Rename Boeing’s 737 MAX? Airlines Already Aren’t Using ‘MAX’ Prominently
A 737 MAX was seen last week with the identification markings on its nose saying only “737-8” with no mention of “MAX,” prompting brief speculation if Boeing, having fired CEO Dennis Muilenburg, would next catch up with public opinion by doing away with the MAX name associated with two crashes that killed 346 people, prompted the jet’s worldwide grounding, and set off a corporate crisis for Boeing.
Even President Trump has weighed in on the MAX name: “If I were Boeing, I would FIX the Boeing 737 MAX, add some additional great features, & REBRAND the plane with a new name,” he Tweeted in April. Boeing’s then-CFO and now interim CEO Greg Smith said in June Boeing did not have plans to rename the MAX but was open-minded.
Yet the recent speculation was unfounded. The aircraft in question was from Xiamen Airlines, which has not applied “MAX” markings since taking delivery of its inaugural MAX in May 2018, a half year before the first MAX crash.
Of the 54 airlines that have 737 MAXs identifiably painted, only 11 airlines consistently write “MAX” on the aircraft’s nose, likely the most obvious physical indicator to passengers if their 737 is a MAX. A further 26 airlines put “MAX” only at the aircraft’s rear while 13 airlines have no markings mentioning the aircraft type at all. Three airlines say 737-8 without mentioning MAX, while Ryanair has inconsistent practices.
There is no standard for how to mark aircraft. US airlines sometimes indicate “MAX” on the nose landing gear door along with other identification information, but they do not have prominent “MAX” markings on the forward or rear fuselage. This includes Southwest, which with 310 MAX orders is the second-largest airline customer after Lion Air. The third-largest customer, flydubai from the United Arab Emirates, also does not have any markings. Air Canada writes “Boeing 737 MAX 8” on the rear while compatriot WestJet writes only “737-8”. All took delivery of their first MAX before the initial crash.
In the case of Xiamen, while it says “737-8” on the nose, its majority owner China Southern Airlines uses no markings on the nose, instead writing near the tail “Boeing 737-8” without mentioning “MAX”. The first MAX to Panama’s Copa Airlines has a large “MAX 9” on the rear of the aircraft.
Boeing 737 MAX 8
Like most operators, Shanghai Airlines does not feature the aircraft type on the forward part of the aircraft
Boeing does not show signs of changing the MAX name. When it rolled out the -10 variant in late November, “MAX” was still adorned on the nose. Boeing extensively used the MAX name in a presentation this month to airlines about how to re-build confidence in the aircraft type, as first reported by the New York Times.
One presentation slide writes “the MAX” over a dozen times with only one citation of “737 MAX,” which was in reference to a new Boeing website, 737MAXupdates.com.
For those looking if airlines will drop the “MAX” name, there is the curious case of Ryanair, whose MAX 8 200 variants have been seen with “737 MAX,” “737-8200,” as well as no markings.
So with most airlines never having “MAX” in a clearly visible part of the aircraft to begin with, does the name matter? There are arguments the name could be visible elsewhere, like the safety card. Southwest Airlines inadvertently confused some passengers early in the MAX’s grounding because Southwest’s safety card for its 737-800s also mentioned it was applicable to the MAX since the two variants share features.
The MAX name could also be visible in the booking process. While Southwest and United Airlines plan to make aircraft type clear to passengers during the booking process, will customers of Ryanair, Europe’s largest MAX customer, know their aircraft type in advance? “The answer is that you won’t,” CEO Michael O’Leary told Flightglobal. “We do our aircraft allocations on a nightly basis. You’re booking your ticket six, eight weeks in advance.”
Besides being told during booking or by aircraft livery if the 737 is a MAX, there are physical differences, such as the MAX’s engine cowlings having chevrons, unlike earlier 737s. But such differences could be harder for the general public to distinguish.
O’Leary expects passenger confidence in the MAX to quickly return once the aircraft is flying. He draws a comparison to the 2013 grounding of the 787 due to battery problems, although they were non-fatal. “While they replaced the batteries, there was concern about customer sentiment. Customers got over it about a week after the plane was back flying,” he said.
Boeing changing the “MAX” name could backfire since a rebranding would draw more attention to the MAX’s history and imply Boeing needs the public to forget the MAX’s history. Instead, Boeing’s return to service plan appears focused on instilling confidence by communicating what it has changed on the MAX since the two crashes.
“I feel a very large commitment to the flying public to ensure that we prevent accidents like this from ever happening again,” Boeing chief pilot Craig Bomben said in a video testimonial. “We’re going to figure out how to make not only our products but the industry safer going forward.”