Back to Squawk list
  • 50

Boeing 737 MAX to return to service in the US only, perhaps

Seattle, Washington - Almost six months after the grounding of its 737 MAX jets, Boeing is now near to get its troubled aircraft recertified. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and International regulators such as EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) will have the final say as to when the aircraft will be allowed to fly again. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Tom Glass 7
For good information and rational explanations of the misinformed reports, go to Juan Browns "Blancolirio" channel on YouTube. He is very qualified triple seven pilot, GA pilot, and ex AF pilot. Excellent videos! Also, for those who would say they'll never fly the Max again, for your consideration...a dining establishment that receives a low sanitation grade might have the cleanest kitchen and staff in town trying to improve that grade in anticipation of another inspection. I know, before you jump on getting a belly ache vs. dying, I can just imagine Boeing will come out of this designing and building better AC than ever. I hope so anyway.
Brian James 3
Except Boeing should have known better in the first place. If there had been thorough, objective testing of the aircraft, maybe the faults would have been found before it was certified the first time. Unlike the kitchen analogy, these planes left the factory with their "bugs."
Edward Bardes 3
I won't argue against the idea that there have been countless accidents in the past with comparable causes, thereby leaving little reason for Boeing to have made these errors.
btweston 9
“A representative from Brazil's National Civil Aviation Agency previously said Boeing was not able to respond to the global regulators' specific questions on modifications made to the 737 MAX flight control system at an August meeting.”

I mean, that’s pretty terrible.
Greg Bunker 6
Well, I’m fairly certain that Boing will get the problems fixed. One more accident with this airframe would certainly put the company out of business.
trentenjet 8
The pilots did not induce the problem it was not a lack of training it was a poorly engineered aircraft Boeing. Really screwed up
Lewis Tripp 14
I would fly the 737 Max in US with US Pilots.
Viv Pike 9
So you're still one of those that think the accidents were as a result of so-called "third-world pilots"?. How many "US Pilots" have called out the failings of the Max? It was not due to pilots, it was due to the aircraft. Time to accept it.
Lynn Goss 2
Past-tense verbs are the key words in your comment. Do reject the possibility that problems can be understood and resolved?
Southwest flew the MAX on more than 40,000 flights over more than 88,000 hours with nary an incident, let alone accident. (And that's JUST Southwest, among US carriers.) How come THEIR pilots were able to do that? Did it have anything to do - anything at all - with their being American pilots rather than "third-world pilots"?
Viv Pike 6
Maybe in those 40,000 flights the US Airlines and US Pilots never had an AoA sensor fail. Just maybe that is a reason, who knows. Or maybe AoA sensors just know when a US Pilot is charge and dares not fail.
Don Quixote -5
Well, Viv, why have no MAX-8/9s crashed in the U.S., huh?
Viv Pike 3
Well, it is obvious, isn't it? The US is a superior race, and all their citizens are just simply the best. The rest of the global populace are a lessor breed, and could not possibly have the knowledge, or capabilities, of the almighty US. /s
btweston 0
American pilots have never crashed an American plane. America
a p 5
Beware of people unable to understand an ironic comment.
Just saying... hahaha
Yep totally agree
a p -8
Another racist arrogant guy who thinks his American passport will make him fly...
It’s really funny to be honest lol
So "American" is a race now? Who knew?! (You do realize there are plenty of non-Caucasian US pilots...right? Right??? Nah, didn't think so.)
a p -2
Racist, xenophobic... they come in the same bundle.
I can see you assumed arrogant, not too
George Farkas 5
Nothing racist about it. The max flew thousands of flights in the U.S and around the world before being pulled out of service. Was there a problem with it..yes, and it was grounded for good reason. But a lack of training seems to have contributed to the crashes when it started to malfunction.
Yes lack of training that Boeing said that was not necessary...."
Bill Waters 4
Experts one and all?
btweston 1
What’s your point?
Wait? It is or is not OK to fly, location should not be a factor! The regulators need to get together and decide what is the answer really is!
srobak 4
each federal aviation agency in each country will need to conduct their own inspections and test in order to clear it for flight. There is no global approval for aircraft.
I understand, BUT this indicates it is time to have a world wide set of regulations.
srobak 8
No country is going to give up the right to govern their airspace or the equipment that is operating within it.
Does anyone remember when at least two Airbus Axxx fell out of the sky due to faulty pitot tubes? (probably not because those accidents didn't make world news for 6 months in a row like Boeing's MAX) Similarly, In Boeing's case, the main factor that caused the MAX's accidents was either a faulty or struck AOA sensor. This would be the first time that I know of where an entire airplane company is scrutinized and destroyed publicly even before a full accident investigation has been completed. Seems to me there's an agenda here...
a p -1
For sure we remember that. As we remember people onboard those Airbus got home alive and the 347 people onboard the crashed 737 Max are dead.

Do you have any other question?
I hope you're not an engineer because you are unable (or unwilling) to read and understand the very simple phrase "fell out of the sky" included in my previous post. Really, 347 people died on a 737 MAX? Oh wow that's only the 6 millionth time I've heard that information. There's an agenda for sure...
Robert Graham 3
On at least one of the referenced Airbus flights from S. America to Europe, the passengers ended up on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.
strickerje 1
People aboard AF 447 got home alive? That’s news to me...
Edward Bardes 1
This isn't the first time AOA sensors were a factor in an accident. XL Airways Germany Flight 888T did a low speed test after the waterlogged AOA sensors froze in flight, preventing the stall protection system from activating.
ADXbear 2
Lies, deals and death dont mix and hard to forgive.. im not flying on one.
john kilcher 2
OOOH, another conspiracy theory, right??
Scrap The Max !
srobak 4
you already said that 2 hours earlier. no need to repeat yourself.
John Kraft -3
Scrap the Max
Chris B 1
There is another angle to this as well.

Boeing continues to build the Max despite losing its certificate to fly.

It probably has upwards of 300 aircraft sitting on the ground awaiting approval.
Perhaps someone can answer the following question. If the engines were mounted higher on the wings because of clearance problems, then why didn't they just lengthen the landing gear? Bigger turbofan engines, longer landing gear? What am I missing?
Follow the money. Messing with the landing gear on the 737 is a huge engineering problem. Clever software can compensate for a lot of quirks like this, and I suspect we've only begun to see SDA - Software Defined Aerodynamics/Aircraft/etc. I understand some advanced aircraft cannot be hand-flown at all, and we're getting to that point in more common applications.
lenghening the landing gear means you have to either move them farther out on the wing (so they can fold into the body) or come up with a way to "shorten them" before retracting into the body. Both items would involve a bit mroe engineering than lifting up the engine.
robin cooper 2
I believe that they were heavier and also changed the COG
Edward Bardes 1
The engines were angled slightly upward to be able to fit under the wings, and that's what makes it pitch up more than the previous 737s; if it was weight that was the issue, then the plane would have a pitch down tendency since they're in front of the wings.
a p 0
“F*ck safety, let’s make money” That’s what you are missing.
strickerje 1
That’s a pretty gross oversimplification and I think you know it. These kinds of knee jerk reactions do nothing but polarize.
Leo Aubry 1
Brian Neuman 1
Meh..nothing wrong with that. Let them run their tests.
robert burns 1
I am not.a pilot or engineer, and apologize if this is a dumb question. Has the airframe been certified with the heavier engines placed closer to the fuselage? Put another was is the Max a potential Lockheed Electra?
strickerje 2
I’ll take a stab at it though I may not be terribly qualified either. (I am a pilot but only private and I haven’t flown in years, and an engineer but no longer in aerospace.)

As I understand it, the larger engines positioned higher up on the wing resulted in instability in some situations that’s mitigated by software (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System or MCAS). This was to mimic the handling of the previous generation 737 in order to prevent the need for additional training for current 737 pilots to be certified on the MAX. This change wasn’t well documented, and in the case of the 2 crashes, it was disabled by a failed angle of attach (AOA) sensor, which resulted in the autopilot adjusting (trimming) the pitch to a stall condition.

The lack of training on this feature and the single point of failure (AOA) being enough to disable it were a failure on Boeing’s part, but the situation didn’t need to result in a crash - most pilots know that in a runaway trim situation (which you can see by the electric trim wheel turning right in front of you), the proper course of action is to disable autopilot and diagnose the failure while the other pilot hand flies. Around here you seem to get called racist for implying that pilot training is lacking in some parts of the world, but I have to believe that American and Southwest (which have 10 times as many 737 MAX jets as Ethiopian and Lion Air) pilots have experienced this issue and managed to not crash.
Franco Prizzi 1
The problem is that Boeing has broken flyers trust in the system, by all that bad management issues we are still learning from investigations, [this time independent(?)].
So it is just a matter of respect : i wont ever use a Boeing plane anymore in my life , because i dont' want to be part of that reality, not for scare but for dignity.
Geoff Davies 1
somehow i think the plane will be shut down.who would buy the plane now after what happened.but we all could be wrong and boeing sell them again
Brian Neuman 1
They are still building them or have been and airlines are still ordering them so there is faith there somewhere.
Personally, if I were Boeing, I would retrofit the Max with lower turbofan engines and longer landing gear, thus solving the original problem (the reason for SDA).
Stefan Sobol 6
Would require redesign of the wing and fuselage to accommodate larger gear bays. Not going to happen. Boeing needs to get on with the NMA.
dan davis 1
I'll give it a year or so before I'll set foot on one.
Viv Pike ...
ha ha ha ... a great joke !
David Jones -1
Don’t risk passengers. Restrict the 737 Max to cargo.
Lawrence Green -5
Scrap the 737 MAX.
paul gilpin 6
scrap tesla.
jbqwik 4
Let's pretend that your expensive new car gets recalled by the manufacturer for faulty wiring which has been discovered to cause random air bag explosions.
The manufacturer replaces the cheap wire it first used with better, more expensive wiring. Do you now scrap your expensive new car?
Interesting thought. But, the Max fills a very specific role that the airlines bought into and, unlike the auto industry, they don't have the luxury of choosing from several other models to fill that role. So, like it or not, at this point there's not a whole lot of options.
That being said, I do believe the name has been sullied, which is never a good thing in this industry.
a p 3
If only the problem with the 737Max was a cheap wire...
Just for you information this is not about a cheap wire. This is about a company cutting corners. About a company which made an unstable plane and tried to solve that with a shitty software. This is about a negligent regulator (let me say that again: negligent!!) which certified a plane which should have never been certified. This is about 347 people killed. This is about thousands of lives which were put in risk and only by a matter of luck didn’t end up as the 347 mentioned above.
This is about a company and a regulator which have lost absolutely its credibility. A company and a regulator which said “money first” instead “safety first”. Therefore a company and a regulator that nobody (who wants to stay alive..) believes in.
And finally something some people don’t like to talk about: This is about millions of scared, disappointed and pissed-off customers/passengers who will never ever fly on a 737max no matter what. (Yes, I am proudly one of them)

This is the story and it is a little bit more complex than changing a cheap wire... Don’t you think so?
jbqwik 3
I'm just making an analogy because the original post is such a blanket statement it's not logical.
Of course it's more than a wire. D.U.H. And, I, like you, feel that top management should be fired without compensation. Their hubris and deception is beyond excuse.
a p -2
An analogy? Come on... you are just making an inappropriate analogy to play down what Boeing and FAA did...
Mark Kortum 8
This 737 Max issue is a clear illustration of corruption among large financial interests and easily corruptible government regulatory monopolies. It is about fallible human beings sitting in powerful centralized seats of authority making single decisions (in this case a poor one) that determine who lives and who dies. We, the public, need to be the watchdogs.
"Disappointed and pissed-off customers/passengers who will never ever fly on a 737max no matter what. (Yes, I am proudly one of them)...Does a pride award or medal come with that? Geez.

Also, the MAX is not an unstable aircraft. That is factual. This idea of it being an unstable A/C has been posited by folks/media that knows nothing about aviation, aeronautics or aircraft design. One more thing, MCAS is not an anti-stall system either.

Bottom line is that Boeing created a software package...MCAS, to ensure that the MAX handled exactly the same way as the NG variant, at every point within the flight envelope. This was very foolish indeed, and Boeing screwed up implementing a poorly designed, deeply flawed software package.

The max will return to service, and I will get on board when it does. I'm pissed off and disappointed by Boeing as well. I can't say that I'm proud of that fact. I'll let my rational mind, and understanding of aeronautical/aviation priciples guide my decision...not my emotions.
Agreed - well stated Thomas
More room for us, glad you've figured this all out, while no one else has.
Mark Kortum -1
Are the airlines going to attempt to disguise which flights are the MAX and which are other 737 models, like the 800? Informed travelers are going to check for the model of 737 before making a reservation. The airlines can provide full transparency or opaque deception by "rebranding" the model or confusing the names. Airlines will be tempted to opt for deception which may produce an even greater PR issue with customers. Looking at two big US carriers with Maxes, American and Southwest, I predict Southwest will take the more honest approach when their Maxes are put back into service. I hope American management proves my prediction wrong and they both take the high road.
Scott Maynard 3
American Airlines clearly shows when the MAX is the equipment. Specifically, flight 1362 from MIA to MCO on 21 DEC 2019. 7M8-Boeing 737MAX 8 Passenger
pretty full flight too
jbqwik 2
I don't put much faith in the American traveler caring all that much.
Mark Kortum 3
Exactly the reason I suspect some or all of the airlines will try to deceive. They also do not respect the diligence of their customers, and they may be right.
Lynn Goss 3
My American family will not fly on one until many flights have been made after re-certification.
jbqwik 8
You don't seriously think, after so much microscopic scrutiny, there's more flaws with MCAS? I'd be more concerned about some other piece of equipment or software code that might have been given the MCAS thought process. But not the MCAS feature itself.
The FAA is under investigation, too, and I'm betting that they'll make sure its gold plated and rock solid before giving it approval.
As for the rest of the plane...?
jbqwik 2
I'm sorry, Lynn Goss. I thought you were pointing at the MCAS feature, but upon rereading I see you're talking about the plane in general. And with that logic I can't argue.
btweston 0
Well, the engines are still in the wrong place.
Michael Moon 1
Apparently United and Southwest (so far) will allow customers to switch flights at no added cost if they prefer not to fly on a MAX-scheduled trip. It looks like they will also try to inform customers ahead of the flight what plane is scheduled.
Britton Gray -2
Once again the FAA is really Doing their best to make it look like they’re Boeing’s partner rather than an independent regulator.
Scott Campbell -1
the max 8 thru possible 10 isn't going anywhere, they will fly and fly for decades even with the stupidity of it all, simply because they sip fuel, and airlines, and more importantly passengers want cheap, I'd get on a MAX today, and flew on the 900 MAX twice to Houston, with complete trust of the Cap and FO up front


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.