5 ms·

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

by rimliu 7y ago

mrtksn 7y ago
Yes, the Airbus did the same but in their case the a320 did not have a problem fitting larger engines under the wings. The problem is, if Boeing decides to make a brand new design that is more efficient than a320, Airbus will have to match it instead of milking the a320 despite not having its planes falling of the skies.
- hugi 7y ago
  I don’t quite follow your train of thought. Isn’t it normal for companies to compete and evolve their designs? I am sure Airbus is capable of doing that.
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    Why would Airbus spend 10 Billion on RD for a new plane if they can only spend 1.5 Billion on RD to modify an existing design? In their current form, Airbus and Boing don't really compete, which is bad for the customers but good for the shareholders of these companies. They already produce almost all of the passenger aircrafts and they would love this to continue. The 737 MAX fiasco threatens this arrangement.
    - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
      > Why would Airbus spend 10 Billion on RD for a new plane if they can only spend 1.5 Billion on RD to modify an existing design? Because that's what manufacturers always did? If you only do iterative changes then eventually you run into a wall. Boeing engineers also knew that. The disagreement between what engineers wanted and what management wanted has been a point of contention for many years.
      - mrtksn 7y ago
        See, that wall is not a problem when you are in a duopoly. You will need to jump the wall only if your competitor jumps and why your competitor would jump if you can pocket the 8.5 billions and sell the regular stuff? That was what Boeing and Airbus supposed to do: Sell the a320Neo and 737MAX for as long as possible and stay away from the wall. Now that Boeing screwed up, they may be forced to jump the wall and Airbus will have to follow. On the other side of the wall, they will sell the same number of planes.
      - selectodude 7y ago
        Full-scale redesigns require more than a ton of capital to build the new plane. It will cost your customers a ton of capital to buy the new plane and change their entire setup (pilots, mx) to use the new plane. The airlines want new jets even less than the manufacturers want to pay to design them.
- gsnedders 7y ago
  Provisionally the A320neo's replacement is expected to be a clean-sheet redesign, despite the basic design being two decades newer. Of course, we'll see whether even a common type rating (not type certificate) is sufficient for airlines to not baulk at the idea.
selectodude 7y ago
More due to airlines demanding a new 737 instead of a new plane. Boeing already made a new 737, it’s called the 757 and nobody bought it.
- cmurf 7y ago
  This. The consternation and blame direct at Boeing, while appropriate, distracts from the real source of the problem: airlines. And Southwest Airlines was possibly one of the largest sources of the 737 MAX negative incentives, by having a contract reportedly require $1 million per airplane if a certain threshold of pilot training was exceeded. And to this day Southwest still doesn't think MAX specific simulator training is necessary for pilots. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-airplane-southwest/us-lawmakers-question-boeings-1-mln-rebate-clause-for-southwest-737-max-orders-idUSKBN1X92D4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-airplane-southwest... https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/07/29/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max-pilot.html https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/07/29/southwest... That's especially incredible considering Southwest pilots' union says in a lawsuit that the 737 MAX is unsafe. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/in-scathing-lawsuit-southwest-pilots-union-says-boeing-737-max-was-unsafe/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/in-sc...
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    The consternation and blame direct at Boeing, while appropriate, distracts from the real source of the problem: airlines. And Southwest Airlines was possibly one of the largest sources of the 737 MAX negative incentives, by having a contract reportedly require $1 million per airplane if a certain threshold of pilot training was exceeded Well, in this case I'd argue that it was totally Boeing's responsibility to communicate to such customers that they couldn't do it. Instead they nodded their heads, demanded the impossible from their engineers, demoted or fired people that questioned it and in the end offered a hacked solution, which killed over 300 people. I don't think that your argument excuses their culpability in any way, shape or form.
    - cmurf 7y ago

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

by rimliu 7y ago

Was not the problem with MAX in part due to Boeing trying to milk the old design?

Yes, the Airbus did the same but in their case the a320 did not have a problem fitting larger engines under the wings. The problem is, if Boeing decides to make a brand new design that is more efficient than a320, Airbus will have to match it instead of milking the a320 despite not having its planes falling of the skies.

hugi 7y ago
I don’t quite follow your train of thought. Isn’t it normal for companies to compete and evolve their designs? I am sure Airbus is capable of doing that.
- mrtksn 7y ago
  Why would Airbus spend 10 Billion on RD for a new plane if they can only spend 1.5 Billion on RD to modify an existing design? In their current form, Airbus and Boing don't really compete, which is bad for the customers but good for the shareholders of these companies. They already produce almost all of the passenger aircrafts and they would love this to continue. The 737 MAX fiasco threatens this arrangement.
  - the_mitsuhiko 7y ago
    > Why would Airbus spend 10 Billion on RD for a new plane if they can only spend 1.5 Billion on RD to modify an existing design? Because that's what manufacturers always did? If you only do iterative changes then eventually you run into a wall. Boeing engineers also knew that. The disagreement between what engineers wanted and what management wanted has been a point of contention for many years.
    - mrtksn 7y ago
      See, that wall is not a problem when you are in a duopoly. You will need to jump the wall only if your competitor jumps and why your competitor would jump if you can pocket the 8.5 billions and sell the regular stuff? That was what Boeing and Airbus supposed to do: Sell the a320Neo and 737MAX for as long as possible and stay away from the wall. Now that Boeing screwed up, they may be forced to jump the wall and Airbus will have to follow. On the other side of the wall, they will sell the same number of planes.
    - selectodude 7y ago
      Full-scale redesigns require more than a ton of capital to build the new plane. It will cost your customers a ton of capital to buy the new plane and change their entire setup (pilots, mx) to use the new plane. The airlines want new jets even less than the manufacturers want to pay to design them.
gsnedders 7y ago
Provisionally the A320neo's replacement is expected to be a clean-sheet redesign, despite the basic design being two decades newer. Of course, we'll see whether even a common type rating (not type certificate) is sufficient for airlines to not baulk at the idea.

selectodude 7y ago

More due to airlines demanding a new 737 instead of a new plane. Boeing already made a new 737, it’s called the 757 and nobody bought it.

cmurf 7y ago
This. The consternation and blame direct at Boeing, while appropriate, distracts from the real source of the problem: airlines. And Southwest Airlines was possibly one of the largest sources of the 737 MAX negative incentives, by having a contract reportedly require $1 million per airplane if a certain threshold of pilot training was exceeded. And to this day Southwest still doesn't think MAX specific simulator training is necessary for pilots. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-airplane-southwest/us-lawmakers-question-boeings-1-mln-rebate-clause-for-southwest-737-max-orders-idUSKBN1X92D4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-airplane-southwest... https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/07/29/southwest-airlines-boeing-737-max-pilot.html https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2019/07/29/southwest... That's especially incredible considering Southwest pilots' union says in a lawsuit that the 737 MAX is unsafe. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/in-scathing-lawsuit-southwest-pilots-union-says-boeing-737-max-was-unsafe/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/in-sc...
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  The consternation and blame direct at Boeing, while appropriate, distracts from the real source of the problem: airlines. And Southwest Airlines was possibly one of the largest sources of the 737 MAX negative incentives, by having a contract reportedly require $1 million per airplane if a certain threshold of pilot training was exceeded Well, in this case I'd argue that it was totally Boeing's responsibility to communicate to such customers that they couldn't do it. Instead they nodded their heads, demanded the impossible from their engineers, demoted or fired people that questioned it and in the end offered a hacked solution, which killed over 300 people. I don't think that your argument excuses their culpability in any way, shape or form.
  - cmurf 7y ago