3 ms·

It is a question, but the answer is probably pretty mundane. An airplane is a tremendously complex machine, and building them is a well honed process with lots

It is a question, but the answer is probably pretty mundane. An airplane is a tremendously complex machine, and building them is a well honed process with lots of checks and balances built in which protect the investment the company is making in building such a complex device. So no doubt there are many many root cause analysis meetings which are going on to root out the failures in the process that let the plane get to this point. But historically, the company has made modifications to the 737 airframe to provide new models and those changes have gone well. Certainly in the sense that they produced a viable airplane that was safe to fly. I would speculate that due to the history of the 737 airframe, and the track record of creating new variants that are safe, and the challenge of stopping the manufacturing line for such a plane which literally has thousands of suppliers making parts on a schedule that has years of deliveries in it, it took this long to get through the various options that would not require stopping the production of the plane. Stopping production is literally the second worse scenario[1] for Boeing. [1] The worst is scrapping all existing planes.

kayfox 7y ago
I fully expect this was put out there to put this ball (tens of thousands of jobs lost) in the FAA's court. I also fully expect Boeing to halt production if the FAA processes drag out longer, its not economical to continue making aircraft and not delivering them, in that if they don't deliver them, they don't get paid. There's a point where its no longer due diligence, but decision paralysis. I don't know if were anywhere near that point with the 737 MAX, but at some point we will be, and we shouldn't ever get there. The problem is that this will hurt tons of small businesses and suppliers more than it will hurt Boeing. It will hurt the machinists who assemble the aircraft, the network of suppliers in the Seattle area. But for the suits in Chicago it will be a metrics miss and maybe less of a bonus.
- salawat 7y ago
  As unfortunate as that is, due to overconsolidation, this is pretty much a foregone conclusion. If Boeing were just one in a field of aircraft manufacturers, this wouldn't be half as catastrophic, since that whole supply chain would have everyone else to supply. But that isn't the case anymore, and it is about time overconsolidation bit something in the arse.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

kayfox 7y ago

I fully expect this was put out there to put this ball (tens of thousands of jobs lost) in the FAA's court. I also fully expect Boeing to halt production if the FAA processes drag out longer, its not economical to continue making aircraft and not delivering them, in that if they don't deliver them, they don't get paid. There's a point where its no longer due diligence, but decision paralysis. I don't know if were anywhere near that point with the 737 MAX, but at some point we will be, and we shouldn't ever get there. The problem is that this will hurt tons of small businesses and suppliers more than it will hurt Boeing. It will hurt the machinists who assemble the aircraft, the network of suppliers in the Seattle area. But for the suits in Chicago it will be a metrics miss and maybe less of a bonus.

salawat 7y ago
As unfortunate as that is, due to overconsolidation, this is pretty much a foregone conclusion. If Boeing were just one in a field of aircraft manufacturers, this wouldn't be half as catastrophic, since that whole supply chain would have everyone else to supply. But that isn't the case anymore, and it is about time overconsolidation bit something in the arse.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]