27 ms·
Europe says 737 Max won't fly until it completes it own design review
- hu3 7y agoA slap in the face to the comments that were dismissing concerns as overreactions and stating that 737-MAX would return to operation shortly. Not in EU at least.
- Aromasin 7y agoThings are certainly looking bullish for Airbus in the aftermath of this.
- mimixco 7y agoAnd they just extended the range of the A220.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y agoFor people who want to learn more https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a220-upgrades/ https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a220-upgrades/
- ulfw 7y agoTime to extend the plane and make it an A320/738-8 sized A220-500!
- ddalex 7y agoMake it a double decker single-aisle 2/3 seat split and name it A280.
- ulfw 7y agoLove it ;) Upper deck is a business 1/1
- rootusrootus 7y agoTongue-in-cheek? I thought this kind of extending was what people are blasting Boeing for?
- jpkeisala 7y agoI think they will need to go easy on this in order to avoid White House getting involved.
- bilbo0s 7y agoTo be honest, if the American government got involved to protect Boeing, that would be even worse for Boeing, and nearly fatal to the authoritative status of the FAA. It would pretty much confirm what most air travelers are thinking. That the US government cares a good deal more about keeping Boeing afloat than it cares about our safety. At the same time, Boeing and the FAA have already taken pretty big hits. So game theoretically speaking, why not go all in? Tough to say which is the worse tactic for the US government to follow right now? (If we're talking about landing in the best position long term.) Taking the high road? Or just letting the corruption show?
- fmajid 7y agoI'm no Trump fan but he actually did the right thing in this case (force the grounding of the MAX when the FAA was still in denial).
- philjohn 7y agoThere was an interesting Mentour Pilot about this, essentially the lead time for a new airplane order is in the order of years, and there are other costs as well. If you've built your business around one specific type of jet it's costly to move to the competitors, which is why the "no type rating change" was so important for the max. Perhaps for future large orders this may be a boon for Airbus, but that would be in the longer medium term, and a lot can happen between then and now. As it is, having two large companies trading blows is better than one dominating the market, so I hope Boeing are humbled, have a root and branch overhaul of how they conduct business, and shareholders take a hit, but that they survive.
- simion314 7y agoYou still have the FAA and related regulations issues, this kind of unsafe behavior should have been caught early. Is FAA regulating other companies and products? those also would need investigated
- philjohn 7y agoMost definitely - and the way that FAA essentially outsources the approval back to the manufacturer is something that needs to change ... but is there the will in the Senate and White House to spend more on the FAA?
- simion314 7y agoFrom what I read the FAA people were paid by Boeing in the past but they were reporting to FAA, it makes sense , you want your plane,drone other device certified you pay the expenses of the engineers that will do the checks, there should be no need to pay them with public money.
- raverbashing 7y ago> If you've built your business around one specific type of jet it's costly to move to the competitors, which is why the "no type rating change" was so important for the max. Yes it is costly but you know what? It's BS Because the 737 line (nor the A320 nor any other line) is not going to last forever. (Especially wrt widebodies but that's another issue as I don't know if the A330Neo and the 777X have the same type as their predecessors) EVERY airline should be planning ahead. I'm thinking if Southwest and/or Ryanair are not thinking about keep flying their NGs and forget all about this MAX stuff for one or two years at least (FR delayed their MAX deliveries last I heard) Now Airbus just put out the NEO and they probably have room for another refresh on that platform but probably not two refreshes. But again, it won't last forever Though the tough part for airlines is two: pilots can't switch between 2 types and bringing another type slowly is hard. But it is something they will have to do eventually
- CaptainZapp 7y agoI'm not sure. First of all they will not capitalize on this. Airlines as well as manufacturers never use (lack of) security with a competitor as a marketing argument. Moreover. Order books for the main competitor, The A320NEO and derivatives, are full until something like 2025. It's possible that it's an advantage for the A220 (Bombardier C series) as some commenter pointed out. Which, incidentally, is a fantastic passenger experience for short - to medium haul flights.
- peteretep 7y ago> Airlines as well as manufacturers never use (lack of) security with a competitor as a marketing argument. Suspect they're very happy to use consumer confidence as a marketing argument though.
- ulfw 7y agoI wish Boeing would rather FINALLY do the right thing, take their billion dollar earnings and putting it into R&D to build a new, modern 2020s design aircraft into the sky for the next decades rather than it's umpteenth warm-up of their 1960s design.
- hef19898 7y agoAs far as I know this is one of the rare few, read I can't recall one, occasions in which EASA didn't accept FAA certification. Usually it is cross- certification between the two. Things are getting interesting and not necessarily in a good way as cooperation is reduced. That it makes sense in this special case is only further proof.
- mikejb 7y agoI think EASA doesn't trust the FAA here because the FAA had less involvement in the original certification than some are comfortable with. So rather that asking the FAA to certify the entire plane and maybe risk a similar procedure (Boeing self-certifies most of it), they'll do it themselves. What I'm curious is whether EASA has similar certification shortcu... optimizations for Airbus.
- anoncake 7y agoI hope they don't. But Boeing not being trustworthy does not mean that Airbus isn't.
- rootusrootus 7y agoJust over a year ago Airbus paid a fine to Germany for bribery. So it appears they have their own corruption problems.
- actuator 7y agoWasn't that for sales though?
- rootusrootus 7y agoI'm not sure I'm willing to narrow the goalposts that much just so I can absolve Airbus from misbehaving. And that's just the most recent example easy to find with a quick Google search.
- TheArcane 7y agoHN is traditionally quite pro-US to the point that many here were defending Boeing during the 737 Max fiasco. Not to mentions the vitriol against the EU when it fined American tech giants.
- yaseer 7y agoI'm curious to see how passengers will react to flying via 737-max. Will ticket prices be lowered to reflect the inevitable wariness of flying in one again?
- the_dege 7y agoNormal passengers won't even notice that they are flying in a 747 max.
- xiphias2 7y agoPeople are irrationally careful when it comes to flying. And in this case even a rational person wouldn't fly a 737 Max. I'm sure the demand problem will be felt by the airlines.
- objektif 7y agoThere are now multiple apps that tell you which model of aircraft you are booking.
- __m 7y agoWell, i am a normal passenger and wouldn't fly in one in the first place. I could tell the difference by the feeling of plunging from thousands of feet into the ground, it's very subtle, but even noticeable by the layman
- swarnie_ 7y agoYou can look up the plane your due to fly on online using the flight number.
- marsRoverDev 7y agoPassengers as a whole don't have any idea what is going on and have the memory of an amnesiac goldfish. They also don't have the ability to differentiate between planes in general, so this is probably just as likely to affect their perceptions of the A320.
- deleted 7y ago
- mmrezaie 7y agoI flied to Cyprus from Stockholm with Norwegian last week. On the plane it was written 737-800 or 737 Max. I wonder how you can tell them apart and if Norwegian uses the Max line!?
- icegreentea2 7y agoEDIT: Lol, nevermind. Go read the child comments. I failed. There are two features you can look for: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48929/is-this-a-737-800-or-737-max-8 https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/48929/is-this-a... tl;dr on the MAX the wing tips split into two (above and below the main wing), on all previous 737s, the wingtips only curve up. Also the engine cowling has some cool looky jaggies on the trailing edge.
- gsnedders 7y ago> on the MAX the wing tips split into two (above and below the main wing), on all previous 737s, the wingtips only curve up However there are aftermarket wingtips for the 737NG (737-600/700/800/900) which are similarly split that a number of major operators have fitted.
- ejolto 7y agoBoeing also has the model number on a plate in the doorway. Of course if you can read it, you've already boarded.
- xaqfox 7y agoThat winglet design is not specific to the MAX aircraft. That CFM engine is also used on Airbus NEO.
- icegreentea2 7y agoI had not seen the split winglet on non-MAX 737s. I stand corrected. I did mean the CFM engine as a distinguisher between 737 models, not as a identifying feature for 737 MAX vs all other 2 engine smallish jets.
- 7y ago
- MobileVet 7y agoGood. Hold them accountable and make sure that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. Although a ‘same plane’ cert was a good goal, they should have made sure it was truly accurate instead of bending the case to make it so. This may be as close to an ‘open and shut’ case for corporate gross negligence as we will find in quite a while (at least I hope so). I would hate to see them go under but it should be clear that this type of corner cutting is unacceptable and future manufacturers of all kinds should think twice before stretching to put a round peg in a square hole.... especially with lives on the line.
- nocturnial 7y agoAnd how are they going to be held accountable? They already have several contracts which states victims can't sue the company. Maybe not everyone signed, but then it's about how much they can pay their lawyers.
- ghevshoo 7y agoNot sure what contacts you are talking about, but the civil lawsuits have started to roll in... https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/french-woman-sues-boeing-seeking-at-least-276-million-over-ethiopian-crash-idINKCN1SR1FY https://in.reuters.com/article/ethiopia-airplane-lawsuit/fre...
- StreamBright 7y agoIf they cannot be held accountable in the legal sense they might in the financial sense. Stopping 737MAX sales would hinder their operations quite a bit.
- MobileVet 7y agoBy forcing them to fully certify the MAX, they will take a massive hit in sales and further losses in legal suits from the airlines that have already purchased planes they can't fly. This will also add a serious line item to the various civil lawsuits regarding the loss of life as a government level entity has now said 'this was a different plane, Boeing lied.' It will be extremely hard for Boeing defense attorneys and likely lead to triplicate damages settlements.
- lagadu 7y agoLooks like the EASA finally figured out that the FAA can't be trusted with matters regarding Boeing.
- nocturnial 7y agoA diplomat would say we could trust the FAA but now they need to be verified.
- anoncake 7y agoA diplomat would say that while the FAA tests planes to the highest standards, there's no harm in testing to the highest standards twice.
- oaiey 7y agoAnd as a German, I wonder how exactly are these processes are done in Airbus?
- radcon 7y agoIs anyone else extremely reluctant to fly on a Boeing plane after this? A lot of people say "It's no big deal, they just need to update the MCAS software", but I see this entire situation as a sign of much deeper issues at Boeing, issues that can't be fixed with a simple software update and could affect every plane they make.
- linuxftw 7y agoYes, I am. It's not a 'just need to update MCAS' situation IMO, that's a Boeing talking point. We don't know how badly the MCAS is needed and how dangerous the plane is if it fails, and their current solution is to make it more failure prone (read from two sources and disable upon >x disagree).
- apacheCamel 7y agoI feel the same way. This says a lot about the 737-Max but it also says a ton about the company. This whole thing has shed a light on Boeing that I personally have a hard time overlooking. I know my opinion matters little in the grand scheme of things, but it doesn't seem like many people are in the same boat as me.
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoNope, risks are insignificant. It's extremely irrational to be scared to fly on Boeing.
- ddalex 7y agoLOL what? It's at least 4 orders of magnitude more risky to fly 737 MAX compared to Airbus A320 (counting deaths per 100k takeoffs). 4 orders of magnitude are not irrational.
- NikolaeVarius 7y agoTerrible comparison. Number of takeoffs of 737 Max is much lower than other planes, so numbers will naturally be skewed
- linuxftw 7y agoBooked a flight for later this summer (US). United apparently thinks the Max is going back in service sooner than later, at least the MAX-9. I decided to take a less desirable iternary and more expensive flights to avoid that aircraft. Clearly the FAA is signaling to someone that this is all going to blow over. Does anyone actually expected the Boeing's to fail the investigation? I don't. Business as usual: "We identified what happend, won't happen again, promises" I won't be flying on one anytime soon if I can help it.
- ulfw 7y agoGood. Which it should have done and should from now on do for all 'self-certified' Boeing airplanes.
- bilbo0s 7y agoIt still kills me that they let Boeing 'self-certify' their own airplanes. I had a diagnostic medical imaging startup. You can't even imagine the pain the FDA inflicted on our bottom line before they would give an OK on anything. But the FAA is out there just taking the word of some company's engineers that "Yeah. We're good."? I guess I just thought that all of the regulation, was like it was in the healthcare field. Guess not.
- ulfw 7y agoUnfathomable for me either and reeking of utter corruption. I could ALMOST understand it if they would do it in the medical field because there are so many companies small and large working in the field. But no, the FDA is indeed stringent and thorough. But airplane manufacturing in the US? Hello? How many aircraft do they have to verify? It's not like there's 100s of manufacturers releasing 100s of plane designs. The 787 and 737max were the only ones released in the last decade. And both were partly self-certified!
- seren 7y agoOn the other hand, if you can submit a "new" medical device through the 510k process, it is the device manufacturer that certifies that the new equipment is equivalent to an existing product. That is mostly comparable to what Boeing did.
- bilbo0s 7y agoYou can say that it is equivalent, but the FDA will still make you prove it with the relevant tests and documentation. And look, I'm not saying it's wrong that Boeing has it a lot easier than I did. I'm just asking what's the justification? In my case I get it. Imagine you're submitting a device that shoots high levels of radiation, at extremely high power, into the human body to kill cancer cells? Well yeah. I understand. The FDA doesn't care that you believe this device is the same as the last one. You're shooting high yield radiation... At levels fatal to humans... In the middle of a hospital... Which itself is potentially in the middle of a population center? OK, yeah, I get it. They're gonna check the new device as thoroughly as they checked the old one. No one wants the equivalent of a dirty bomb going off in some small town. I'm not complaining about that. I even understand that Boeing doesn't shoot radiation all over the place, so maybe things can be a bit more lenient? I get that maybe that was the justification? But here's the thing, Boeing can still kill people, as is plainly evident. Why is the government being so lax on them, while at the same time giving my RTP product the equivalent of a regulatory colonoscopy? I mean, if anything, both products should get the regulatory colonoscopy.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoI mean while I'm all for continuing to punish Boeing for their blatant disregard for human lives, you could also say it's in the best interest of the EU to attack Boeing in a way that doesn't seem hostile on a political level since it indirectly benefits Airbus.
- oaiey 7y agoYeah. So business as usual then. When it comes to Airbus and Boing there is nothing unpolitical. But as a contra Point: there are tons of Max operators in the EU as well.
- ernesth 7y agoIt is perfectly clear that the US is at economical war against Europe. However, Europe is not obviously at war against the US.
- leemailll 7y agoBTW, 3 major China airlines formally demand compensation for 737max from Boeing (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48362283 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48362283)
- _bxg1 7y agoAnd I won't fly on one until Europe completes its own design review.
- princekolt 7y agoLet's hope this debacle will finally convince Boeing it can't keep reusing the same airframe - with small adjustments - for half a century. Edit: Don't forget the 737 airframe was already a modified 727 airframe... Also, I wonder how this will affect the Boeing-Embraer partnership. It would certainly be cheaper to spec-up an E-Jet to have the capacity of a 737 than to design a new airframe from scratch.
- rootusrootus 7y agoThe 737 was not a modified 727. They reused some pieces. In particular they chose the same fuselage cross-section. This is pretty normal and I prefer it over offering all-new designs. Also, the E195 has less than half the capacity of the largest 737. That would be a hell of an extension.
- DanCarvajal 7y agoIt's all politics, they're just trying to give what advantages they can to Airbus.
- DumbUser123 7y agoAs they should - but hopefully they fast-track their design review and make it transparent to everyone.
- sealthedeal 7y agoIMHO anytime an airline releases a statement that says "we have updated our software", its basically the same thing as saying, "Im sorry, but our plane was unstable because of buggy code, hopefully this patch will make sure our planes dont go down." That is scary, software developers make errors, and when your plane is going down because of software related issue, THAT IS A HUGE PROBLEM.
- rootusrootus 7y agoIf we on HN are being consistent, we should appreciate an airline that offers frequent over-the-air software updates. We love it when Tesla does it...
- slenk 7y agoWe do? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19443925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19443925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17991905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16808171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16808171
- rootusrootus 7y agoExceptions proving the rule? It gets a lot more love than hate.
- slenk 7y agoYou're probably right. People tend to post more negative than positive anyways.
- jacquesm 7y agoThe dent the reputation of Boeing got after this is nothing compared to the drop in reputation of the FAA.
- user5994461 7y agoAgreed on this. It's the FAA that's taking the fall and the US with it.
- skookumchuck 7y agoEurope has an interest in promoting their state-sponsored airplane manufacturer, Airbus.
- mtgx 7y agoWhat the FAA should have done, too.
- munk-a 7y agoPeople need to be jailed over this, start at the top and work your way down.
- rajacombinator 7y agoJail time for execs is the only solution that matters.