I know way too much about it's design and how much pilots hate it now, I'm never flying on it.
"Southwest said the comments were consistent with feedback it receives and noted that “well less than 1% of customers check their aircraft type traditionally, but we do expect more customers to become aware given the current climate.” " - 99% seems close :) I frankly don't expect that to change that much - maybe it will become 95%, still overhelming majority.
Survey: https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/11/10298/10205/201...
Of course, if you live near a smaller airport there's less choice -- but you are probably more used to connecting flights in that case.
Also, since you can't know which flights are using which planes (usually), many carriers use thes planes interchangably with non-MAX (737-800s), and you can't use the choice of plane as a reason to get a refund on your ticket, avoiding these planes is likely expensive. You need to fly another route, pick an airline that isn't the cheapest for the leg you are flying and so on. I mean I'm as scared of crashing as the next guy but I'm not "5% more expensive trip"-scared.
You have so much believe in authorities that even if proven they didn't do their job, you still trust in them with your life?
They might not always do their job the way I want them to, but there are no other authorities in this case to go to for a second opinion.
Otherwise I have no idea how you could even remotely compare these two situations
Now, the situation is a bit special now that there are efffectively TWO competing authorities. It's not that there used to be just one, but that one used to be the authortitive one (or that they spoke with one voice). This complicates things. So OK - when there are conflicting information I might trust the cautious one. But for all practical purposes, these authorities are opaque to the average traveler. I must either trust them or stay on the ground.
I've actually selected a different flight a few hours after another so I would be on an A380 vs 747 because two hours extra waiting to come home is worth it for the comfort on a longer flight, and feeling more refreshed the other end, especially with a long drive back from the airport waiting for me.
Flightaware and others show it too if you just search for the flight number
My trip just after the second accident but not before teh grounding.