3 ms·

> Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. For some value of 'completely new.' The design isn't new. A new design would accommodate modern, large

> Interestingly, the MAX is a completely new aircraft. For some value of 'completely new.' The design isn't new. A new design would accommodate modern, large diameter high by-pass turbo fans without compromising pitch behavior. The 737 was designed to be powered by much smaller diameter low-bypass engines that prevailed in the 60's. Also, the cockpit is deliberately designed not to require changes in training; the now ancient controls and instruments are significant contributors to the 737 MAX problems. I used the term 'design' several times because I do indeed understand there is much new in the 737 MAX, but the fundamental design is obsolescent.

jacquesm 7y ago
So, in aircraft circles the conventional wisdom goes something like this: change the engines->change the wing; Change the wing->it's a new aircraft. The fact that it doesn't look like a new aircraft and that Boeing did what they could to make it look like a 737 has as much to do with the customer demands and the regulatory hoops they were trying to jump through without re-certifying it as a new aircraft. Now, if they had done a complete redesign from the ground up without these restrictions then it would have no doubt been a better plane in many ways, but it would not have sold so fast in these numbers, which for Boeing was very important. So think of it as a 'new plane trying to masquerade as an old one' and you're pretty close to where it's at.
- topspin 7y ago
  > which for Boeing was very important More important than maintaining its reputation for safe designs, apparently. This is covered ground. They whys and wherefores of how Boeing ended up ruining its track record are well understood. My point -- my only point -- is that I hope the halt of 737 MAX they are now being made to contemplate ultimately carries over to the rest of the 737 family, and I've seen nothing that dissuades me from that hope. I'll add that if the Boeing business model (and the airlines etc.) is not viable without forever reworking an obsolescent 50+ year old product then perhaps the thing that really needs rework is the business itself. Keeping dysfunctional bubbles inflated is the source of some of the greatest evils.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Airlines - and the airplane industry as a whole - are quite efficient and actually proof positive that we can do stuff at that level. Where this whole saga really went off the rails is in the regulatory domain, an FAA with teeth that would not be in bed with Boeing would have required major modifications or certification as a new aircraft, and the knowledge that they would not get a sweetheart deal would have kept Boeing honest. The 'obsolescent 50+ year old product' ended up serving the market better than some much more recent designs. The whole reason the industry moves slowly is because they want to play it safe, if they end up not doing that than they might as well 'go ahead and break stuff' but I really hope that they will be able to regroup and do it right the next time around because Airbus needs the competition as much as Boeing does. I'm pretty curious what would satisfy you in terms of a modern day business model for aircraft manufacturers and airlines, so if you would care to write out your thoughts I would definitely be grateful.
    - topspin 7y ago
      > I'm pretty curious what would satisfy you in terms of a modern day business model for aircraft manufacturers and airlines, so if you would care to write out your thoughts I would definitely be grateful. A little competition would go a long way. This market is wholley owned by two company oligopoly that employs the sons and daughters and sons-in-laws and daughters-in-laws of the senators and chairmen and vice-chairmen and acting-deputy-vice-chairpersons directly or indirectly through their boards and law firms and non-profit chairmanships and god knows what else, so the regulatory capture you mention is a metaphysical certitude. I know of two remaining solutions; a GULAG system or competition. The former is worse than the problem so I dream of the latter. War use to serve as a means to break these ice jams, but that's pretty much obviated today given nukes. BTW, this view applies to far more than aircraft manufacturers and operators. Pretty much every damn 'problem' you can name in the modern world is a consequence of the same structural dysfunction. That's the best I can afford to do with my time.

jacquesm 7y ago

So, in aircraft circles the conventional wisdom goes something like this: change the engines->change the wing; Change the wing->it's a new aircraft. The fact that it doesn't look like a new aircraft and that Boeing did what they could to make it look like a 737 has as much to do with the customer demands and the regulatory hoops they were trying to jump through without re-certifying it as a new aircraft. Now, if they had done a complete redesign from the ground up without these restrictions then it would have no doubt been a better plane in many ways, but it would not have sold so fast in these numbers, which for Boeing was very important. So think of it as a 'new plane trying to masquerade as an old one' and you're pretty close to where it's at.

topspin 7y ago
> which for Boeing was very important More important than maintaining its reputation for safe designs, apparently. This is covered ground. They whys and wherefores of how Boeing ended up ruining its track record are well understood. My point -- my only point -- is that I hope the halt of 737 MAX they are now being made to contemplate ultimately carries over to the rest of the 737 family, and I've seen nothing that dissuades me from that hope. I'll add that if the Boeing business model (and the airlines etc.) is not viable without forever reworking an obsolescent 50+ year old product then perhaps the thing that really needs rework is the business itself. Keeping dysfunctional bubbles inflated is the source of some of the greatest evils.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Airlines - and the airplane industry as a whole - are quite efficient and actually proof positive that we can do stuff at that level. Where this whole saga really went off the rails is in the regulatory domain, an FAA with teeth that would not be in bed with Boeing would have required major modifications or certification as a new aircraft, and the knowledge that they would not get a sweetheart deal would have kept Boeing honest. The 'obsolescent 50+ year old product' ended up serving the market better than some much more recent designs. The whole reason the industry moves slowly is because they want to play it safe, if they end up not doing that than they might as well 'go ahead and break stuff' but I really hope that they will be able to regroup and do it right the next time around because Airbus needs the competition as much as Boeing does. I'm pretty curious what would satisfy you in terms of a modern day business model for aircraft manufacturers and airlines, so if you would care to write out your thoughts I would definitely be grateful.
  - topspin 7y ago
    > I'm pretty curious what would satisfy you in terms of a modern day business model for aircraft manufacturers and airlines, so if you would care to write out your thoughts I would definitely be grateful. A little competition would go a long way. This market is wholley owned by two company oligopoly that employs the sons and daughters and sons-in-laws and daughters-in-laws of the senators and chairmen and vice-chairmen and acting-deputy-vice-chairpersons directly or indirectly through their boards and law firms and non-profit chairmanships and god knows what else, so the regulatory capture you mention is a metaphysical certitude. I know of two remaining solutions; a GULAG system or competition. The former is worse than the problem so I dream of the latter. War use to serve as a means to break these ice jams, but that's pretty much obviated today given nukes. BTW, this view applies to far more than aircraft manufacturers and operators. Pretty much every damn 'problem' you can name in the modern world is a consequence of the same structural dysfunction. That's the best I can afford to do with my time.