6 ms·

So I draw two conclusions from this clusterF of astronomical proportions: 1. The A320neo really caught Boeing off guard. The 737 MAX was a panicked reaction to

by cletus 8y ago

So I draw two conclusions from this clusterF of astronomical proportions: 1. The A320neo really caught Boeing off guard. The 737 MAX was a panicked reaction to something that they thought would threaten their business to a significant degree. The A320neo and A320 have a common type rating too. Googling seems to suggest the differences are fairly minor however. I guess Airbus benefits in the A320 being a newer airframe than the 737 (which is ~50 years old now)? 2. Somewhere along the line this is a management failure of gigantic proportions. That management would risk Boeing's reputation on something that, in hindsight, is so incredibly foolish is mind-blowing. And the buck stops with the CEO. If this ends with anything less than the CEO deciding to spend more time with his family it's a joke. And whoever replaces him should clean house with anyone remotely responsible for this. This isn't unprecedented either. Through this fiasco I came to learn about the 1990s 737 rudder issue [1] and it's scary how similar the reaction is. "The planes are fine". "There is no issue". You know, until there is. I expect the only thing stopping a lot of airlines from cancelling their 737 MAX orders and buying A320neos instead is at this point they'd probably have to get in the back of the line and wait years. They really have no choice but to stick with the 737 MAX now. Actually I guess airlines like Southwest (who are 100% 737 IIRC) are kind of stuck anyway. It's the likes of American Airlines who has such a large and diverse fleet that really bet on the wrong horse. I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan and at what point warnings were given and ignored. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

dahart 8y ago
> I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan... There are multiple lawsuits against Boeing going already, but don’t forget the FAA signed off on the plan, and some time ago formally adopted a policy of trust whatever the airlines say without checking carefully. Why even have a federal regulatory agency for air safety if they’re not going to independently scrutinize what the airlines do?
- briandear 8y ago
  No 737s crashed in the US, so why would the FAA be on the hook for anything? Shouldn’t the civil aviation authorities in Ethiopia and Indonesia be the ones “in trouble?”
  - jlawer 8y ago
    Free Trade is the answer. Most national civil aviation organisations defer to the aviation authority of the country where the manufacturer is based. So FAA is trusted/expected to maintain the standards for Boeing. The last thing Boeing or Airbus wants is to have to prove their aircraft for every country in the world.
  - dahart 8y ago
    The FAA is supposed to catch problems before the crashes, not after them. It's pure luck that a 737 Max didn't crash in the US, that doesn't in any way absolve the FAA of it's charter and responsibility to check Boeing's activity and it's failure to assess the risk of the 737 Max. Our FAA did put US citizens at risk when it approved the 737 Max, so the FAA is on the hook absolutely. Your point about Ethiopia's and Indonesia's agencies (and airlines) is reasonable, they ought to do their own due diligence on the aircraft that they use & allow on their turf. Smaller countries and agencies with fewer resources than us have tended to trust our FAA and the aircraft manufacturers to assess these risks. In that sense, the FAA's failure to regulate the Max and it's policy of outsourcing regulations to the manufacturers themselves is (rightly so) truly embarrassing for the FAA, is resulting in loss of trust of the US FAA globally, and maybe on the bright side is going to cause all other countries to start doing more of their own due diligence.
nerdbaggy 8y ago
If the airlines switch from 737 to A320neo then all the 737 pilots would have to be trained on the new plane which would cost the airlines big $$$
- yaur 8y ago
  Is it really possible for Boeing to fix this problem with out making changes that will require pilots to recertify anyway? If not then it seems like the training costs are a wash.
  - kozak 8y ago
    Add a third AoA sensor.
    - yaur 8y ago
      My understanding from what I’ve read elsewhere is that changing the AoA sensor from non-safety critical to safety critical is enough for it to be considered a new type of aircraft. This makes sense as you would expect pilots and crew to be trained on how to interpret all safety critical instruments.
    - lukewrites 8y ago
      If Boeing were to hire me to consult on this project, I'd suggest that they just go directly to five blades and/or make changes to instruments so they can be dialed to 11.
- travisjungroth 8y ago
  Southwest has ~10k pilots. At $20k type rating per pilot, that’s $200mil. An A320neo is $110mil. So, a big cost but not the biggest.
  - cmurf 8y ago
    There are on-going costs of maintaining each type rating, so it isn't a one time cost. Also, you'd want most or perhaps all the pilots maintaining both type ratings, so they can still be matched with any 737.
djcapelis 8y ago
> The A320neo and A320 have a common type rating too. > Googling seems to suggest the differences are fairly minor however. > I guess Airbus benefits in the A320 being a newer airframe than the 737 (which is ~50 years old now)? The 737 is uniquely low to the ground among modern aircraft. (This was an advantage at airports without jetways high off the ground a long time ago.) Which means for every other model there’s plenty of space for new larger style engines under almost all of the existing planes. This makes airbus’s neo programs comparatively simple and reasonable for keeping the same type rating. The 737 doesn’t have the space, so they moved the engine location and came up with the MCAS as a workaround. It was clever, but unfortunately, too clever.
- ulfw 8y ago
  The truth of the matter is that the 737classic update from 1984 was already too low on the ground for the CFM56 engines to fit. So they had to reshape the nacelles into that odd shark mouth looking oval shape unique to 737s for that little extra bit of ground clearance. The problem isn’t new, was well known and yet greed made them update that same old airframe for 35 more years until it all came crashing down (literally, sadly)
  - briandear 8y ago
    Greed? The 737 is an excellent airframe. Suggesting that they kept the old airframe around because of greed is just silly.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- 8bitchemistry 8y ago
  Question: At what point does maintaining the 737 type rating become too much "technical debt"? Why not create a new (modern) type that fills the same commercial requirements as the 737?
  - 8y ago
actuator 8y ago
A320neo is also having issues. [1] Though the issues mostly have been related to a type of Pratt & Whitney engine, rather than the airframe. [1] https://qz.com/india/1527728/india-places-checks-on-airbus-a320-neos-with-faulty-pws-engines/ https://qz.com/india/1527728/india-places-checks-on-airbus-a...
sumedh 8y ago
> It's the likes of American Airlines who has such a large and diverse fleet that really bet on the wrong horse. American Airlines was going to place a major order with Airbus for the A320neo, Boeing promised AA that they will deliver a new aircraft quickly which will be better than A320neo if they cancel the A320neo order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc

by cletus 8y ago

dahart 8y ago

> I really hope this ends in a court case or even better, a criminal case. I really want to know who signed off on this plan... There are multiple lawsuits against Boeing going already, but don’t forget the FAA signed off on the plan, and some time ago formally adopted a policy of trust whatever the airlines say without checking carefully. Why even have a federal regulatory agency for air safety if they’re not going to independently scrutinize what the airlines do?

briandear 8y ago
No 737s crashed in the US, so why would the FAA be on the hook for anything? Shouldn’t the civil aviation authorities in Ethiopia and Indonesia be the ones “in trouble?”
- jlawer 8y ago
  Free Trade is the answer. Most national civil aviation organisations defer to the aviation authority of the country where the manufacturer is based. So FAA is trusted/expected to maintain the standards for Boeing. The last thing Boeing or Airbus wants is to have to prove their aircraft for every country in the world.
- dahart 8y ago
  The FAA is supposed to catch problems before the crashes, not after them. It's pure luck that a 737 Max didn't crash in the US, that doesn't in any way absolve the FAA of it's charter and responsibility to check Boeing's activity and it's failure to assess the risk of the 737 Max. Our FAA did put US citizens at risk when it approved the 737 Max, so the FAA is on the hook absolutely. Your point about Ethiopia's and Indonesia's agencies (and airlines) is reasonable, they ought to do their own due diligence on the aircraft that they use & allow on their turf. Smaller countries and agencies with fewer resources than us have tended to trust our FAA and the aircraft manufacturers to assess these risks. In that sense, the FAA's failure to regulate the Max and it's policy of outsourcing regulations to the manufacturers themselves is (rightly so) truly embarrassing for the FAA, is resulting in loss of trust of the US FAA globally, and maybe on the bright side is going to cause all other countries to start doing more of their own due diligence.

nerdbaggy 8y ago

If the airlines switch from 737 to A320neo then all the 737 pilots would have to be trained on the new plane which would cost the airlines big $$$

yaur 8y ago
Is it really possible for Boeing to fix this problem with out making changes that will require pilots to recertify anyway? If not then it seems like the training costs are a wash.
- kozak 8y ago
  Add a third AoA sensor.
  - yaur 8y ago
    My understanding from what I’ve read elsewhere is that changing the AoA sensor from non-safety critical to safety critical is enough for it to be considered a new type of aircraft. This makes sense as you would expect pilots and crew to be trained on how to interpret all safety critical instruments.
  - lukewrites 8y ago
    If Boeing were to hire me to consult on this project, I'd suggest that they just go directly to five blades and/or make changes to instruments so they can be dialed to 11.
travisjungroth 8y ago
Southwest has ~10k pilots. At $20k type rating per pilot, that’s $200mil. An A320neo is $110mil. So, a big cost but not the biggest.
- cmurf 8y ago
  There are on-going costs of maintaining each type rating, so it isn't a one time cost. Also, you'd want most or perhaps all the pilots maintaining both type ratings, so they can still be matched with any 737.

djcapelis 8y ago

> The A320neo and A320 have a common type rating too. > Googling seems to suggest the differences are fairly minor however. > I guess Airbus benefits in the A320 being a newer airframe than the 737 (which is ~50 years old now)? The 737 is uniquely low to the ground among modern aircraft. (This was an advantage at airports without jetways high off the ground a long time ago.) Which means for every other model there’s plenty of space for new larger style engines under almost all of the existing planes. This makes airbus’s neo programs comparatively simple and reasonable for keeping the same type rating. The 737 doesn’t have the space, so they moved the engine location and came up with the MCAS as a workaround. It was clever, but unfortunately, too clever.

ulfw 8y ago
The truth of the matter is that the 737classic update from 1984 was already too low on the ground for the CFM56 engines to fit. So they had to reshape the nacelles into that odd shark mouth looking oval shape unique to 737s for that little extra bit of ground clearance. The problem isn’t new, was well known and yet greed made them update that same old airframe for 35 more years until it all came crashing down (literally, sadly)
- briandear 8y ago
  Greed? The 737 is an excellent airframe. Suggesting that they kept the old airframe around because of greed is just silly.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
8bitchemistry 8y ago
Question: At what point does maintaining the 737 type rating become too much "technical debt"? Why not create a new (modern) type that fills the same commercial requirements as the 737?
- 8y ago

actuator 8y ago

A320neo is also having issues. [1] Though the issues mostly have been related to a type of Pratt & Whitney engine, rather than the airframe. [1] https://qz.com/india/1527728/india-places-checks-on-airbus-a320-neos-with-faulty-pws-engines/ https://qz.com/india/1527728/india-places-checks-on-airbus-a...

sumedh 8y ago

> It's the likes of American Airlines who has such a large and diverse fleet that really bet on the wrong horse. American Airlines was going to place a major order with Airbus for the A320neo, Boeing promised AA that they will deliver a new aircraft quickly which will be better than A320neo if they cancel the A320neo order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QytfYyHmxtc