I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate... and even then not for at least 3-4 years of commercial service under that condition.

It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

Hold on a minute. Though the 737 MAX issues were caused by the desire to keep the same type rating, making the 737 MAX have a new type rating at this point won't solve the issue.

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.

As simion314 said, a new type rating likely means it has to be certified from the ground up. It also means pilots need a full training regimen, a new type rating and will allow/require Boeing to fully train pilots in all of its systems and failure modes. All in all IF what others are saying that the plane is not inherently unsafe but does fly differently, this will mean pilots will at least be properly familiar and trained.

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...

A new type rating will mean that the plane gets the worst of two worlds. Instead of saving a type rating yet delivering a paritally-modern aircraft, Boeing is requiring a type rating yet delivering a paritally-legacy aircraft.

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.

I agree that a new type rating is not a good thing for Boeing or its customers. But it may be the best and right thing for pilots and passengers, which is what the Governments of the world should care about.

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...)

Thank you for the insight about landings. I am not a pilot but rather just think myself a knowledgeable enthusiast... Just enough to talk mumbo-jumbo.

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?

At least you get pilots trained witht he proper manuals and simulators and also add the extra buttons needed like a button to turn off MCAS that you can't add now because you need to create new manuals and simulators and retrain pilots.

> It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

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.

seatguru.com is your friend.

Note, though, that planes can be swaped on short notice, or no notice at all.

Might depend on which airline you are using. I've always been able to find out which aircraft it was. But, it's not always _super visible_.

Just find out the flight number (which you can see once you select the flight) and search for it by date and time.

I'd agree with you... but on some routes (note I'm in Europe) there is only one carrier, and only 1-2 flights per day. So that choice could mean the difference between flying and not flying. With such stark choices, I suspect convenience and/or necessity would win out quite quickly.

> 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

Avoid airlines with 737-maxes on their list (unless the airline is clear they've grounded them)

it's possible a last minute wet-lease could put you on a max, but it's unlikely.

> I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate

then you will never be able to fly one. It cannot get its own type certificate.

First off, sure it could go through certification de novo to get its own type certificate. Does not mean Boeing will do that (it is antithetical to their purpose with the aircraft).

I am happy not flying on it as a 737-typed aircraft.

A new type certificate cannot use grandfather rights. The 737 max would not qualify for one by current standards.

Passengers as a whole don't have any idea what is going on and have the memory of an amnesiac goldfish.

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.

This is completely wrong, and there is plenty of data that says so. Especially when you start talking about business and frequent travelers, they are notoriously picky and will cancel flights based on a plane class or even when a specific aircraft usually does the route.

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"

I feel like US is a completely different universe when it comes to this. I fly several times per year and there is no such thing as "choice" when it comes to flying. It's a matter of which operator has a connection on that route, having multiple operators fly the same route is completely unheard of(for me). If Ryanair rolls out a fleet of 737 Max tomorrow....I will fly on the 737 Max. I can't go "oh well I'll just fly BA" - because BA does not fly that route, and the alternative is flying somewhere else and a lengthy car or train journey.

I can choose either Ryanair, EasyJet, Norwegian, BA or SAS to fly direct to London. Just clicking around FlightConnections [1], about half of routes to 1500-2000km-away Europe have more than one airline. For example, two airlines fly to Stuttgart and Zürich, but one each to Basel and Luxembourg.

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.

[1] https://www.flightconnections.com/

That's a bad interpretation of this survey.

The initial question should be - have you ever checked what aircraft you will be flying ?

99% of passengers have no idea.

I don't think this 99% figure is true based on my personal experiences, but even if it was accurate a few months ago it's not anymore. People sure as hell are paying attention to which plane they fly on now, because they have to.

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.

99% is not a precise figure for sure. I've found those 2 articles / surveys on that: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ethiopia-airplane-boeing-...

"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...

I think that 99% is probably more like 95%. That still doesn’t sound very significant -- only 5% of passengers bother to check! -- but given the slim operating margins of airlines, 5% lost revenue would be a huge blow.

May be 99% HAD no idea. Thats because they did not know Boeing was knowingly putting them inside a death machine. It will be a different story now.

How do you know this is true?

I'll have no problem flying in one as soon as the relevant authorities deem it safe enough. If I don't trust relevant authorities on what is safe and what isn't - why would I trust them when they say the next plane is safe?

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.

The same "authorities" who told you before they were safe to fly?

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?

Yes, those authorities. Either I trust them and fly (ever) or I don't and you never fly. There is no middle ground here. If you fly on the A350 which is also new - you trust the FAA/EASA that they are safe to fly. If I don't trust FAA/EASA, I can never fly the new A350 either. In fact I can't fly on any plane, unless I adopt some strategy of only flying ones that have an established safety record (i.e. old planes). But even with those, I trust the authorities who ensure the training of the pilots is OK, that ATC works etc. They are the same authorities...

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.

Please show me how EASA has outsourced certification to the manufacturer (Airbus) itself like FAA has done with Boeing

Otherwise I have no idea how you could even remotely compare these two situations

I have no capability (nor much of an interest) in even beginning to judge these authorities. That's my point: I trust them blindly because if they turn out to roll dice when making regulation or approving aircraft - it's still better than me doing it.

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.

It would be unethical to do so explicitly ("Airline kills poor people"). It could happen automatically due to demand based pricing, but many people don't know the difference and would price the risk at zero. So I think it's "Mostly no."

I'm not sure I've ever been told what type of plane I'm flying in when I book - are you typically told?

Nobody is being 'told'. But every booking system I've ever used, whether it's airline-direct or an agreggator shows aircraft model.

Flightaware and others show it too if you just search for the flight number

BA tell you the model of plane that's scheduled when booking.

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.

Depends on when you book and what fleet they have. The exact plane (individual) isn't assigned to your flight by the scheduling software at the booking date, if you book months in advance. It's a guess in that case, and it can change up to hours before the flight. So there is nothing that guarantees that the model specified on your booking will actually be used.

I can always see the type of aircraft when booking a flight with KLM. I don't know if it's typical though.

we are about to fly soon and literally the first thing I’ve thought (and my SO) was I hope it’s not this plane

Did exactly the same thing when i went away a few months back, my trip just after the second accident but not before the grounding i believe. Not sure what the options are if you get stuck on a plane you don't exactly want to be on.

My trip just after the second accident but not before teh grounding.

Airlines like Delta show very clearly what type of plane you're supposed to be on. Of course that could change because of maintenance issues, but it is easy to check at least what is scheduled.

Normal passengers won't even notice that they are flying in a 747 max.

People are irrationally careful when it comes to flying. And in this case even a rational person wouldn't fly a 737 Max. I'm sure the demand problem will be felt by the airlines.

Well, i am a normal passenger and wouldn't fly in one in the first place. I could tell the difference by the feeling of plunging from thousands of feet into the ground, it's very subtle, but even noticeable by the layman

There are now multiple apps that tell you which model of aircraft you are booking.

You can look up the plane your due to fly on online using the flight number.