> For instance, Mr. Ewbank cited gaps in
the “Changed Product Rule” which allowed FAA to certify the 737 MAX according
to dated airworthiness standards, like those for flight crew alerting systems.
So this is why there exist Boeing 737 Classic, Boeing 737 Next Generation, and Boeing 737 MAX. Avoid the need to redesign, in spite of changing regulation.
The Boeing 737 first launched in 1967. It is preposterous to use 1967 standards, after discovering through bloodshed more about what is dangerous and what is not.
Actually Boeing did design a newer twin-engine narrowbody plane - the 757, which launched in 1982. But (for reasons I'm not entirely sure of) it was never as successful as the 737. As Wikipedia says, already in the planning phase "the shorter 757-100 did not receive any orders and was dropped; 737s later fulfilled its envisioned role" - I guess the 757 was more expensive to operate, and airlines already operating the 737 didn't want a mixed fleet? So after the airline industry downturn caused by 9/11, Boeing decided to discontinue the 757 and go on with the 737. But I wouldn't put the blame only on Boeing, its customers had the choice and chose the cheaper 737...
I read that the low ground-clearance of the 737 was really popular since it allowed easier/manual luggage loading at smaller airports. I suspect their existing stock of spare parts would also favour a refresh of the existing model compared to a new one?
And training. Training is massively expensive. You gotta train pilots, crew, mechanics, baggage handlers, etc, etc.
The more situations in which you can say "the new one is just like the old one you know" the better.
Part of the reason pilots weren't initially properly trained on the MAX8 was because Boeing and the customers were winking and nodding at each other and trying to perpetuate the farce that the new plane was the same as the old plane and giving the pilots minimal training was part of that. If everybody knew how the new MCAS system worked there would likely have not been any crashes but that couldn't happen because it would have created a paper trail that indicated the MAX8 was pushing the limit of what was allowed under the old FAA cert.
It's not that 1967 design is unsafe, nor that the MAX design is unsafe.
The problem is that 737 pilots were allowed to fly MAX max without recertification. A recert would cost a lot for the airlines, so Boeing pushed the idea that MAX is a drop-in replacement for the vanilla 737.
The whole idea was to make a more efficient version of the 737 with no substantial changes in flight characteristics. As it turns out, the change in behaviour is substantial.
The foul play is Boeing pushing the regulatory agency in the US around, and the agency succumbing to it.
I think it is reasonable, until shown otherwise with a new type certification, to presume the MAX design of larger fans pushed forward is unsafe. Flight characteristcs are different, though currently covered up by software.
So this is why there exist Boeing 737 Classic, Boeing 737 Next Generation, and Boeing 737 MAX. Avoid the need to redesign, in spite of changing regulation.
The Boeing 737 first launched in 1967. It is preposterous to use 1967 standards, after discovering through bloodshed more about what is dangerous and what is not.