A general thought about the Boeing situation and flight costs

That type of plane is a small percentage of the entire fleets of the affected airlines (less than 5% of Southwest's fleet, for example - although that's not to suggest that it won't be "pain free" on their bottom line). I would not draw any big inferences from this until it all shakes out ("lock in soon"? "airfare costs are not going down"? ... Costs go up and down constantly just like they always have, irrespective of this recent debacle). The affected carriers will readjust and substitute other planes for the grounded ones. Every change like this will reset to a new equilibrium. One aspect that was brought up by an NPR segment was that if FAA changes policy to bring the inspections in-house (the ones that have been outsourced to industry), then it's not unreasonable to assume that there will be some mandated fee on every airline ticket to pay for that shift (just like the 9/11 fee which is still there after all these years).

There are relatively few Max 737's in use at the present time, and most European flights are going out of NYC and Boston to Dublin and the western end of Europe.
The airlines will be making minor adjustments to their schedules, and the lack of the Max 737's will be absorbed. Unfortunately the present 737 fleet doesn't have the range to takeover the Max 737 transatlantic routes.
But with an order bank of 5000 planes, Boeing has vested interests in solving the problems and doing a better job of communications. The Max line of 737's will eventually go on to be one of the premier aircraft of all times.
We flew them Dublin to Boston on Norwegian AIr Shuttle last may, and found the plane to be really nice and quiet. I did miss the incredible television/audio system of the 787, however.

I understand that the 727 MAX operating range limits flights to US East Coast to Europe. Air Distance from New York to London is 5,585 kilometers (3,470 miles). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX

The 737 MAX series has been offered in four variants, typically
offering 138 to 230 seats and a 3,215 to 3,825 nmi (5,954 to 7,084 km)
range.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/283437/what-routes-does-the-boeing-737-max-8-fly/
For example:

Norwegian 747 MAX routes: AGA-HEL (2), AGP-HEL (8), ALC-HEL (4),
AMS-HEL (4), ARN-CPH (6), ARN-HEL (22), ARN-VNO (4), BUD-OSL (2),
CPH-HEL (10), DUB-HEL (4), DUB-PVD (14), DUB-SWF (14), EDI-OSL (8),
EDI-SWF (8), GDN-HEL (4), HEL-IVL (4), HEL-KRK (8), HEL-KTT (4),
HEL-LGW (16), HEL-LPA (14), HEL-OSL (24), HEL-OUL (16), HEL-PRG (4),
HEL-RVN (16), HEL-SZG (2), HEL-TFS (6), OSL-WAW (10)

Norwegian Air Shuttle 747 MAX routes: ACE-OSL (2), AGP-OSL (4),
ALC-ARN (2), ALC-OSL (2), ARN-BUD (4), ARN-CPH (4), ARN-DXB (14),
ARN-HEL (4), ARN-KRK (2), ARN-LIS (2), ARN-LPA (12), ARN-MAN (2),
ARN-MUC (2), ARN-ORY (2), ARN-OSL (8), ARN-RAK (2), ARN-RIX (2),
ARN-TFS (2), ARN-TLV (2), ARN-VNO (4), AYT-OSL (4), BEG-OSL (2),
BGO-OSL (4), BOO-LPA (2), BOO-OSL (2), CDG-OSL (12), CPH-DXB (4),
CPH-OSL (4), DXB-OSL (10), EVE-LPA (2), FNC-OSL (2), HAU-OSL (2),
LGW-OSL (2), LPA-OSL (16), MXP-OSL (2), NCE-OSL (4), OSL-RAK (2),
OSL-TFS (2), OSL-TLL (2), OSL-TLV (4), OSL-TRD (2), OSL-VIE (2)

Icelandic: ARN-KEF (4), BRU-KEF (4), CDG-KEF (6), DUB-KEF (2),
EWR-KEF (6), GLA-KEF (8), HEL-KEF (2), KEF-LGW (8), KEF-LHR (12),
KEF-OSL (2), KEF-TXL (8)

There are a finite number of planes, and reducing the planes by 5% will cause a restriction in capacity. It's not important that these cannot do Den-Lon. Some planes that do the overseas routes will be diverted to fill the slots domestically.

This is causing some kind of restriction in capacity. Cheaper fares may be less frequent. I'd buy sooner rather than later.

It could also give an opportunity to Airbus to push their 320neo line. It can also fly U.S. east coast to Europe.

Buying a new jetliner and getting it in to service is not something that can be accomplished quickly. Both Boeing and Airbus typically have a long backlog (years) between placing an order and taking delivery (and then it takes yet more time to get a plane in service). Don't hold your breath expecting airlines to drop their 373Maxes and spin up a bunch of different planes.

There is a lot we don't know yet (like the actual cause of the recent accident -- it may or may not be linked to the previous accident in Indonesia). Plenty of speculation abounds (most of it uninformed).

My own uninformed speculation is that when the root cause of the most recent accident is identified, the fix for it will be a combination of a software update for the autopilot system, and improved pilot training. Once probable cause is established, both software and training updates can be rolled out fairly quickly (I'd define "fairly quickly" as some number of months...more than a couple, but less than six). My guess is that most 737Max aircraft will probably be flying again sometime this summer.

There are now rumblings and questions around wider certification processes, with some shocked to discover that manufacturers have a major role in certifying their own systems. Changing that significantly would require a sea-change in some very, very large and expensive things, and regardless of whether the practices are right or wrong, I do not think many would have the stomach to replace the current certification systems with one that is independent of the manufacturers (doing so would require setting up a huge, staggeringly expensive system and seems quite unrealistic to me). All my flights through next January are already booked, but I tend to book 11 months ahead anyway.

I tend to agree that prices for air fares are probably not going to trend downward, at least for a while (unless the wider economy tanks). But there are so many factors in the mix, future prices not easily predicted.

As someone with a mother who was going to fly from Nova Scotia to London in 2 weeks time - with Air Canada on a Max 8 - they have cancelled the direct flights from Halifax and St John's until July 1, for now. So I had to reroute her thru Montreal, which isn't ideal, as she's a nervous flyer - in the sense that she is nervous about navigating a larger airport that she's unfamiliar with. I contacted them via Twitter and they were great - even giving me set seats for her even tho I'd only purchased the advanced seat for one leg of the trip.

But I think she's lucky she's going in April - once travel season really heats up, it'll be more of a pain.

So far only 376 planes have been delivered, so it should be possible for airlines to adjust their schedules, but flights will be cancelled. If you want to be on the safe side, fly with airlines that don't have the 737 Max.

Considering how Boeing has acted it is hard to tell how things will work out. It seems that the two crashes are related, and that Boeing has worked on a software fix since the Indonesian crash but without telling the airlines about it. Sure, grounding the planes wouldn't have been good for sales, but at least it wouldn't have been as bad as having a 2nd plane crash under similar circumstances. And then continuing to claim that the plane is safe, until all relevant authorities have grounded the plane.

Boeing has stated that they will have a software fix available in 10 days, but even if that is true the certification will probably take months. And both EASA and Transport Canada has stated that they do not trust FAA's judgement on the matter and will not recertify the plane without doing their own investigation. Afterall, EASA had some doubts about the the MCAS system but in the end accepted FAA's judgement. But the main problem is that Boeing built an aircraft that is unstable in some situations, and tried to fix it with software.

Badger: You are probably correct. There is one important consideration. Apparently Boeing had an important component of the planes which might have helped the pilots avoid crashing, which they charged extra for. Now they are offering this for free. Charging extra for a safety feature seems to be morally dubious, if not actively wrong.

Dubious indeed. It also seems like Boeing didn't want to build the Max in the first place, and when Airbus launched the A320neo their marketing department claimed that it still wasn't as good as the 737NG (which, after all, is the marketing department's job). But after realizing that the A320neo was selling a lot better, they had to upgrade the 737 and launched 737 Max. Which was harder for Boeing as the 737 is an older plane than the A320.

You can’t have a solution until you know what the problem is.

I've been seeing it as an issue for American carriers with their domestic flights more than an international issue. The only "international" flight I've taken on a 737 was on an Air Force T-43 from California to Hickam AFB, HI, back in the 80's, and we could only go under certain wind conditions. The range has improved but none of my international flights have been on a 737.

I haven't taken a ton of hops in Europe. The ones I have taken have all been on Airbus planes (likely because they are subsidized by European taxpayers).

You can’t have a solution until you know what the problem is.

Not any more, jaimeelsabio. Nowadays, with the advent of social media and "alternate facts" we have self-appointed technical experts demanding what must be done NOW, never mind waiting to determine, you know, what actually happened. Fact-based solutions like the NTSB used to come up with are so old-school.

You can’t have a solution until you know what the problem is.

True, and we still don't know for sure what the problem is. But, the available evidence so far points towards the MCAS system being responsible for both crashes. Still, new evidence might turn up that points in another direction.

(And no, the A320 is not subsidised by tax payers, it is a very profitable aircraft for Airbus.)

Another incident with a Max-8 yesterday. A Southwest plane going to storage had to make an emergency landing when the plane went Urpppp!

but that emergency was due to an engine issue which has nothing to do w the software/MCAS issue