You joke, but:
(Of course, the real naming issue isn’t the Max part, but the 737 part. AIUI if Boeing were to drop the idea that this is a 737 variant, remove the computer system designed to make it fly like a 737, and require pilots to undergo new type-rating exams it would be a much safer aircraft.)
As someone who doesn’t fly anywhere, is there any need to try to convince people who ride planes that these are safe? Like, when you are booking a flight, do you choose your flight based on the airplane? Is that even an easy thing to find out? Might the airline not switch the model of plane you are riding on for a logistical reason in the hours before the flight without informing you?
I really don’t know how this works, but when I’ve heard people talk about air travel I’ve heard them say where they are flying from and to; which airline they are flying with; the flight route; the price; the length of the flight. I don’t think I have ever once heard someone say the model of the plane (the closest to this would be saying how much leg room there was).
I don’t fly as much as i used to but honestly i’ve never paid attention to what type of airplane i’d be in. However if i recall one’s ticket should allude to it the second you book it. That said instead of guessing i looked it up 
I hope this helps
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/aviation/article227424754.html
Below are some tips, although keep in mind that any airline could substitute an aircraft for a particular flight with little advanced warning.
That’s what I thought.
If someone is that paranoid about it they can always politely ask gate agents to switch them to another flight. One would just have to be prepared to be bumped and suffer delays, if there’s no hurry to get the one’s destination then sure go ahead. There’s also the likelihood that specific airlines would have no 737 Max or less of them so booking with them in particular is also a strategy someone can adopt.
From a rational point of view it’s like 41,000 flights were made on these planes, two of which crashed. So if you think that the odds they’ll change the plane are low (1 in 20?) and the airline has a small fleet of the planes you are worried about (10%?) then if you check in advance you are looking at a 1 in 400,000 chance your plane simply stops working and falls to the ground within 15 minutes of takeoff.
I guess my bigger concern is that I feel like some kind of compact has been broken. The failures of the 737 maxes weren’t tragic accidents of the kinds that we simply have to accept. The engineers at Boeing raised concerns, and the planes that crashed were not fitted with more expensive add-ons (like they were using a cellphone-game-model for selling their planes and some people couldn’t afford the “don’t crash” microtransaction).
Aviation history says flying is very safe, but history only predicts the future until something changes. If 737 maxes were grounded forever, never made again, and the entire thing was written down as a moment to learn from in history we could just move forward. Even if Boeing thought they could resolve the issues (say, make the extra safety features standard instead of add-ons) I think they should write off the entire design as a sacrifice to show their commitment to safety.
I think something has changed, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to extrapolate the safety of future flying from the safety of past flying right now.
Yeah, i personally would not care to check what plane i’m in but my comments above are meant to address the type of person this would matter to. I wouldn’t bother to question their anxiety because its not me that’s needing to jump through hoops so have at it, i’m happy to provide accurate information.
That said, if given the choice of flying in a 737 Max or something else i would prefer something else.
…not to mention between…
Boeing to resume 737 MAX production before mid-year, unclear what will change
…and…
“So, are they resuming production or suspending it?”
“Yes!”
Having actually flown on one (summer 2018), I’d have to agree with this.
I came close to doing this so I could fly on an (original series) DC-9, while they were still flying, but opted instead for the direct flight. My son wants us to schedule our next trip so we can fly on on MD-80, MD-90 or 757. But (more to your point) I figure we’re in a rather small minority…
Many of my coworkers who fly are attentive to the type of aircraft they fly on. But they’re nerds. I remember from my frequent flier period c.1990 that America West’s fleet of 737s tended to have thick patches over the aluminum skin at the corners of the doorway, which amused me as I boarded.
From what I’ve read one of the central issues is that the aerodynamics of the plane, while fundamentally sound, are different from the previous model 737 and thus the plane naturally handles differently. Normally this wouldn’t be a deal-killer since pilots could just get additional training to be certified on the new models. But Boeing knew that airlines would be reluctant to pay for all that additional training, so they used software fixes to make the new planes handle like the old planes so the same pilots could fly them without additional training.
This seems like a pretty bad approach even if the sensor issues are addressed adequately. At best it’s a clunky solution, like running a big complicated hardware emulator in the sky.
This is a more thorough version of my understanding, yes.
Perhaps, but gone are the days when Boeing would design planes to be the best planes they could be. They’re designed to be a good product, not a good plane, now. Apparently, that changed when they bought McDonnell-Douglas.
From what I’ve read, the aerodynamic changes from previous 737 models were necessary because of larger engines. The larger engines would drag on the ground unless either the whole plane sat higher off the ground, or the wings were raised relative to the fuselage (causing the aerodynamic changes). And airlines really like the 737 because it’s so low to the ground, which makes it easier to load luggage.
So airlines wanted a plane with the benefits of the previous 737 - they were already invested in a huge force of pilots trained on the 737 and ground infrastructure designed around its low-slung fuselage, but the competing A320 family burns fuel more efficiently and fuel is getting more expensive. If Boeing didn’t change the engines, the plane wouldn’t be efficient enough and airlines wouldn’t buy it. If they changed the handling characteristics, pilots would need to be retrained and airlines wouldn’t buy it. If they raised the plane off the ground, it’d be harder to load luggage and airlines wouldn’t buy it…
They’ve done similar tricks before. The 757 (narrow-body) and 767 (wide-body) planes were designed so that a pilot certified on one could also fly the other. And the next generation of the 777 will have longer wingtips (to increase efficiency, again)… but that would make it too wide to fit in existing airport gates, so the wingtips will be hinged so they can fold up on the ground.
I understand the business challenges, but the bottom line is that Boeing’s solution still resulted in a plane that was both less safe and less elegantly engineered than it should have been.
So how has Airbus managed to build more fuel-efficient planes without running into the same problems?
Not really, but people who fly a lot often know that an airline has mostly x or y planes. And the 737 Max probably has more brand recognition than any other commercial jet, So, it could be a problem for Boeing customers if another airline differentiates itself by advertising that it’s fleet does not include the Max.
ETA:
Well, and we know that Boeing made decisions that did not make the plane safe. When they suggest that the fix is fairly trivial, it creates the impression that either they are lying now, or they chose profits over safety. If A is true, you don’t want to fly that plane. If B is true, you don’t want to fly their planes.
That’s not the story here, as I understand it.
The weight of these new engines have forced Boeing into a dangerous design compromise. It used to be a hard and fast rule in aircraft design, that without control input from the pilot, a plane shall fly straight and level, by virtue of its geometry.
The max has a center of gravity that makes it inherently unstable in certain places in the flight envelope. Rather than fixing the geometry so it can self correct on its own, Boeing has put a software overlay on the controls that must work perfectly every time in order to fly safely.
This is the opposite direction from what a century of aircraft design has taught us.
These aircraft cannot be made to fly by the 20th century standards of safety without swapping out the engines and sacrificing fuel efficiency. The software “fix” is an added complexity, introducing thousands of things that can go wrong.
That they tried to hide the existence of this software speaks volumes about how confident they were in its safety.
All the Airbuses (at, least, the widebodies) were like this, maybe still are? I know a pilot could go from an A300 to A310 pretty quickly.
It’s usually pretty easy to find the kind of plane you’ll be on but really there’s not a lot of choice. Routes generally use the same kind of planes. (You only have so many options.)
I’ve never chosen one flight over another based on the plane or configuration. (That’s not to say I don’t have preferences, but it doesn’t really factor into my planning all that much. It’s more about times, connections, and seating availability.)
Planes all have different seating configurations so it’s not likely a plane would get switched out for a different kind.
That’s basically my understanding as well except that it’s not really about the weight of the engines so much as it is the new, larger diameter of the engines, with the geometry resulting in the centerline of thrust being lower relative to the overall CG of the plane. But yeah, it’s basically a geometry issue that nobody would have designed a plane with if starting from scratch rather that retrofitting an existing plane design.
If I had to guess, it’s because the A320-family already sits up higher from the ground than the 737s, so when the engine’s diameter increased (assuming that it did) they already had some wiggle-room. (The 757 stood pretty high, but IIRC this was to avoid the tail cone striking the ground at take-off.)
When they put new high-bypass turbofan engines on the 737 (-300 and later), in order to keep the fuselage at the same height from the ground, they had to move some of the machinery into the nacelles, which is why the sides bulge out when viewed from the front. I believe (maybe it’s already mentioned here) that the MAX’s engines are even bigger than that and they finally had to raise the airplane a little.
(The original 737 used the same JT8D as the 727 and DC-9, but with longer ducts so they looked like cigars under the wings – can’t remember why they had to extend past the trailing edge of the wing, while the newer engines (and the same JT8Ds on the similar Dassault Mercure airliner) did not)
