11 ms·

1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant agai

by Alupis 7y ago

1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant again) 2) We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. 3) The US Gov't may not allow Boeing to fail for National Security reasons. Both as a major Defense Contractor, and as the sole producer of domestic airliners. (that is, if Boeing is even in a position to fail) I think the 737-MAX issues are bad, but not bad enough to destroy the company. The 737 airframe has been the workhorse for decades, and I don't see that changing soon. Major airlines operating the 737 variants will just continue to use the perfectly good 737-700,800 and 900 variants until something new and fixed comes out.

gertrunde 7y ago
My understanding was that Boeing were originally planning to do a clean redesign of the 737 (similar to the 787), but due to customers going with the A320neo, they rushed out the 737 MAX instead. So that last point about 737-700/800/900 may not be valid.
Pfhreak 7y ago
Do you have a citation on #1? If it's not the case, then there could be massive financial impact to Boeing...
- Alupis 7y ago
  What kind of citation would you need? It's a software and sensor reporting problem in the rushed-to-market new MCAS system - both fixable obviously.
  - Pfhreak 7y ago
    That doesn't seem like it's asking enough whys to me. Why was the MCAS system necessary? Why didn't the sensor fall back to its backups? There are underlying hardware concerns, from the wings to the sensors themselves, that may require retrofits. MCAS can be patched, but I'm not convinced that a patched MCAS can fully address the hardware concerns.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Why didn't the sensor fall back to its backups? Because, unfathomably, it was designed to only listen to one sensor. Why? Absolutely no good reason that anyone can see. Can that be fixed? Absolutely, change the code to listen to both sensors. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.
      - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        And if one of two sensors fails, which these exposed sensors do often, how do you know which one it is? Intuition says you need three.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If one of two sensors fails, and the computer sees that, it knows not to fight the pilot, which was the problem, wasn't it?
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        That's fine, but seems self defeating. Now the pilot needs training to fly without MCAS, so why have it at all?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Your question applies to all systems that can fail, so the implication must be wrong.
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        You either make sure it doesn't fail, or you can continue flight without it. Either way, it has to be fail safe. There is a backup to extend the landing gear if the primary hydraulic system fails, the plane can fly with one engine out, we make sure that even if an engine explodes it does not damage the air-plane, etc. On the latter point, you can continue flying without autopilot or landing-assenting electronics and pilots are trained to do so. MCAS has failed on all counts, it has been very unreliable and fail-deadly.
  - JanSt 7y ago
    It‘s a hardware problem because the plane is instable. The MCAS was the fix but didn‘t work. We will See...
    - FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
      In what manner is the plane unstable?
  - throwaway_tech 7y ago
    >It's a software and sensor reporting problem in the rushed-to-market new MCAS system - both fixable obviously. Its a lot more than that...planes crashed and people died. It doesn't matter if you fix the underlying problems, there will be a giant loss of confidence in the company and the product. That is all rightfully so, the company put profits in front of safety, and there is no reason to believe that will be fixed.
    - Alupis 7y ago
      It might shock you, but this is far from the first time an airliner crashed due to fixable problems. Time heals all wounds, so to speak. Boeing suffered a pretty bad PR problem, which then drove cancelled orders and more. It will take time to earn that trust back with the 737-MAX, however there's still plenty of 767, 787, some 747, and a few 757's still flying without any problems.
      - throwaway_tech 7y ago
        >It might shock you, but this is far from the first time an airliner crashed due to fixable problems. It may shock you that pilot error is the leading cause of airline crashes. Nevertheless, to your point these crashes occurred due to "fixable problems" sure...and anytime a plane crashes due to "fisable problems" legally it goes without saying there was negligence. But what seems to be ignored here is there was more than negligence...based on the documents already made publicly available the company knowingly shipped the planes with the issue. >Time heals all wounds, so to speak. Well I'm sure that was what the managers thought when they minimized the engineers concerns about these aircraft...then again you don't see very many Zeppelins flying around nowadays.
droopyEyelids 7y ago
Right. What people are missing is that if Boeing is 'too big to fail' for the US Government, then burying the risk, soaking up the resulting windfall, and pressing the accelerator as they turn towards the brick wall was the right thing for them to do. I'm uncertain about your point where everything is fixable- don't forget, it needs to be fixable without significant pilot training, or else it'll remove airline's reason to stick with boeing. However, that doesn't matter! Boeing can fail as hard as it wants, and the executives will keep their money, and the US Government will still need to save the company. The only losers will be pension funds, employees, and citizens- people without any say in the matter.
- alwaysanon 7y ago
  The government can pay for the pilot retraining - which Boeing should have done in the first place.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
henryfjordan 7y ago
Is the 737-MAX fixable? Boeing is stopping production of them, so they know that it's not going to be for a while, if ever. The 737-MAX's problem is that they changed the center of gravity of the plane so that it's not stable without an active system to correct that (MCAS). A failure in that system has already crashed 2 planes and killed hundreds. I don't think you can throw an active system on an inherently unstable airframe and call it a fix. Airplanes need to be as fail-safe as possible.
- Alupis 7y ago
  While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators was tied to an optional set of features on accident (spaghetti code?), which caused budget airlines that didn't purchase the optional features to not show pilots when there was a problem with MCAS. That coupled with lack of training of how to react to exactly that scenario, and we have the events that transpired. All of which is fixable one way or another.
  - empath75 7y ago
    If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.
    - Alupis 7y ago
      Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.
sithadmin 7y ago
>We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. It's 30 percent of Boeing's income. Definitely not enough to prop them up.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  The US Government needing you is always enough to prop you up.
  - sithadmin 7y ago
    It's enough to keep the company alive, but even the most hawkish US politicians aren't going to throw enough federal cash at Boeing to keep them running in anything resembling their current scale and capabilities if they go under.
    - Scoundreller 7y ago
      Iunno, even in the financial crisis, the feds didn't even feel it was necessary to wipe out equity shareholders when they went to bailout. The feds could always rewrite regs to help Boeing, like limiting the grandfathering that allows airlines to fly aircraft that don't meet current safety regulations.
      - wahern 7y ago
        The Fed's didn't wipeout equity shareholders during the financial crisis because big investors were leveraged. The whole point of the bailout was to prevent losses on leveraged assets from rippling through the financial system and collapsing the whole thing.
        Scoundreller 7y ago
        More leverage should equal more risk. You shouldn't be saved just because you took too much risk. That's how it's supposed to work!
grecy 7y ago
> The US Gov't may not allow Boeing to fail I agree entirely. They'll either bail them out, or just pass laws that prevent Boeing from being Sued.
- clvx 7y ago
  The government might pass laws, but it will only fly inside the States if other countries disagree. In this one, Boeing is limited.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    At one point in time the US State Department and presidential admin would've been able to negotiate, coax, or strong-arm other countries to certify things they were reluctant to. With a gutted state dept and an admin full of incompetence, this wouldn't happen nowadays...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - qtplatypus 7y ago
      Both China and the EU have said that they will independently recertificatify the plains.
- thrower123 7y ago
  They could force them to spin off the defense contractor part and only bail that part out, perhaps.
Scoundreller 7y ago
> Major airlines operating the 737 variants will just continue to use the perfectly good 737-700,800 and 900 variants until something new and fixed comes out. I think airlines love the situation. The balance between supply and demand for new aircraft has taken a hit. That means any glut in capacity has been erased and pricing power has gone up a lot. Airlines had an excuse to cancel flights and put you on a different schedule, all while claiming force majeure. While the 737 variants are fine, they have a shorter range than the MAX. The MAX can do some interesting transatlantic routes (UK,FR,ES,PT) and east coast US/Canada that are dicey in a non-MAX.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  This makes no sense. Airlines hate canceling flights: they already maximize the hell out of their fleet utilization, so there's very little space capacity in the system and the knock-on effects of having to find new seats for 100+ pax per cancelled flight are massive. Pricing power has indeed gone up, but not in the airlines' favor: for example, Airbus can now charge what it wants for the A320 (the only viable 737 competitor) and wages for qualified A320 pilots are skyrocketing.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Yes, the situation is even better for $Manufacturer where $Manufacturer != Boeing. But airlines aren't suddenly cancelling flights. They're looking at their schedule and consolidating whatever they can. And charging more for the remaining seats. And the value of the aircraft they already own just went up. I've also seen some airlines downgauge turbojets to Q400s, which is slower but saves a ton on fuel. Routes that needed to run X times per day to be competitive (because people want flexibility in departure and return times) can now be consolidated into X minus Y flights with the same number of passengers. It's 2019, airlines have automated processes to rebook when a flight is cancelled. And upstart airlines trying to build their fleets couldn't.
    - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
      Still not buying it. The value of the Maxes they own sitting on the tarmac has plummeted and all the capital they consumed now has a big fat zero ROI (negative, really, because they still need maintenance and interest payments). If airline X has to reduce flights because they can't fly them, and airline Y doesn't, those flexibility-demanding, well-paying business pax will migrate to Y, and it's Y who will reap the most gains from the sudden reduction in competition. And automated rebooking is a fantasy. Sure, the airline will try to default you onto some other connection, but I've always ended up talking to a human afterwards and picking out a better alternative.
AndrewBissell 7y ago
Even if Boeing is "not allowed to fail," the outcome for equity shareholders could be very negative (and frankly, they deserve to take the biggest bite of the turd sandwich if Stoller's analysis of Boeing's accounting risk is correct). A close historical parallel would probably be the 2009 automaker bailouts, although I suppose one might guess that Trump will pursue more of a nakedly corrupt giveaway to Boeing shareholders.
codingslave 7y ago
"1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant again)" The public doesn't trust these planes. It doesn't matter how fixable they are. Secondly, its not a software problem, the plane is structurally deficient. A problem they tried to solve with software. These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance, something that is not true of any other major aircraft. The problem can be solved with software, but its more like a bandaid. EDIT: Heres a quick explanation of the plane: The 737 engines used too much fuel so to make a more attractive plane for poorer countries, Boeing decided to install more efficient engines with bigger fans, creating the 737 MAX. Boeing used a 737 airframe for economic reasons (it was way cheaper, didn't require pilot retraining), but needed more ground clearance for bigger engines. The 737 design cant be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount to engines higher on the plane. This made the plane more unstable, so they slapped the software solution on. This "fixed" the problem, but then the plane was more complex to fly, which led to the crashes. But Boeing didn't want a plane that required retraining, so they hid the complexity of the software solutions, which led to crashes because the pilots didn't know what was going on.
- FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
  > These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance... First I have heard of this issue, though I haven't been following it closely. Citation, please?
  - jen729w 7y ago
    https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-upd...
  - codingslave 7y ago
    I dont have time to find all the sources for this. But basically Boeing tried to make a flawed plane because it was cheaper and they could fly more people around on less fuel. The plane was also designed for runways in third world countries. Then they hired 8$ an hour software engineers to patch up the issues that they knew about (which ended up taking down the plane anyways).
hurricanetc 7y ago
I can't believe Boeing has been able to get away with the 737-MAX. It is a unique plane with unique flight characteristics running a complex software simulation so that it "feels" like an existing plane. It's an abomination designed to sell a new plane without having to retrain pilots. I think the fact that this has been allowed to happen is evidence of your third point. I'm not sure if the MAX plane or MAX brand is salvageable but I don't think Boeing as a company will be allowed to fail.
- allovernow 7y ago
  >It is a unique plane with unique flight characteristics running a complex software simulation so that it "feels" like an existing plane. It's an abomination designed to sell a new plane without having to retrain pilots. Well...not to excuse the poor decisions that lead to the problems with the MAX, but this arguably isn't one of them. Military jets have been unflyable without computer assistance for decades, and it was only a matter of time before such tech made it into commercial aerospace. Though the advantages of maneuverability conferred to fighters from dynamic instability aren't useful in passenger flight, I'd argue that computerized flight controllers are sufficiently mature and battle tested that building a commercial jet which is dependent upon computer control isn't really an oversight, provided the systems are well designed and redundant. Remember, the issue here wasn't with the flight characteristics per se, it was penny pinching administrators who removed redundancy from a critical system to save (and attempt to mark up) a couple hundred dollars per plane.
  - na85 7y ago
    >Remember, the issue here wasn't with the flight characteristics per se, Well, it was and it wasn't. In order to meet the stated demands of their customers (large airlines who didn't want to retrain pilots on a new type), they had to stick to the same 737 type certificate. The engines on the MAX change the centre of gravity such that the handling characteristics were too different. The regulators would not have allowed the MAX to share the type certificate with the 737NG as it was, so MCAS was born. I'm convinced that the MAX 8 itself could have been certified as a distinct type (without MCAS, using some other system that wasn't half-baked) and we would not be having this conversation because those two crashes would not have happened. At least as I see it, the flight characteristics led to MCAS because of penny pinchers.
madengr 7y ago
I was listing to the news this morning on KPR (NPR in Kansas). 70% of the 787-MAX is built in Kansas, and the news story was about the state stepping in to pay Boeing workers salaries. I've never heard of such an arraignment between industry and government. Of course with all the news about the halt of production, I have not heard the word "layoff".
alistproducer2 7y ago
>either in a new airplane name by branding That's some magical thinking right there. Very few people are going to get on one of these planes as long as the bad design is papered over with a software fix.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I think you overestimate how many people know what type of aircraft they're flying, or will care a year from now. Additionally, I would be happy to put my family or my own backside into a Max8 flown by a Southwest, American, or United crew.
  - mrosett 7y ago
    My objection to flying on an American or United Max8 is the American or United part, not the Max8.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
2) We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. Sure you can. McDonnell Douglas was a failed commercial airplane manufacturer propped up by their military sales. Look where that got them.
- catalogia 7y ago
  It got them bought by Boeing, whom the US federal government could rely on to take over production and support for McDonnell Douglas aircraft (several hundred of which are still in service today and will be for years to come.) But who could take over for Boeing? Lockheed Martin is the only plausible answer, but is that what anybody wants? Together Lockheed and Boeing would be something like 4x as large as the second largest contractor for the federal government, so that's not great. And would Lockheed Martin even want that? Right now Lockheed Martin provides support for 50-some C-5's, but with the addition of Boeing they'd have to take on support for hundreds military aircraft derived from Boeing's commercial models. Particularly, all of the Air Force's hundreds of tankers for aerial refueling are made by Boeing (or McDonnnell Douglas), derived from commercial airliners with hundreds more on order. Would Lockheed get back into the commercial airliner business (which they left in the 80s)? If not, then what would the economics of Lockheed manufacturing and supporting hundreds of airliner-derived military jets look like?
ananonymoususer 7y ago
The problems with the 737-MAX are inherent in the airframe design. It is unstable and it needs software to correct the instability. The 737-MAX is the only version of the 737 series with this issue. It is not the same "airframe" as all of the other 737 aircraft.
- FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
  > It is unstable and it needs software to correct the instability. Can you be more specific about the nature of the instability? Is it lateral, longitudinal or directional stability that is at issue?
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    The issue at hand is longitudinal stability, specifically a positive but insufficient amount of it at high angles of attack. People who run around parroting that the Max8 is "unstable" are telling you more about their level of knowledge of aerodynamics than facts about the Max8 airplane.
jimbob45 7y ago
Can they fix the damage to their perception? No one I personally know will ever step on a 737-MAX plane.
- __m 7y ago
  They already renamed it
  - awiesenhofer 7y ago
    to anyone else wondering: they are now calling it 737-8200 apparently [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509
LoSboccacc 7y ago
1) the technical problems? of course. the cultural problems that caused the problem in the first place?
jorvi 7y ago
> We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. Boeing still needs to pay an extremely hefty WTO penalty for that because it's considered state subsidizing. Bad idea to consider it a plus, in terms of accounting.
dnautics 7y ago
> but not bad enough to destroy the company. Not very much, including the impending launch disaster tomorrow, would destroy Boeing. The us can't let it fail, it's too big.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > including the impending launch disaster tomorrow I think you mean tonight, and why do you think it will be a disaster? https://www.nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/170 https://www.nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/170
  - dnautics 7y ago
    Because I can see the future? ;) Foresight is 20/20. See my comment that is a child of (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21703179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21703179) It was obvious that this was going to happen. NASA was giving a pass to Boeing on a lot of things,there was lots of organizational pressure to not screw it up, and it failed its previous test due to careless error. Sadly the put order I placed did not execute because I don't know how to effectively trade in illiquid markets yet.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      You'd have done well on that one. That's why I asked how you knew, it was a pretty bold prediction and to see it come true like that is quite a thing. Pity you didn't answer sooner!
      - dnautics 7y ago
        Haha it's not the first time I've made s spectacular long prediction. I correctly predicted Sarah Palin being the us vice presidential candidate a full six months before it happened.
        jacquesm 7y ago
        That was so totally, terribly bad for McCain that I thought he would never ever go for it. You really should put some money on these, looks like you're going to be well off. OTOH of course then you'll score a long string of 0's....
perlgeek 7y ago
> 1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant again) What's your confidence level that, in let's say 6 months, 737-MAX flies again in the US and the EU? (Feel free to answer with another time frame that makes more sense for you).

by Alupis 7y ago

gertrunde 7y ago

My understanding was that Boeing were originally planning to do a clean redesign of the 737 (similar to the 787), but due to customers going with the A320neo, they rushed out the 737 MAX instead. So that last point about 737-700/800/900 may not be valid.

Pfhreak 7y ago

Do you have a citation on #1? If it's not the case, then there could be massive financial impact to Boeing...

Alupis 7y ago
What kind of citation would you need? It's a software and sensor reporting problem in the rushed-to-market new MCAS system - both fixable obviously.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  That doesn't seem like it's asking enough whys to me. Why was the MCAS system necessary? Why didn't the sensor fall back to its backups? There are underlying hardware concerns, from the wings to the sensors themselves, that may require retrofits. MCAS can be patched, but I'm not convinced that a patched MCAS can fully address the hardware concerns.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Why didn't the sensor fall back to its backups? Because, unfathomably, it was designed to only listen to one sensor. Why? Absolutely no good reason that anyone can see. Can that be fixed? Absolutely, change the code to listen to both sensors. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.
    - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
      And if one of two sensors fails, which these exposed sensors do often, how do you know which one it is? Intuition says you need three.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        If one of two sensors fails, and the computer sees that, it knows not to fight the pilot, which was the problem, wasn't it?
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        That's fine, but seems self defeating. Now the pilot needs training to fly without MCAS, so why have it at all?
        perl4ever 7y ago
        Your question applies to all systems that can fail, so the implication must be wrong.
        ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        You either make sure it doesn't fail, or you can continue flight without it. Either way, it has to be fail safe. There is a backup to extend the landing gear if the primary hydraulic system fails, the plane can fly with one engine out, we make sure that even if an engine explodes it does not damage the air-plane, etc. On the latter point, you can continue flying without autopilot or landing-assenting electronics and pilots are trained to do so. MCAS has failed on all counts, it has been very unreliable and fail-deadly.
- JanSt 7y ago
  It‘s a hardware problem because the plane is instable. The MCAS was the fix but didn‘t work. We will See...
  - FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
    In what manner is the plane unstable?
- throwaway_tech 7y ago
  >It's a software and sensor reporting problem in the rushed-to-market new MCAS system - both fixable obviously. Its a lot more than that...planes crashed and people died. It doesn't matter if you fix the underlying problems, there will be a giant loss of confidence in the company and the product. That is all rightfully so, the company put profits in front of safety, and there is no reason to believe that will be fixed.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    It might shock you, but this is far from the first time an airliner crashed due to fixable problems. Time heals all wounds, so to speak. Boeing suffered a pretty bad PR problem, which then drove cancelled orders and more. It will take time to earn that trust back with the 737-MAX, however there's still plenty of 767, 787, some 747, and a few 757's still flying without any problems.
    - throwaway_tech 7y ago
      >It might shock you, but this is far from the first time an airliner crashed due to fixable problems. It may shock you that pilot error is the leading cause of airline crashes. Nevertheless, to your point these crashes occurred due to "fixable problems" sure...and anytime a plane crashes due to "fisable problems" legally it goes without saying there was negligence. But what seems to be ignored here is there was more than negligence...based on the documents already made publicly available the company knowingly shipped the planes with the issue. >Time heals all wounds, so to speak. Well I'm sure that was what the managers thought when they minimized the engineers concerns about these aircraft...then again you don't see very many Zeppelins flying around nowadays.

droopyEyelids 7y ago

Right. What people are missing is that if Boeing is 'too big to fail' for the US Government, then burying the risk, soaking up the resulting windfall, and pressing the accelerator as they turn towards the brick wall was the right thing for them to do. I'm uncertain about your point where everything is fixable- don't forget, it needs to be fixable without significant pilot training, or else it'll remove airline's reason to stick with boeing. However, that doesn't matter! Boeing can fail as hard as it wants, and the executives will keep their money, and the US Government will still need to save the company. The only losers will be pension funds, employees, and citizens- people without any say in the matter.

alwaysanon 7y ago
The government can pay for the pilot retraining - which Boeing should have done in the first place.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

henryfjordan 7y ago

Is the 737-MAX fixable? Boeing is stopping production of them, so they know that it's not going to be for a while, if ever. The 737-MAX's problem is that they changed the center of gravity of the plane so that it's not stable without an active system to correct that (MCAS). A failure in that system has already crashed 2 planes and killed hundreds. I don't think you can throw an active system on an inherently unstable airframe and call it a fix. Airplanes need to be as fail-safe as possible.

Alupis 7y ago
While this is true (the MCAS being at fault), it was compounded by incorrect and/or absent reporting of what the MCAS system was doing. One of the indicators was tied to an optional set of features on accident (spaghetti code?), which caused budget airlines that didn't purchase the optional features to not show pilots when there was a problem with MCAS. That coupled with lack of training of how to react to exactly that scenario, and we have the events that transpired. All of which is fixable one way or another.
- empath75 7y ago
  If it’s fixable, why isn’t it fixed? Why are they stopping production? It’s been a year.
  - Alupis 7y ago
    Because rushing a fix into production and then having another airline crash would be far more severe than the current situation. So it makes sense to step back, and fix things the right way before you reintroduce the system back into the market.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    Once the second crash happened there was extra oversight and other issues that were signed off on during the design phase were once again put in question. Its no longer just MCAS being modified but what happens when the two flight computers disagree. So to answer your question there are now multiple issues at play and they are effectively redesigning the flight computer system as a whole. This is not a quick fix.

sithadmin 7y ago

>We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. It's 30 percent of Boeing's income. Definitely not enough to prop them up.

Scoundreller 7y ago
The US Government needing you is always enough to prop you up.
- sithadmin 7y ago
  It's enough to keep the company alive, but even the most hawkish US politicians aren't going to throw enough federal cash at Boeing to keep them running in anything resembling their current scale and capabilities if they go under.
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    Iunno, even in the financial crisis, the feds didn't even feel it was necessary to wipe out equity shareholders when they went to bailout. The feds could always rewrite regs to help Boeing, like limiting the grandfathering that allows airlines to fly aircraft that don't meet current safety regulations.
    - wahern 7y ago
      The Fed's didn't wipeout equity shareholders during the financial crisis because big investors were leveraged. The whole point of the bailout was to prevent losses on leveraged assets from rippling through the financial system and collapsing the whole thing.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        More leverage should equal more risk. You shouldn't be saved just because you took too much risk. That's how it's supposed to work!

grecy 7y ago

> The US Gov't may not allow Boeing to fail I agree entirely. They'll either bail them out, or just pass laws that prevent Boeing from being Sued.

clvx 7y ago
The government might pass laws, but it will only fly inside the States if other countries disagree. In this one, Boeing is limited.
- netsharc 7y ago
  At one point in time the US State Department and presidential admin would've been able to negotiate, coax, or strong-arm other countries to certify things they were reluctant to. With a gutted state dept and an admin full of incompetence, this wouldn't happen nowadays...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - qtplatypus 7y ago
    Both China and the EU have said that they will independently recertificatify the plains.
thrower123 7y ago
They could force them to spin off the defense contractor part and only bail that part out, perhaps.

Scoundreller 7y ago

> Major airlines operating the 737 variants will just continue to use the perfectly good 737-700,800 and 900 variants until something new and fixed comes out. I think airlines love the situation. The balance between supply and demand for new aircraft has taken a hit. That means any glut in capacity has been erased and pricing power has gone up a lot. Airlines had an excuse to cancel flights and put you on a different schedule, all while claiming force majeure. While the 737 variants are fine, they have a shorter range than the MAX. The MAX can do some interesting transatlantic routes (UK,FR,ES,PT) and east coast US/Canada that are dicey in a non-MAX.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
This makes no sense. Airlines hate canceling flights: they already maximize the hell out of their fleet utilization, so there's very little space capacity in the system and the knock-on effects of having to find new seats for 100+ pax per cancelled flight are massive. Pricing power has indeed gone up, but not in the airlines' favor: for example, Airbus can now charge what it wants for the A320 (the only viable 737 competitor) and wages for qualified A320 pilots are skyrocketing.
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  Yes, the situation is even better for $Manufacturer where $Manufacturer != Boeing. But airlines aren't suddenly cancelling flights. They're looking at their schedule and consolidating whatever they can. And charging more for the remaining seats. And the value of the aircraft they already own just went up. I've also seen some airlines downgauge turbojets to Q400s, which is slower but saves a ton on fuel. Routes that needed to run X times per day to be competitive (because people want flexibility in departure and return times) can now be consolidated into X minus Y flights with the same number of passengers. It's 2019, airlines have automated processes to rebook when a flight is cancelled. And upstart airlines trying to build their fleets couldn't.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    Still not buying it. The value of the Maxes they own sitting on the tarmac has plummeted and all the capital they consumed now has a big fat zero ROI (negative, really, because they still need maintenance and interest payments). If airline X has to reduce flights because they can't fly them, and airline Y doesn't, those flexibility-demanding, well-paying business pax will migrate to Y, and it's Y who will reap the most gains from the sudden reduction in competition. And automated rebooking is a fantasy. Sure, the airline will try to default you onto some other connection, but I've always ended up talking to a human afterwards and picking out a better alternative.

AndrewBissell 7y ago

Even if Boeing is "not allowed to fail," the outcome for equity shareholders could be very negative (and frankly, they deserve to take the biggest bite of the turd sandwich if Stoller's analysis of Boeing's accounting risk is correct). A close historical parallel would probably be the 2009 automaker bailouts, although I suppose one might guess that Trump will pursue more of a nakedly corrupt giveaway to Boeing shareholders.

codingslave 7y ago

"1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant again)" The public doesn't trust these planes. It doesn't matter how fixable they are. Secondly, its not a software problem, the plane is structurally deficient. A problem they tried to solve with software. These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance, something that is not true of any other major aircraft. The problem can be solved with software, but its more like a bandaid. EDIT: Heres a quick explanation of the plane: The 737 engines used too much fuel so to make a more attractive plane for poorer countries, Boeing decided to install more efficient engines with bigger fans, creating the 737 MAX. Boeing used a 737 airframe for economic reasons (it was way cheaper, didn't require pilot retraining), but needed more ground clearance for bigger engines. The 737 design cant be practically modified to have taller main landing gear. The solution was to mount to engines higher on the plane. This made the plane more unstable, so they slapped the software solution on. This "fixed" the problem, but then the plane was more complex to fly, which led to the crashes. But Boeing didn't want a plane that required retraining, so they hid the complexity of the software solutions, which led to crashes because the pilots didn't know what was going on.

FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
> These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance... First I have heard of this issue, though I haven't been following it closely. Citation, please?
- jen729w 7y ago
  https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing-737-max-maneuvering-characteristics-augmentation-system-mcas-jt610/ https://theaircurrent.com/aviation-safety/what-is-the-boeing... http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-updates.page http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737max/737-max-software-upd...
- codingslave 7y ago
  I dont have time to find all the sources for this. But basically Boeing tried to make a flawed plane because it was cheaper and they could fly more people around on less fuel. The plane was also designed for runways in third world countries. Then they hired 8$ an hour software engineers to patch up the issues that they knew about (which ended up taking down the plane anyways).

hurricanetc 7y ago

I can't believe Boeing has been able to get away with the 737-MAX. It is a unique plane with unique flight characteristics running a complex software simulation so that it "feels" like an existing plane. It's an abomination designed to sell a new plane without having to retrain pilots. I think the fact that this has been allowed to happen is evidence of your third point. I'm not sure if the MAX plane or MAX brand is salvageable but I don't think Boeing as a company will be allowed to fail.

allovernow 7y ago
>It is a unique plane with unique flight characteristics running a complex software simulation so that it "feels" like an existing plane. It's an abomination designed to sell a new plane without having to retrain pilots. Well...not to excuse the poor decisions that lead to the problems with the MAX, but this arguably isn't one of them. Military jets have been unflyable without computer assistance for decades, and it was only a matter of time before such tech made it into commercial aerospace. Though the advantages of maneuverability conferred to fighters from dynamic instability aren't useful in passenger flight, I'd argue that computerized flight controllers are sufficiently mature and battle tested that building a commercial jet which is dependent upon computer control isn't really an oversight, provided the systems are well designed and redundant. Remember, the issue here wasn't with the flight characteristics per se, it was penny pinching administrators who removed redundancy from a critical system to save (and attempt to mark up) a couple hundred dollars per plane.
- na85 7y ago
  >Remember, the issue here wasn't with the flight characteristics per se, Well, it was and it wasn't. In order to meet the stated demands of their customers (large airlines who didn't want to retrain pilots on a new type), they had to stick to the same 737 type certificate. The engines on the MAX change the centre of gravity such that the handling characteristics were too different. The regulators would not have allowed the MAX to share the type certificate with the 737NG as it was, so MCAS was born. I'm convinced that the MAX 8 itself could have been certified as a distinct type (without MCAS, using some other system that wasn't half-baked) and we would not be having this conversation because those two crashes would not have happened. At least as I see it, the flight characteristics led to MCAS because of penny pinchers.

madengr 7y ago

I was listing to the news this morning on KPR (NPR in Kansas). 70% of the 787-MAX is built in Kansas, and the news story was about the state stepping in to pay Boeing workers salaries. I've never heard of such an arraignment between industry and government. Of course with all the news about the halt of production, I have not heard the word "layoff".

alistproducer2 7y ago

>either in a new airplane name by branding That's some magical thinking right there. Very few people are going to get on one of these planes as long as the bad design is papered over with a software fix.

sokoloff 7y ago
I think you overestimate how many people know what type of aircraft they're flying, or will care a year from now. Additionally, I would be happy to put my family or my own backside into a Max8 flown by a Southwest, American, or United crew.
- mrosett 7y ago
  My objection to flying on an American or United Max8 is the American or United part, not the Max8.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

2) We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. Sure you can. McDonnell Douglas was a failed commercial airplane manufacturer propped up by their military sales. Look where that got them.

catalogia 7y ago
It got them bought by Boeing, whom the US federal government could rely on to take over production and support for McDonnell Douglas aircraft (several hundred of which are still in service today and will be for years to come.) But who could take over for Boeing? Lockheed Martin is the only plausible answer, but is that what anybody wants? Together Lockheed and Boeing would be something like 4x as large as the second largest contractor for the federal government, so that's not great. And would Lockheed Martin even want that? Right now Lockheed Martin provides support for 50-some C-5's, but with the addition of Boeing they'd have to take on support for hundreds military aircraft derived from Boeing's commercial models. Particularly, all of the Air Force's hundreds of tankers for aerial refueling are made by Boeing (or McDonnnell Douglas), derived from commercial airliners with hundreds more on order. Would Lockheed get back into the commercial airliner business (which they left in the 80s)? If not, then what would the economics of Lockheed manufacturing and supporting hundreds of airliner-derived military jets look like?

ananonymoususer 7y ago

The problems with the 737-MAX are inherent in the airframe design. It is unstable and it needs software to correct the instability. The 737-MAX is the only version of the 737 series with this issue. It is not the same "airframe" as all of the other 737 aircraft.

FlyMoreRockets 7y ago
> It is unstable and it needs software to correct the instability. Can you be more specific about the nature of the instability? Is it lateral, longitudinal or directional stability that is at issue?
- sokoloff 7y ago
  The issue at hand is longitudinal stability, specifically a positive but insufficient amount of it at high angles of attack. People who run around parroting that the Max8 is "unstable" are telling you more about their level of knowledge of aerodynamics than facts about the Max8 airplane.

jimbob45 7y ago

Can they fix the damage to their perception? No one I personally know will ever step on a 737-MAX plane.

__m 7y ago
They already renamed it
- awiesenhofer 7y ago
  to anyone else wondering: they are now calling it 737-8200 apparently [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509

LoSboccacc 7y ago

1) the technical problems? of course. the cultural problems that caused the problem in the first place?

jorvi 7y ago

> We can't discount all the revenues generated by defense spending, both by the US and abroad. That's a non-trivial amount of Boeing's income. Boeing still needs to pay an extremely hefty WTO penalty for that because it's considered state subsidizing. Bad idea to consider it a plus, in terms of accounting.

dnautics 7y ago

> but not bad enough to destroy the company. Not very much, including the impending launch disaster tomorrow, would destroy Boeing. The us can't let it fail, it's too big.

jacquesm 7y ago
> including the impending launch disaster tomorrow I think you mean tonight, and why do you think it will be a disaster? https://www.nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/170 https://www.nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/170
- dnautics 7y ago
  Because I can see the future? ;) Foresight is 20/20. See my comment that is a child of (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21703179 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21703179) It was obvious that this was going to happen. NASA was giving a pass to Boeing on a lot of things,there was lots of organizational pressure to not screw it up, and it failed its previous test due to careless error. Sadly the put order I placed did not execute because I don't know how to effectively trade in illiquid markets yet.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    You'd have done well on that one. That's why I asked how you knew, it was a pretty bold prediction and to see it come true like that is quite a thing. Pity you didn't answer sooner!
    - dnautics 7y ago
      Haha it's not the first time I've made s spectacular long prediction. I correctly predicted Sarah Palin being the us vice presidential candidate a full six months before it happened.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        That was so totally, terribly bad for McCain that I thought he would never ever go for it. You really should put some money on these, looks like you're going to be well off. OTOH of course then you'll score a long string of 0's....

perlgeek 7y ago

> 1) The problems with the 737-MAX are fixable and will be fixed (either in a new airplane name by branding, or with time as people trust the new MAX variant again) What's your confidence level that, in let's say 6 months, 737-MAX flies again in the US and the EU? (Feel free to answer with another time frame that makes more sense for you).