LETTERS
flightglobal.com 3-9 March 2020 | Flight International | 39
REGULATIONGrandfather approval in focus
Boeing’s oversight of the 737 Max development has come un-
der much scrutiny, as your article “Max messages paint ‘deeply
disturbing’ picture at Boeing” (Flight International, 21-27
January) shows. Significantly, this crisis has thrown a spotlight
on “grandfathered” certification of derivative aircraft – the 737
Max being a derivative of the 737-100 as certificated by the US
Federal Aviation Administration in 1967.
I am not an aviation expert but an enthusiast. However, I
have considerable experience of risk assessment and am con-
cerned Boeing now appears to be going through a similar
process for “grandfather” approval for the 777X family, when
this aircraft is nothing like the original 777-200 approved in
April 1995.
Martin Wren
Weaverham, Cheshire, UKBoeing a victim
of own success
Essential fixture
I write concerning your
article: “Drink spills trigger
A350 powerdowns” (Flight
International, 4-10 February).
Going back many years,
I recall a very important local
modification on our fleet was
the fitting of cup holders.
It now no longer seems to have
been so trivial.
David Dickinson
Sketty, Swansea, UKPayer power
Regarding the article “Airbus
bribery was at ‘endemic’ levels
(Flight International, 11-17
February), bribery might be
reduced by making it legal to pay
a bribe but illegal to receive one.
This would put the receiver
forever in the power of the
payer, a frightening prospect
– unless the receiver is in a
different country, one where
bribery is customary and not
punished.
Charles McCutchen
Via emailComparing data
Further to your comment “In a
spin” (Flight International, 4-10
February), highlighting the safety
record of the helicopter industry.
While there are no doubt many
ancillary reasons for this, one
would do well to remember that
many of these operations make
use of a single commercial pilot,
a form of cost saving that many
commercial airlines would love
to adopt.
It would indeed be interesting
to compare the safety records
of the single pilot versus the
two-pilot helicopter operations,
if that data exists.
Paul Burch,
Farnham, Surrey, UKEvery innovative business has
to know when to stop listening
to its customers – and Boeing
arguably listened just a little
too hard to the mantra of type
commonality in the face of
common sense.
In the 1980s Boeing
introduced the 757 as a new
clean-sheet aircraft, more than
capable of replacing the 737,
which had entered its third itera-
tion around the same time.
The option of cross training
pilots on the 757/767 combi-
nation with innovative glass
cockpits offered an excellent
entry for Boeing into the mid-
market.
Shrinking the 757 clearly
competed with the top end of the
737, which has in turn grown to
subsume its longer-range cousin.
In hindsight, clinging on to
the 737 architecture, seen from
outside as a superannuated 707,
could have been a mistake.
Yet all along, Boeing had the
basis of a mid-market single-aisle
airframe in the 757: a joy to fly
in, from the passenger’s point
of view, based on a different set
of architectural assumptions,
and designed for fly-by-software
operations. A re-engined 757
would indeed by now have been
garnering all those orders being
gathered by the Airbus A321
long-range option.
Boeing’s mid-market offer-
ing was the 757/767 pairing,
delightfully straddling the
single-/twin-aisle debate and
giving airlines considerable
flexibility in how they could
divvy up their routes depending
on freight and passenger demand.
Both aircraft would have
easily competed with the Airbus
Neo family and bridged the gapnicely. Boeing appears to have
forgotten a number of market-
ing tenets: second to market
has all the advantages, better
to be late than wrong, better to
build a prettier mousetrap and
the customer is always right- yesterday.
Boeing could now waste its
last 7X7 slot on an aircraft that
should be the 757 Max. So why
not leave the 797 appellation
for either some successor to the
777 or, more rightfully, for an
entry-level clean-sheet aircraft
to compete with the A220?
Alan Gillott
via email
Updated 777-9 is substantially
different to original big-twinBoeingWe welcome your letters on any
aspect of the aerospace industry.
Please write to:
The Editor, Flight International,
1st Floor, Chancery House,
St Nicholas Way, Sutton,
Surrey, SM1 1JB, UK
Or email:
[email protected]
The opinions on this page do not
necessarily represent those of the editor.
Letters without a full postal address sup-
plied may not be published. Letters may
also be published on flightglobal.com
and must be no longer than 250 words.The Pilot Survey 2020 Report
Download your copy of The Pilot Survey 2020ÀiÃÕÌÃÌw`
out how the ever changing aviation industry is affecting pilotsYYYƃKIJVINQDCNEQOVJGRKNQVUWTXG[
In partnership with