Back to Squawk list
  • 42

American Airlines Sticks By Boeing 737 MAX Commitment

The CEO of one of the world’s biggest airlines, American Airlines, is sticking to his guns with their Boeing 737 MAX orders. The airline has 76 MAXs on order, due to join its current fleet of 24 MAXs. But despite the challenges facing Boeing’s MAX program, American Airlines, and the wider aviation industry, American Airlines CEO Doug Parker isn’t planning to defer any 737 MAX deliveries. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

John Thacker 4
Way to go American Airlines! I admire companies that make decisions based on facts rather than the hype stirred up by the "hater media" All these people stating they will not fly a 737 Max is about the same as those who said they were "leaving America if Trump was elected". The media will have something else for these sheep to hate in the near future.
Larry Toler -1
I agree with you. I didn't vote for Trump, but at least as an American citizen I did vote. The media does stretch things a bit. I'll fly on a MAX. I don't care if it's got wings and it gets me there. I'm cool. As a flight attendant I didn't care what I had a pairing on. I'm type rated, it all pays the same to me.
Billy Koskie 11
When this plane is allowed to return to service, it'll be the safest aircraft flying. With all of the eyeballs on this, nothing less will be accepted.
Chris Habig 4
Just like the Ford Pinto was the safest car on the road after it received intense scrutiny? The fact is, nothing will ever make the 737 as safe as a modern airliner. It's basic 1960s design lacks the redundancies of its more modern competitors.
Chris Habig, calling out the design age of the 737 airframe as it compares to more modern aircraft redundancies is a false narrative. You can argue about the design limitations of its undercarriage certainly. You can argue that the MAX still ulitlizes hydro-mechanical flight controls. But, neither of these factors are age related; they are and were conscious design choices. Boeing designed the undercarriage for ease of access for smaller airports lacking larger ramp equipment. With the MAX, they could've easily incorporated an all fly by wire flight control equipment. They chose to keep the bulk of the existing hydro-mechanical gear for cost control measures. As for redundancies, all aircraft flying today have multiple redundancies with their flight control does the MAX. The fact that Beoing failed to have any redundancy with respect to MCAS and the AOA vanes, is a colossal blunder, and not an age related design limitation. PS, the A320 series design dates to the late 1970s...not exactly a modern aircraft design. My point is, modern airframe design hasn't changed all that much since the 1960s(except with the 78u and A350nwithe their carbon fiber fusilages). The 737 airframe is still quite viable in the modern world of aviation...Boeing may have asked it to do too much within the existing design parameters. If you want to argue that point, it's a valid argument.
Chris Habig 3
Boeing could not have added fly-by-wire. The changes required to numerous systems would have resulted in an airframe that could no longer be called a 737, and certainly wouldn't have been certified as a common type. When I speak of 1960s design, I'm speaking about a combination of philosophy and practices. The Airbus 320 series was launched in 1984 as a clean-date design using the most modern technology available at the time. The 737 was launched in 1964, but even then was based on earlier Boeing work dating back to the 1950s and carried forward the limitations associated with that philosophy and technology. So yes, the A320 is a much more modern design than the 737, which really ought to have been retired after the NG in favor of a new clean-sheet design.
John Nichols 0
Basic planform? Not really. Power? Avionics? It is nothing like its fifty year old grandmother. It was done in by the hubris of its outdated management. Boeing falls victim to lacking pilot skills. Colgan. Pull into the Stall. AF 447? Pull into a wild climbing Stall. Schiphol? Who’s is flying the plane? SFO? Six pilots don’t notice what or who is controlling thrust? These are all heavy state of the Art aircraft, plus a Bombardier. Eliminate the less than stellar pilot errors, then get back to me.
Jeffrey Bue 0
Totally agree. Still... I think it would in Boeing's best interest to re-brand the jet.
TWA55 2
Boeing is facing a crises which they may never recover. This business reminds me of the U.S. auto industry in the 70's. And for those of us who were around can well remember how this industry tanked. One only needs to look at Detroit today to see it's affects. There are many factors which have given Boeing it's current state of affairs, a few of which are poor management and labor. And to this day I have seen no change in this trend going back a few decades or more. The plane is a lemon and it will never be the safest acrft in the skies. I have not heard any news which leads me to suspect that anything has been fixed. Every few weeks something new seems to pop up and bite them. Hoping for a political salvation of some sort will not be a fix. I hope the tax payers don't have to throw money at Boeing, we will all have more then a few tax increases to pay for the current situation we find ourselves. They have made their bed, so sleep in it!
Jamar Jackson 8
Let me see them fly for 2 years before I consider boarding a max. Earn my trust back
Having been a Capt on the 737-800 for 17 years I can assure you the airplane is safe. Africa has 2% of the worlds flying and 50% of the worlds accidents. Any American Airlines or other USA trained flight crew can fly the Max without any issues. The 737 max was delivered to AA with a sensor on both the Capts and the First Officers side. Did Boeing screw up delivering the Max to third world countries with only one sensor? Yes they did but the updated version will be extremely safe with good pilots.
TWA55 4
Sorry Captain, we don't just fly in the U.S. and I know that even AAL has pilots who have expressed concerns about this plane. Did you ever fly the Max? This issue goes well beyond censors. As for "good pilots" how would you define this?
darjr26 3
A lot of people are going to be afraid to get on an airplane again due to the corona virus. Bringing back the 737 Max at the same time is going to be a tough sell.
Larry Toler 5
Call it the Corona MAX 19. Perhaps adding 6 foot seat pitch would be proper.
Another reason to not fly AA. They have been the worst to loyal members who had to cancel flights.
john kilcher 1
I never fly American or United. Delta or many international airlines is my mode of travel.
Dana Reimer 2
As a frequent flyer (until the last couple of months), former flight attendant, and daughter and step-daughter of two USAF pilots, I will not be flying the 737 MAX in the future if it can possibly be avoided. I have no interest in being an "early adopter." I agree with Mr. Jackson that the plane will have to earn my trust.
David Craig -1
So by earning your trust you mean if the bird doesnt smash into the ground then you will fly on it? So ask your father and step father how many 737's have crashed to to mechanical error in say the last oh say 25 years...Then tell us you would rather fly on any other airframe...humm37 or higher percentage of a crash humm! Trust me you have it all wrong!
Brent Lee 1
I’ll fly them. No 3rd world airlines or contractors. Pure AA USA only.
Phil Howry 1
Speaking only as a King Air C90B pilot; excluding all the specific cause/effect human "factors" (ground handling/maintenance/training/inflight, etc.) related to the 737 MAX accident and review, has any domestic aircraft received the intense level of design review scrutiny as this one?

Regardless, in light of the deaths caused by our current pandemic and 100s of million tax dollars spent on the budgets of the ("CDC"), ("FDA"), ("NIH") etc., etc., why was America so unprepared for this pandemic? We face larger potential health risks in this country than the 737 MAX.
Randy Marco 2
It's pretty sad given all the information at your fingertips literally that you don't know WHY!

It was trumpf that made this way worse than it needed to be. trumpf didn't listen or follow the NSC's pandemic playbook. And trumpf disbanded the Pandemic Team long ago; further he cut the budgets of most of the science related agencies.

Vote an ignorant conman in... you get ingnorant conman results.
Larry Toler -1
Absolutely agree with you. I see the the analogy between MAX and this. Our president is a corporate thug and he got others' vote. To keep on track with Boeing and the MAX, Boeing is not the only one's to blame. Part of the blame goes to some of these corporate big dog number crunchers who work for airlines whose safety is out the window, but numbers are more important.
Steve Drake 0
You TDS-addled SCUMBAGS are the most pathetic and useless sorts on Earth. There's not a single discussion you will not pollute with your deranged rantings. This is on the ChiComms, you creeps. Not Trump. The ChiComs and the W.H.O. Well, he's going to run away with the election in November, and I am gonna BATHE in your bile-choked misery.
David Craig 0
Funny how everybody forgets that both crashes of the MAX were from inexperienced pilots who were never taught how to fly "stick and rudder" incase of a computer glitch but rather only how to decipher the screens in front of them! One captain had less then 1500hrs and a co-pilot on the other had less then 200 hrs. 200 hours on a bus full of innocent unsuspecting passengers! Shame on that airline! I think your all forgetting that the max had issues with MCAS system around the world yet funny how the US and and other very experienced pilots didn't run their bird into the ground! I live within 3 miles of the 667,777,787,and 747 plant and I know lots of Boeing employees, Unlike some of the young guns, these guys love building not just airplanes but the best and most reliable birds in the sky! Based on what the folks who build the planes say, its not the birds fault! Instead once again it's Pilot error... not to mention NTSB should of had Boeing fix the issues as soon as it completed its investigation after the first crash involving such a new airframe! Do you remember when Jack in Box had issues and was killing people with ecoli? Well right after that claminaty the safest place to eat was in fact Jack in Box! So to will be the safest bird to fly...a 37 MAX, Wouldn't you agree?
That was not pilot error. Training manuals did not include MCAS or how to disable it. Was not included in pilot training. It's easy to second guess their handling, but only a couple hundred feet from the ground does not give more than a few seconds of response time. This one is on Boeing for being greedy.
David Craig 0
Spokesman Paul Bergman said that the relevant functions of the system were "described" in the manual, and that "media reports that we intentionally withheld information about airplane functionality from our customers are simply untrue." Also like I said had the pilots known how to fly old school "stick and rudder" They would have done what was done by US pilots an estimated 355 times prior resulting in zero crashes. Also how was Boeing Greedy? If it was to take more hours of training to fly the bird then that should be on the airlines or included in the aircraft price tag.
Mike Dryden 4
One of Boeing's selling points was that the airlines DIDN'T have to re-rate their pilots. They told the airlines more training (beyond some iPad time) wasn't necessary.
Chris Habig -1
No, I don't agree that the Max will be safer than any other airplane. We'll only know the answer to that question in about thirty years when we have actual statistics. For now I will only agree that it will meet certification standards and be "safe enough". That's all the regulatory agencies ask of any airplane.
CactusDave 3
No certification inspector is going to put their name on a certification approval of this airplane with it's related history on controversy unless they have gone well above and beyond the minimum requirements. Their names will be dragged through the media mercilessly if there is a future problem.
Chris Habig 4
No certification inspector can has the authority to require more than what is required by law.
For all the naysayers about Max Safety, I say get the facts. The aircraft is incredibly safe if operated according to existing emergency procedures. I flew previous versions of the 737 for 22 years. I would fly the Max anywhere, anytime, with or without all these political enhancements.

Know the facts before you incriminate one of the safest aircraft ever built.
David Craig 1
Thank You! Now if we could just get Jamar Jackson to explain why he won't fly for 24 months! How did he derive at such an arbitrary number of months when really all he has to do is ask a pilot such as yourself just how reliable and safe is a max! I haven't seen any pilots in here say they won't fly a MAX and im sure thats because they are well trained and why would you put your own life let along a hundred plus passengers and crew in jeopardy? Im sure as a pilot you have a huge say as to if the MAX is ready to fly cause if its not then pilots wont fly her!
Chris B 1
Its going to be months still until the Max is approved to fly.

Is its too much to hope (please say I'm wrong) that Boeing has been busy designing a replacement that can properly accommodate the ever growing engine size, without needing computers that required MCAS to keep it in the air?
Justthefacs 1
I think the 757 had the clearance for a larger engine. Boeing DCed it.
stratofan -6
Kudos to Mr. Parker for having the backbone to stand up to the haters out there, especially our manure spreading media. They are going out of their way to trash Boeing, and the 737MAX, while ignoring the failures of Airbus airliners over the years. Ever fly on any of the A320 series airliners? Do not sit in the back, or in the tail section. It is as uneasy a feeling as the back seat of a Sedan DeVille. All over the place!
mariofer 9
What does the feeling of "being all over the place" sitting on the back has to do with the airplane safety? Do you call a boat unsafe because you get seasick? Every aircraft gives you that feeling the further to the back you sit. No plane flies true and straight, it moves around and oscillates, because air is not a static uniform body, it moves, it varies in density and pressure. That is why is called a fluid. As the airplane moves around in that fluid, the further you are from the fulcrum of the aircraft, the more oscillations you feel. It is called physics.
Robert Cowling -2
I hope you remember that if you find yourself on one as it's heading for an 'unscheduled landing'.

I sure wouldn't want to be the next person on an Alaska DC-9 after their famous crash in the Pacific. Alaska eventually dumped their t-tails completely.

Boeing would do themselves a great deal if they renamed the plane to something else. The majority of the sheeple won't care what they fly in, they are concerned with the price, but I'm not so callous with my life, and that of my family.
No they shouldn’t rename it because then people would say “you are trying to hide it, you are trying to fool us”. You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
john kilcher 1
I for one, would care, but there are many out there who wouldn't, I agree.
Larry Toler 0
As a former flight attendant, I still remember in my drills in training BRACE BRACE BRACE BEND OVER STAY DOWN OVER STAY DOWN! That was about as fun going through MOPP levels during NBC training while in the USAF.
Horrible decision on a deadly airplane by a greedy ass company going down the toilet
Frank Zackary 0
Take a look at the Airbus fly by wire morality rate. You can view a mess of them on You Tube.
v ag -8
it's very simple, isn't it: You fly the 737 Max, I don't.

What has your comment on Airbus got to do with anything. Seems one more instance of "if you're not my friend, you're my enemy". By golly, what has the present administration done to your country ...
Lois Lettini -1
There isn't enough time in both of our lives to list all of them.
v ag 1
... just one will do!
He isnt an A&P mechanic what does he know about the max only that he is rich and it will make him richer.
Janet Roberson -5
Guess I won't be flying on American. Too risky.
patrick baker -1
737max back flying: safest aircraft flying; not necessarily. The 787 and the airbus 350 have nowhere the accumulated bad news ... The max ought to be viewed, in my opinion, as less than trustworthy, due to the structural flaws still present in the FAA and the corporate culture still present in Boeing. Both will be culpable if and when another max crashes. Plenty of blame to go around. Are we to believe that the hundreds of maxes out there in Asia and other havens of lesser qualified airline pilots, will be as competently flown as say American, United or Southwest pilots have and will fly their Max Boeing Bucking Broncos....
John Nichols 0
Nope. The Dreamliner was grounded by the incidents involving a defective safety system, battery driven. Yuasa.. Grounded. The MAX has a serviceable trim system, done in by poor piloting and a ridiculous sole source AOA. The Max is taking the heat for sloppy certification work and FAA embarrassment for farming out certification to....the builder!
tom manna -2
What an idiot
Bryan Morgan -3
mr Drake you are an idiot, but the new rule passed by Congress should help. You have to take an IQ test to vote and rank 10 points above a moron, that should take care of you and most of the Trumpers


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.