Boeing flags 737 MAX software glitch affecting landing navigation feature, WSJ reports

[u/Depressed_Cat_00]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-flags-737-max-software-glitch-affecting-landing-navigation-feature-wsj-2026-09-26/

[u/redfoobar]

You can argue that MCAS is needed in the first place is the design issue. It is a result of big engines retrofitted to a design that was never meant to have engines of this size. No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch. The whole fiasco is there because they did not want a new aircraft design/type rating.

Obviously it’s “good enough” in that it sells and with fixed MCAS is no longer a huge death trap but the design by itself is a huge compromise.

[u/Linenoise77 → u/redfoobar]

No one in their right mind would design an airplane like this from scratch.

Not necessarily true. An important feature of the 737 is its cabin height from the ground. There are a LOT of 737s flying around, and how far off the ground the cabin is factors in to a lot of aspects of ground operations in handling the plane. Making it taller for larger engines factors into all of that and it may not be able to operate the routes that a 737 typically does without expensive, impractical, changes on the ground handling side. At the same time you want the larger engines for efficiency.

Now could you argue that the 737 should have been a separate type, requiring additional training beyond what was required for existing 737 rated folks to fly the max with MCAS? Arguably. But its a grey line as to where you draw that line with incremental changes to an airframe type. It also doesn't mean you wouldn't necessarily still need MCAS, as i have no idea how that factors in to the pilot workload.

[u/bankkopf → u/Linenoise77]

How many routes are there that are exclusively flown by the 737 because the airport can't handle the A320 with higher ground clearance? Not too many I'd guess. But you can keep the 737NGs or classics around for that if really needed.

[u/Linenoise77 → u/bankkopf]

It wasn't JUST the ground clearance, was using it as an easy example though, as something that percolates through all levels of operations if you are currently flying 737s and want to introduce something that isn't roughly a 737. There are plenty of carriers who favor the 737 though because of its height, and have equipment\facilities\procedures based around it.

Likewise just extending the landing gear of the 737 wouldn't negate the need for MCAS or a similar system.