Airlines in a Crisis

The preliminary accident investigation report has come up with a picture taken after closing the plug door that afterwards departed from a Alaska 737 MAx 9 in the air. It shows it being held down by a a cable tie. THere is speculation that this would be enough to stop the door from sliding up and being able to eject for a number of flights sine there woud be litle presure on it as oon as the plane takes off and outside air pressure locks it onto its stopping pads. It could also be that the cable tie held the bag of roller stopper bolts that was to be installed by a later shift but that the last part never happened. There is a case for ripping out the floor of that particular Alaska 737 Max9 and see if anything that the investigation has so far not found have slipped down along the wall and is now laying in a hidden area that can't be checked otherwise.  Another worrying picture is of a stopper bolt installed but with 2 washers. This is proably so the castelated nut can lign up with

The rescue plan leeks seem to be pretty consistant on that the future of Norwegian will contain shorthaul within  and to/from the Scandinavian market. Question is what about 787 LH. Norwegian seem to historically have used a small profit margin created from its original and core business of the domestic and Scandinavian plus sun hollidays for same market, to subsidise an expansion into transcontinental including transatlantic flights. Without the latter beeing documented as anything else than a loss making business. Resulting in the whole company using a lot of red ink for its accounts. There is a possibility for LH low fares business but one have to have the discipline for low cost operations that must go with it. The 787 proved a problematic choice for the company and maybe now one of the never narrowbody planes with la larger range would be a better option. Partially because the Scandinavian to sample US market is very small even from the capital cities, and most routes gain by havi

Soon the Boeing 737 ExMax will be approved for transporting passengers also in Europe, the plane will have got the necessary updates and the airlines will trained their crew. Then comes the question on how to get it back in the air without upsetting to many customers.  Airlines like Ryanair that have high frequency routes like Dublin-London or Norwegian's Oslo-Trondheim can put 1 into a roster of 3-4 aircrafts on the routes and offer anyone nervous to change to a later departure free of charge. Potentially put off by a long queue and without knowing exactly when that departure is some will change their mind. Others will after changing not think its worth the hassle the next time, or the next after that. To minimise agro this should be offered by a single customer service agent at every Max departure so the customer see its available there and then and don't have to return to sample departure hall and do security again. The added bonus is that when people change flight by person

The language in their lawsuit against Boeing in connection with their termination of the contracts for ExMax and Dreampliner deliveries is not sparing the expetives. A company in such a precarius position should be more careful when it comes to handling its in reality only supplier that it for a good while into the future still will be dependant on for the maintenance and value of its entire existing fleet. Could it be that top management of Norwegian do not really know what it entails to change from Boeing to Airbus, or the risk of going Chinese or Russian. After all they are lacking indepth airline experience between them, coming more from a finance and retail background. The pilot retraining and dual engineering maintenance and double parts storge costs alone would stop the company from being a Low Cost. And a Low Fares airline without corresponding Low Costs will be a loss making business no matter how many routes you cut or how much you shrink, or how many extra candybars you s