boestar

I believe all these cargo flights are revenue driven. they are hauling the equivalent cargo that would have been moved on regular scheduled flights.

AC is contacting customers directly

Facebook was founded to get University Students Laid. Using it as a valid source of news is probably not a wise move.

It is a culture adopted from McDonnell Douglas unfortunately. $ trumps Safety

there are 19 in that photo if you look close.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Marana. Please remain seated until the aircraft comes to a complete stop in this gaggle of parked aluminium tubes.

Beautiful plane in any colour

they could be used to create artificial coral reefs. That would be a good use

why do they make it sound like the airlines fault? They have no control over placing it back into service. When the Regulators and Boeing drop the puck, you can bet it won't be long before they are in the air.

One would think that all of the flight control software would have been provided to CAE to simulate the function as expected on the aircraft. Likely that functionality is simulated but the failure mode is not. If the simulator behaviour deviates from tha tof the actual aircraft, how can Cat D be supported?

Thats what a contract is for. When I leave, No matter how crappy a job I did, I get $X,000,000 on departure. This is the problem today. Over compensated incompetence.

The Basic aircraft and systems design is very old. Although the aircraft has gone through an evolution, A LOT of the original still remains. As the aircraft has been revised, instead of redesigning systems to a more current standard, they were patch worked over old systems. This continued through 3 major evolutions of the aircraft. The MAX, as I have said before, is just makeup on a pig. Its just like an old Mainframe computer with a flashy new GUI interface. Pretty on the outside but still the same old clunky machine on the inside. Boeing was short sighted when they decided new engines would help it compete with the 320 NEO. Boeing needs a clean slate design to compete with the airbus. They also need to get the bean counters out of the head shed and get some engineers back in there. Build a well engineered machine and by default the bean counters will be made happy. NOT the other way around.

That is an issue. The CAT D certification should be lifted as it does not replicate the aircraft in its entirety.

I would think that, in light of the high profile nature of the issue, they are training some of these scenarios. Theoretically (and I do not know for sure) if you introduce a failure of the AOA in the sim, it should reproduce the fault. Simulators are "Supposed" to mimic the aircraft systems exactly. I would hope this was not overlooked when the specifications were given to the sim manufacturers.

From what I hear the idle MAX guys at AC are doing Simulator rides while waiting for the plane to return

In the past, I have always like the Boeing Model of "break the airplane to save the passengers" mentality. Self preservation is a powerful tool that cannot be perfectly implemented in computer logic. Yes it has failed us in the past but I am still a firm believer that I and the pilot and the computer is here to assist me, NOT the other way around. In order to achieve a fully automated, or even mostly automated, aircraft. One should definitely NOT start with the 737. A clean slate design would be needed and is long overdue. Many moons ago when the A320 made its debut and had its issues (teething problems) I though "no way would I let a computer be in charge" Now 30 odd years later I think the Airbus methodology was very well implemented. Far better that the multitude of re-hashes of the 737. It's time Boeing got back to being an engineering company and stop being a finance company

I get that that is the way you see it but in reality it is within the control of the airline. that is why we pay hotels and meals for delays caused by mechanicals. Always have always will.

That would normally affect the first flight of the day. A Hydraulic system failure on turn for example would be within the airlines control and require restitution as this was no "scheduled" maintenance activity. We fight these daily

nope mechanical faults rest on the airline. Thats why we fight them

either way. poorly handled or there is more to the story

What am I missing here? The flight diverted to "YUL due to weather at the destination. I get that. Why not just have the passengers informed that the flight will continue when the conditions improve and make arrangements as such. Freezing rain in eastern and central Ontario is no laughing matter. there is no way in hell I would take a bus down that stretch of the 401 in freezing rain. How does this equate to 11 days wait? These LCC guys need to learn how to handle IROPS. The response is pathetic. Weather is the one thing that is beyond airline control and does not demand compensation. However the handling of the situation by the airline should get something for the passengers.

Which they do and their governments use them to move their leaders.

When you think about it. For all the money the government gave to Bombardier / Canadair over the years, They should be giving the government 2 brand new aircraft.

UMM...NOT RVSM? The 601 or the 604 should both be certified RVSM. If there was a FL restriction to 10,000 feet then they probably should have taken another plane

As I stated before. Boeing says its just a "feel" thing. In practicality it is a stall protection thing. They parked firmly in a grey area that is becoming less and less grey as the light shines upon it. Homerun. I agree completely that is the 737 MAX was a clean slate design with FBW, We, Boeing and the FAA would not be having this discussion.