Hold on a minute. Though the 737 MAX issues were caused by the desire to keep the same type rating, making the 737 MAX have a new type rating at this point won't solve the issue.

The 737 MAX needed to retain the unusual fuselage design of the 737 to retain the type rating, leading to the unusual positioning of the new, larger engines, leading to MCAS.

Even if they gave the 737 MAX a new type rating at this point, the fuselage would still be the same shape as a 737 with the engine positioning driving the need for MCAS.

The only way to get rid of the need for MCAS at this point, AFAICT, would be to create a new fuselage which doesn't inherit the historical baggage of the 737 (which was designed to support airstairs). That would be a whole new plane, not just a new rating. The 737 MAXes built so far would be scrap.

It's been remarked before, but if Boeing hadn't been so determined to keep the same type rating, reviving the 757 might have made more sense.

As simion314 said, a new type rating likely means it has to be certified from the ground up. It also means pilots need a full training regimen, a new type rating and will allow/require Boeing to fully train pilots in all of its systems and failure modes. All in all IF what others are saying that the plane is not inherently unsafe but does fly differently, this will mean pilots will at least be properly familiar and trained.

It may still have issues hence the “wait a few years” in my response.

Most jets have their quirks. I recall many 727 pilots telling me they put nose down pressure just before or at touchdown to make the plane land more nicely due to the relative location of center of lift and landing gear. Not something i usually do when flying a tricycle gear plane...

A new type rating will mean that the plane gets the worst of two worlds. Instead of saving a type rating yet delivering a paritally-modern aircraft, Boeing is requiring a type rating yet delivering a paritally-legacy aircraft.

I'm not sure where the quirks bit comes in. Sure, all planes have their quirks but obviously taildraggers don't intentionally squat their props _closer_ to the pavement on landing. There's no danger of a prop strike on a jet-powered airliner, so reducing nose bounce with some elevator is not a problem. That's not a quirk.

I agree that a new type rating is not a good thing for Boeing or its customers. But it may be the best and right thing for pilots and passengers, which is what the Governments of the world should care about.

Secondly, landing a taildragger on its wheels does involve a distinct “push the nose forward” on touchdown to keep the plane on the ground. Takes a bit of practice to get used to it. Even more fun is landing on just one wheel in a strong crosswind. Consider that if you don’t push the nose forward the tail will naturally sink (as it is still going down when the main gear hits the ground). This will increase the angle of attack causing the plane to take off again. Hence why we land on the wheels this way. (Or do a three point landing...)

Thank you for the insight about landings. I am not a pilot but rather just think myself a knowledgeable enthusiast... Just enough to talk mumbo-jumbo.

I had never considered that aspect of increasing angle of attack on bringing the rear wheel down. Considering that and the fact that there is no rotation on takeoff, what is the appeal of a taildragger? I've even seen 152's converted to taildragger. Why would one do that? Do taildraggers have any advantage that I cannot fathom?

At least you get pilots trained witht he proper manuals and simulators and also add the extra buttons needed like a button to turn off MCAS that you can't add now because you need to create new manuals and simulators and retrain pilots.

> It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets.

is it? I've never noticed it.

I guess it's possible to infer it by the seat configuration when you get to choose it, but I never saw "you'll be flying XYZ" when I booked tickets in the past.

seatguru.com is your friend.

Note, though, that planes can be swaped on short notice, or no notice at all.

Might depend on which airline you are using. I've always been able to find out which aircraft it was. But, it's not always _super visible_.

Just find out the flight number (which you can see once you select the flight) and search for it by date and time.

I'd agree with you... but on some routes (note I'm in Europe) there is only one carrier, and only 1-2 flights per day. So that choice could mean the difference between flying and not flying. With such stark choices, I suspect convenience and/or necessity would win out quite quickly.

> It is easy to see the scheduled type of aircraft when you book tickets

That's as maybe, but is far from guaranteed to remain as-is - and how many people maintain an ExpertFlyer membership and enter their itinerary for aircraft change alerts? Unless a seat changes†, IME most airlines don't proactively send out change alerts to passengers already booked when one aircraft is swapped for another. Furthermore I would sincerely doubt anyone's ability to extract a refund because the airline changed to a plane they weren't willing to board.

† and even then it isn't guaranteed, and rarely do I notice the alerts highlighting the reason being an aircraft change

Avoid airlines with 737-maxes on their list (unless the airline is clear they've grounded them)

it's possible a last minute wet-lease could put you on a max, but it's unlikely.

> I will not fly the 737 MAX unless and until it has its own type certificate

then you will never be able to fly one. It cannot get its own type certificate.

First off, sure it could go through certification de novo to get its own type certificate. Does not mean Boeing will do that (it is antithetical to their purpose with the aircraft).

I am happy not flying on it as a 737-typed aircraft.

A new type certificate cannot use grandfather rights. The 737 max would not qualify for one by current standards.