I agree it has lots of issues, sure, and those issues should have been resolved (and were likely even raised, but ignored by higher ups) at design stage. However, are those issues significant enough that the plane should be scrapped? A $50M+ product, thrown away? I don’t think so. I think those issues absolutely can be resolved - the core design, of course, is the same 737 that has been successful for decades.
The cost of solving those issues is far less than the cost of scrapping the airplane.
The only fundamental problem with the design is the position of the engines. They don’t fit under the wings, so they’re placed further forwards, which in turn creates a pitch momentum that varies depending on thrust. This can and has been resolved, even if the initial solution was terrible. It maybe still needs work (I’m not sure if they gave MCAS access to 3 sensors yet, rather than just 1) but this solution is arguably better than making a completely new plane.
But yeah I’d still rather fly on an Airbus, these days.
Having a software fix for aerodynamic issues is still concerning. But things like the engine de-ice destroying the spinner is just another unintuitive change that pilots have to adapt to that will likely lead to further issues. I don’t care what the cost of the product is, if Boeing made a bad investment that’s their responsibility, we can’t continue to allow such a dangerous product to continue to be used for a critical industry just because the manufacture made poor decisions.
It’s not just Boeing’s investment, though, it’s all the companies who bought them and the airlines who lease them. That’s a lot of business to scupper, and I think getting the planes in working order should still be cheaper.
I agree it has lots of issues, sure, and those issues should have been resolved (and were likely even raised, but ignored by higher ups) at design stage. However, are those issues significant enough that the plane should be scrapped? A $50M+ product, thrown away? I don’t think so. I think those issues absolutely can be resolved - the core design, of course, is the same 737 that has been successful for decades.
The cost of solving those issues is far less than the cost of scrapping the airplane.
The only fundamental problem with the design is the position of the engines. They don’t fit under the wings, so they’re placed further forwards, which in turn creates a pitch momentum that varies depending on thrust. This can and has been resolved, even if the initial solution was terrible. It maybe still needs work (I’m not sure if they gave MCAS access to 3 sensors yet, rather than just 1) but this solution is arguably better than making a completely new plane.
But yeah I’d still rather fly on an Airbus, these days.
Having a software fix for aerodynamic issues is still concerning. But things like the engine de-ice destroying the spinner is just another unintuitive change that pilots have to adapt to that will likely lead to further issues. I don’t care what the cost of the product is, if Boeing made a bad investment that’s their responsibility, we can’t continue to allow such a dangerous product to continue to be used for a critical industry just because the manufacture made poor decisions.
It’s not just Boeing’s investment, though, it’s all the companies who bought them and the airlines who lease them. That’s a lot of business to scupper, and I think getting the planes in working order should still be cheaper.